Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. B. Ahern

Before the debate adjourned on the last occasion, I spoke about the disappointment of people of the north side of Dublin that the north side had not been included in Phase I. I expressed the hope that the publication of the consultant's report mentioned in the media will result in a change and that the north side line will be reinstated in Phase I.

Even if that does not happen, it is important that Phase I should at least take in Parnell Square. There needs to be some order and sense in the implementation of this scheme. At present one Minister, Deputy Enda Kenny, is planning a national convention centre at the top of O'Connell Street on the site of the old Carlton cinema, and another Minister, Deputy Lowry, is planning a light rail system which is to stop at the other end of the same street. That is ludicrous. I hope the north side line will be included in Phase I, but if planning and organisation mean anything, Phase I should go up O'Connell Street and around Parnell Square. There are many tourist attractions on Parnell Square — the Municipal Art Gallery, the Writers' Museum, the Garda of Remembrance. That part of town has lost its tourist office. It is important, therefore, that it is not cut off. In the context of the location of the proposed convention centre, it would be sensible and logical that Parnell Square should be included in Phase I. I would like to think, too, that the line would take in Bus Áras and Connolly Station, the main interchanges.

The Minister spoke about consultation, about which there is much concern. Some people will not be happy no matter what one does for them, but the Minister is relying very much on the Railway Works Order. This may have worked well in the 18th century when railways were being laid across country, but I wonder if it will work as well in the context of an inner city operation in 1996-97.

I worked in CIE and I do not intend to slag any of my ex-colleagues there. The engineers are fine dedicated people who do a wonderful job. If one wants a railway line laid, they are the people to do it. However, I am concerned that, as of now, we do not know which section of CIE is to operate it. Will it be Iarnród Éireann or Dublin Bus? The operator ought to have a major say in how the railway line is laid. They might be arms of the same company, but the railway operator has different criteria to those of the bus operator. A decision on that should be made and made quickly. It is vital that the division who will operate the system should be involved in the consultations from an early date. It is crazy to introduce something and we do not know whether a bus or a train driver will drive it. I can assure the House that there will be arguments down the line with trade unions, etc. We may as well have those soon rather than waiting until the system has been built in five years time when we will have to face industrial problems about who will drive the trains. My concern relates not just to the drivers but to management and standards that professional operators will require. I hope there will be an early decision on who will run the system.

In the context of planning permission, I can see why the Minister does not want procedures duplicated. However, if the necessity for planning permission is pushed aside, we see the sort of thing that happened in his Department when Telecom Éireann began putting up Eircell masts. Sadly, organisations are inclined to lose common sense if given unlimited authority. Telecom Éireann lost perspective when it got permission under a special directive two years ago to put up masts, and erected masts in places where they should not have been erected. I am concerned about such authority being given to anybody. I accept that we will have the EIS and a public inquiry. However, as happened in relation to the Dublin Port tunnel, residents groups see the mechanics of this system as very formal — they feel they cannot have a meaningful input into it. They see the EIS as the establishment telling them how to proceed. The Minister might feel everything is being done in an orderly manner, but that is not their perception. Not alone must things be done fairly, they must be seen to be done fairly. There is great concern about that, and residents' associations do not feel they are getting a fair crack of the whip.

I am concerned too about the expectations being raised. We are talking about two or three lines. Some people may expect too much from it. Even when we get three lines it will not change the world. I looked at an Irish Rail calendar some months ago which depicted Blackrock in the year 1902 and Terenure Cross in 1904 — there seemed to be tram lines all over the place. Now, in 1996 we are talking about putting down three lines and we think that will solve all our problems. I welcome it and hope it happens. It will be of some benefit. However, I want to calm people's wildest hopes that if we spend £200 million our traffic problems will be laid to rest. LRT will be but a fraction of the tram lines we had in the city at the turn of the century.

I hope there will be a change in the implementation of Phase I. Even if there is not, and we get the north-side line in Phase II or Phase Ia. I hope there will be serious consideration given to bringing it at least up to and around Parnell Square. I would ask also that the Minister pay attention to consultation because, at the end of the day, it will prove worthwhile.

Mr. Costello

I am pleased to contribute to the debate on this Bill. That a considerable portion of the proposed line from Tallaght to O'Connell Street will come through a densely populated area in terms of business makes it a matter of considerable interest and concern to me. I hope there will be maximum consultation and minimum disturbance and inconvenience to the business community and to those living in the inner city during the development.

This Bill provides that the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications may authorise by order the construction, operation and maintenance by CIE of the light railway system serving the greater Dublin area. Effectively the Minister is taking on to himself powers that in normal circumstances would be under the jurisdiction of the local authorities. I would appreciate an explanation as to why this is necessary. Dublin Corporation will face difficulties as a result of this proposal.

Effectively, minimum interference will be caused by the proposed line in Dublin South County Council and Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, so planning will not be a major problem in those areas. If the line is to proceed on the northside beyond Ballymun, part of Fingal County Council will be affected. As only one county council area will be affected in Phase I, it should be possible to allow normal planning procedures to run their course. That could be done with the package of proposals for each of the local authorities.

It is appropriate that those who represent the wards through which the lines will run should have the opportunity of analysing and teasing out the case and having local communities present their case at local authority level. The procedure adopted by the Minister will not allow that even though the order will require an environmental impact study to be presented and a public inquiry to take place, to which the public can make submissions. In essence that is different from the local authority having the authority to process the application.

There is traffic chaos in Dublin. The city is booming and there has been an enormous increase in traffic to the port since its industrial relations were streamlined. The growth in traffic to the port increases daily, badly affecting the quays, and commuter traffic and heavy goods vehicles are gridlocked. We have to deal with the problem. We have been slow in European terms in providing suitable urban infrastructure to move traffic from our narrow streets. It would be ideal to pedestrianise the core of the city which would make it much more attractive to dwell in. The previous policy of development in greenfield areas has been changed and considerable urban residential redevelopment is taking place. The inner city will be an attractive environment with the pedestrianisation of the area between the canals. The ring road will be critical to enable traffic to skirt the city.

The DART is the only efficient mode of public transport that makes it more attractive for people to use this service than to bring their cars into the heart of the city. Major congestion has been eliminated on the coastline route it serves, but the service has not been extended throughout the city, which is a pity because it is a comfortable, efficient and effective service.

Another approach to traffic management is the proposed tunnel system, which initially appeared ideal because it does not interfere with over ground systems but the Austrian method of drilling is not the most successful method to have been developed in the past decade. There is a question mark as to its desirability in areas where it has been used and an outcry from residents in those areas. It would be a very serious setback to eliminating congestion in the city if the central artery of the plan did not proceed.

The quality bus corridor is being developed but that gives rise to accessibility problems in areas with narrow streets. People who live in these areas are very unhappy that freeways have to be provided constantly. None of the proposals to date have been successful in clearing the city of traffic. The light rail is the latest proposal and I support it. It will benefit us by bringing a large volume of commuter traffic into the heart of the city but it has a considerable number of drawbacks because it was approached in isolation without a definite attempt to integrate it into the existing public transport network. It was developed in a lopsided fashion without any consideration for Phase I taking in the northside of the city which would be desirable in the first place.

A number of decisions have been made purely on financial grounds. Even at this late stage the Government should consider making a number of relatively minor changes which would be of enormous benefit. As Deputy Ahern said, the IRT should not stop in O'Connell Street in the heart of the city but continue around Parnell Square. Unlike other areas where opposition has been encountered, this would be in keeping with the great desire of the business community in the area. I understand the only reason it will not continue around Parnell Square is lack of finance, despite the short distance involved. It is only appropriate that it should, particularly if the Ballymun line, on which a decision has yet to be made, does not go ahead.

There is a failure to link the Tallaght line, via O'Connell Street. Abbey Street or Talbot Street, with the existing public transport terminals at Busáras in Store Street and Connolly Station from which the railway lines to Belfast. Sligo and other parts of the country run. Connolly is also a major station on the DART line. The distance involved is short. This should be taken into consideration.

The failure to use existing railway lines on the north side of the city surprises me. Interestingly, the old Harcourt Street line and the Heuston line on the south side will be used. None of the lines on the north side, including the Broadstone, Connolly and Drumcondra lines, is being considered. It is as if little thought has been given to it. This displays blinkered vision. An underground link between Heuston and Connolly stations should have been considered.

The Ballymun line has been left out of the equation. This is a strange decision. I am glad, however, that a socio-economic evaluation of the line which meets all the criteria is to be completed within 12 weeks by Goodbody economic consultants and Oscar Faber international transport consultants. It seems the Tallaght line will remain intact. They will assess the long-term return to the local economy, evaluate the permanent effect on local economic performance, the contribution to exploiting local development potential, the ability to reintegrate the long-term unemployed into the economic mainstream and combat social exclusion. I will be surprised if they do not recommend the inclusion of the Ballymun line in the initial phase.

In the heart of the city and densely populated areas work on the LRT will cause major disruption and inconvenience to both small and large businesses. It is important, therefore, that the best routes are chosen to cause the minimum of inconvenience and disruption. I understand work will continue on each street for at east two years.

In relation to the proposed line from Heuston Station to O'Connell Street considerable hostility has been encountered from residents and some members of the business community in Arran Quay Terrace, Chancery Street and Mary's Abbey. Part of the reason is that there was little or no consultation with the local community, apart from the distibution of a leaflet outlining what would happen. It was difficult to make out the proposed route on the small map provided. Many of the problems might have been solved if CIE had taken its responsibilities seriously and organised a series of meetings to outline the proposed route and the implications for residents, but this has not happened.

It is proposed to demolish seven of the ten houses on Arran Quay Terrace. The lives of the residents of the remaining there will hardly be worth living as the line will run close to their bedroom window. The same applies in Mary's Abbey and Chancery Street. This is a source of considerable concern to residents.

There are alternatives. Prior to the implementation of a ministerial order giving effect to CIE's package of proposals there should be consultation to choose the best route, given that people's livelihoods are at stake. The preferred route would run along North King Street where CIE acquired many properties by way of compulsory purchase order when it planned to build the inner city tangent which is not going ahead.

It is also proposed to demolish a number of houses in Old Kilmainham on the south side of the Liffey. Work on the proposed route will cause disruption to an extensive core of businesses backing on to the Camac, placing up to 600 jobs at risk. Again there is an alternative. The preferred route would run along Davitt Road by the canal.

This legislation is being passed to facilitate CIE in terms of organising and processing the implementation of the light rail system. We must ensure in advance that we obtain the preferred option of people in the affected areas. On Committee Stage we must consider the inclusion of a right of appeal and a level of compensation, both of which are available in countries where this type of light rail proposal has been implemented.

Mr. Callely

I wish to share time with Deputy O'Donnell.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Callely

I must express my concern and disapointment about the handling of statements relating to the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Bill. 1996. There seems to have been conflict with regard to information, research and consultation even before it entered the public domain. I was surprised by the comments of the previous speaker, a Labour Party backbencher, who stated where the line should run through parts of his constituency. Last week a Fine Gael backbencher, Deputy Jim Mitchell, expressed his opposition to the proposed route and gave his view as to how the light rail plan should be implemented. I am surprised that there seems to be no consultation between the Government and its backbenchers. If Members will excuse the pu, the proposed legislation seems to have been "railroaded" through.

Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare (Mr. Durkan)

It shows that nothing has changed.

Mr. Callely

I believe the Minister for Finance also tried this approach in Brussels. I am concerned that there is a serious conflict in this House in relation to information and consultation.

Mr. Durkan

We will ensure that the light rail system runs through the Deputy's constituency.

Mr. Callely

I am equally concerned about the consultation process with the public and those who will be affected by the proposed routes.

My party's spokesman expressed his genuine concern about the measures contained in the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) Bill, 1996. It seems the Bill will create more problems than it will solve. For that reason the Fianna Fáil Party regretfully cannot support the Bill as drafted but it recognises the need to improve our public service transport system, particularly in Dublin. As a northsider I wish to ensure that the improvements carried out will be of equal benefit to commuters in the north, south and west of the city.

I am surprised that the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications seems to be serious about his proposal to, by and large, exclude the north side of the city from the provisions of the Bill. I am baffled by the fact that the people responsible for drafting this legislation chose to ignore completely the north side of the city and the 9 million passengers who commute from Dublin Airport on an annual basis. That is one of the principal benchmarks which should have helped in choosing the direction and routing of the actual rail lines.

I am also frustrated that, for some time, there has been much discussion about a proposed convention centre. I see that the Minister of State is laughing.

Mr. Durkan

I will frustrate the Deputy.

Mr. Callely

Under two years ago, the Minister of State and many of his current Government colleagues tabled parliamentary questions demanding that the convention centre proceed. One of his colleagues pulled the rug in relation to the RDS——

Mr. Durkan

The Deputy knows all about pulling rugs.

Mr. Callely

It was recently suggested that the convention centre should be situated in the area of Parnell Square, through which the proposed light rail system does not pass. These are crucial benchmarks when considering the siting of a light rail system. Surely proposals for developments that would attract large gatherings of people or areas where there is an identified need or requirement for public service transport should be taken into consideration in this regard.

I ask that the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications clarify how the proposed system will work. All Members have been lobbied by business houses and residents in the Kilmainham area who have indicated that the system will not work. There has been public debate on this issue in the national print media. If the Minister is unable to respond in detail in the House, I would appreciate if he could respond in writing to my queries on all aspects of the proposed system. If he cannot deal with certain aspects, perhaps the Minister would indicate why this is the case.

Members recognise that there will be a certain amount of congestion in the city. Questions have been posed with regard to how long it will take to construct the light rail system, how it will be put in place and what compensation, if any, will be offered to businesses which may be affected or forced to close or move permises. These isues must be clarifed. Like other Members, I received submissions from individual residents, residents associations, business houses and group business houses in the city, expressing their concern about public perceptions of the proposed light rail system. These people are also concerned about the safety aspect of the proposed route compared to other light rail routes.

The public consultation process, as distinct from the political party consultation process which seems to be nil, must meet the needs of the public and adequately assure people that there is proper consultation. In this context, genuine concerns have been expressed that ordinary citizens cannot approach consultants who have the benefit of major support and back-up. Regardless of the envisaged public consultation process, I ask the Government to consider how it intends to put in place a process in which people will be able to participate.

There is currently a proposal to site the Dublin Port access route in my constituency and a public consultation process exists in this regard. In the course of deliberations on the proposed tunnel, Australian consultants, PR consultants and the weight and might of Dublin Corporation, with its secretarial, professional, architectural supports, were employed. I received telephone calls from three women living in Marino who complained of drilling outside their houses which had caused structural damage and who were advised, following an inspection, that if they wished they could consult a solicitor who would fight each case on an individual basis.

I tabled motions to City Hall in relation to providing financial assistance not only to individuals but to residents' associations affected by any of these proposals but particularly by the port tunnel proposal, thereby ensuring that they would be in a position to fight might with might. That would have ensured there was a level playing pitch, but unfortunately such funding is not available. That is a problem we must seriously evaluate with a view to putting in place a system that would be recognised as part of a consultation process.

If we are putting forward a proposal which has all the support services in place, it is equally important we have a process in place that recognises the concerns of the people affected and which would allow them tap into whatever professional advice was available. We cannot expect people who may be on a limited income to come up with the funding for professional reports necessary to fight their case.

When power is given to a Minister it is frustrating to see it being passed on to another body. Killester DART station is an enormous success but problems have arisen in relation to commuters parking their cars at the station. This problem is causing frustration among local residents. I wrote to the Minister in this regard but he replied that it was a matter for Iarnród Éireann. Iarnród Éireann has said it does not have the necessary resources to address the problem. Following a great deal of pressure from me and others the Minister announced that he will fund the Fair-view DART station but not the parking facility.

In regard to the problem of taxis, there should be co-ordination. Incentives should be provided to taxi operators in relation to the types of car that can be used and the VRT to encourage them to use top of the range models. Some taxi owners use these models but there are no subsidies available in that regard. We should recognise taxi owners and the excellent service they provide. I would also like to see an extension of the Nitelink service, particularly in Dublin, as well as the cycle paths.

Ms O'Donnell

The chaos we are experiencing in Dublin is directly related to a planning failure in the past to integrate proper land use with road building and public transport provision. We are now at crisis point but we are fortunate that funds have been allocated from Europe to allow us put in place measures to alleviate the chaos we are experiencing.

The Progressive Democrats has long favoured the provision of a rapid rail transit service for Dublin and we continue to do so. It is clear to everybody that the city is choking with traffic congestion which has a damaging effect on tourism, business and the general quality of life of our citizens living in the city and suburban areas.

Like other major European cities, Dublin needs a fast, efficient and reliable public transport system. We are fortunate the EU is making funding available for a major upgrading of our public transport services in Dublin. Such a proposal could not have been contemplated had we to fund it from our own resources. If taxpayers were funding this project totally and if the major expenditure being proposed to be spent on it was coming from our own resources, we would have a much energetic debate in this House on the proposed project.

It is vital we make the best possible use of the money available to us, otherwise we will squander a never to be repeated opportunity to solve Dublin's transportation problems. This funding has given us the chance to construct a state of the art rail rapid transit system for Dublin. The Progressive Democrats believe it must satisfy basic criteria if it is to be successful, the first of which is that it must serve both sides of the city. It must be fit for the purpose for which it was originally planned, namely, to provide all sides of the city with proper public transportation. It must serve the largest possible population catchment. It must be integrated with the existing DART system.

Deputy Costello expressed concern that there has been a blinkered debate on certain aspects of the proposals and that we were being led to believe the powers that be are not for changing on these important details. That is unfortunate because once the Bill has passed through this House we will lose responsibility for the detail — the actual impact on the ground — of the proposals.

Concern has been expressed also by people who question certain aspects of the proposals that their questions are greeted with a plea for immunity from public debate for fear of losing the funding. That is a rather immature way to respond to legitimately voiced concerns of Deputies on all sides of the House in regard to the details of the current proposals.

The proposed system should offer a significant improvement in speed and reliability over bus services. The proposal the Minister is supporting fails to satisfy any of the criteria I have mentioned. We are in danger of being saddled with an ill-conceived system that will not be suitable for its intended purposes. We may be about to spend several hundred million pounds on a project which will do little to improve transport services for the vast majority of Dubliners. It is important that careful consideration is given to the issues involved before we pass the point of no return. Many Deputies are concerned that we will lose control of the detail of the final project as it impacts on our citizens once the Bill goes through the House.

A socio-economic evaluation has been promised and there may be a recommendation that the Ballymun route should proceed, but that would be a tragedy if it were to be at the expense of one of the routes on the south side. The DTI proposal — in which I had a democratic input as a member of Dublin City Council — recommended three routes, not two. What we are getting from the Government is a selective implementation of the lengthy DTI study and of the strategy we all endorse democratically. For that reason there is great unease that we are not getting what we signed up for in the DTI.

The planned system will not serve the north side of the city. Some 40 per cent of Dublin's population will be excluded entirely from its benefits. The people of Ballymun are to be denied a rapid rail service on the ludicrous grounds that they do not have enough cars to leave at home. The needs of the airport are also being ignored. The planned system will not be integrated with the existing DART service. Dublin will be one of the few cities anywhere with two different rapid rail transit systems run by two different companies with no interchange between them.

The planned system will run along the street for almost half of its entire length. This means we will have the equivalent of the Dublin-Cork railway running through the streets of Dublin. A twin track rail line will go down the middle of the Naas Road through the Mount Brown area to the city centre, along Mary Street, Henry Street, O'Connell Street, College Green, Westmoreland Street, Nassau Street, Dawson Street and St. Stephen's Green.

The road space available to cars, cyclists and delivery vehicles will be severely reduced. At each major junction 35 tonne trains, 90 feet long, will be competing with other traffic for the right of way. Whole streets will have to be demolished to make room for the railway lines. Some inner city communities may be destroyed completely. This policy of official destruction flies in the face of everything we have been trying to do and say about the need to develop Dublin as a living city. The destruction caused during construction will be immense. It has been said that we have to accept the pain for the long-term benefits. Sufficient consideration is not being given to the question of damage limitation in regard to that disruption. There will be necessary disruption but the powers that be are not for turning on key aspects of it. The consultation process is inadequate. There is a blinkered approach which is saying, "this is going ahead, there is nothing you can do about it, our minds are made up".

The cost will be about £3 million per mile. The cost of relocating services has not been included in the Luas budget. Who will pick up the tabs for this work which could be as high as £40 million?

The fact that Dundrum is to be served with a line which is to stop at Dundrum village is chaotic. Any sensible person with an objective view of the line and its benefits would say it should be extended to Sandyford because Dundrum would be destroyed as a result of the present proposal. It is a major disadvantage that the proposed system is not to be integrated with the DART, and there are many other disadvantages which have been outlined by my party's spokesperson.

Yesterday the British newspaper, The Independent, outlined the fact that Sheffield, to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks as one of the examples of successful light rail, is a complete flop. What will the Minister say now about Sheffield, which has proven to be a disaster? There it was cheaper to take buses and the public refused to use a system which was competing with traffic?

I look forward to the Minister's response. It appears there is little room to manoeuvre in respect of the details. We will be opposing the legislation as framed. Even if we try to amend it on Committee Stage there will be no control over the detail of the routes.

Miss Flaherty

I wish to share my time with Deputy Seán Kenny.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.

Miss Flaherty

I share some of the concerns expressed by the previous speaker in regard to the details but Deputy O'Donnell of the Progressive Democrats is trying to have it every way. I would like to see the Progressive Democrats design a light rail system which would serve the maximum population and yet not run into problems of disruption during construction. The alternative to going through junctions is go around them, under them or avoid main streets. The design of a light rail system is never easy and will cause disruption during construction.

In my J1 visa days I recall spending a week in San Francisco which was a major disappointment, because of the disruption caused by the installation of an underground system. It was disruptive and unattractive during construction but they are reaping the benefits since. Every city has to accept disruption as they expand and develop their transport systems. There is an incoherence in the approach of the Progressive Democrats. They want a better system available to everybody all over the city but somehow with less disruption.

To suggest that this House should have control of detailed design is a nonsense. Obviously that issue should be handled at a different level. I share some of the concerns about a democratic deficit in the context of the procedure being used here which is similar to a motorway system for implementing these schemes. When engineers or designers are fixed on a design, regardless of the level of opposition, it is extremely difficult to have changes made. We are fighting battles on the north side in respect of the design and the route of the tunnel. We are aware we can delay it but we do not want to do that. We want a design that is agreed by the communities. Most of the cards are stacked on the side of those who are proposing and building the structure.

I broadly welcome the Bill which provides for light rail. Some additional form of public transport, an extension of the DART, is essential for the city which is growing and developing and shows no sign of stopping. There is enormous further potential for growth. In a newspaper article in the past week Dublin was referred to as a doughnut city with only 30 per cent occupancy in the inner city area. Anybody who has been watching developments in the inner city knows there has been a dramatic change with enormous potential for a further increase in population. There has been a serious lack of provision on many fronts for that population expansion. The development of a light rail system is desirable if the city is to be alive and have a heart. If it is to be sustained there is no way in which the city can provide, on the road, for the increased number of cars as the main mode of transport for citizens in and around the city. No other capital city in Europe has been able to do so. Clearly, therefore, there must be substantial development in public transport. I welcome the Minister's sense of urgency in respect of this Bill but while it is urgent we should not rush it.

We on the northside are interested, excited and pleased by the unexpected intervention of the EU Commission in the person of Commissioner Wulf-Mathies in regard to the analysis of the priority to be given to the different lines. What is proposed is a three-link system, which includes Ballymun, and that has always been the case, but it was a question of phasing. The Progressive Democrats are not correct in suggesting there is no commitment to the northside. Given EU intervention I am confident that there is increased planning and preparation for the northside link and I welcome that wholeheartedly. It was more than we had expected because we had campaigned in the context of the Structural Funds particularly for the port access tunnel. A large number of residents' associations had come together from a widespread area over the northside of the city seeking that investment because it was considered that the Drumcondra-Swords Road route was incapable of sustaining its present traffic levels and certainly could not support increased public transport without being relieved of some of the heavy port traffic by way of the tunnel. Having received a financial commitment of more than £100 million towards the tunnel, it was more than we could have dreamed of to have been included in the priority area for the light rail system. In that context, there was a certain political acceptance of the phasing announced by the Government.

Deputy Seán Kenny's constituency borders mine and we have a mutual interest in the local partnerships in our areas. They have identified a great need for substantial investment in public transport. We welcome and support the reassessment under way at present.

I take no pleasure in setting our route against those to Tallaght or along the old Harcourt Street line. The Tallaght line would qualify under all the social criteria and the Harcourt Street line qualifies under other criteria. It is an historic route for which many Dubliners have much affection. I support the reanalysis of the Ballymun line and I hope it will lead, to all the routes proceeding at a faster pace.

The Ballymun case is significant. We have not had the same detailed analysis of potential routes as the other areas. However, there is a clear need for such a service. The EU Commission is putting emphasis on long-term unemployment as a key criterion and under that there is no doubt that our area qualifies. This line would serve a deprived area between Ballymun, Coolock and Darndale which has a population of 106,000 — larger than Galway and Waterford cities combined. One in three people is unemployed, a rate which is double the national average, and two-thirds left education before the leaving certificate. Gamma consultants devised a deprivation index of one to ten and the areas concerned scored eight, nine or ten.

Local partnerships in the area have identified a major desirable project for industrial development near the airport and the Minister for Enterprise and Employment made an announcement this week in this regard. The link to Ballymun and the airport via the light rail are important elements in the future development of these areas of great need on the north side of the city.

The people of the area rely heavily on public transport, a fact which, depending on one's analysis, may be positive or negative from their perspective. If the objective is seen as taking traffic off the road it may work against them; if the objective is social development and employment creation this is positive for them.

I welcome the review, although it may cause some headaches for the Government if it comes out in favour of the Ballymun link. I hope the Government will have the headaches and on the north side of Dublin will benefit doubly from the investment in roads and public transport.

We have been lobbied strongly by those who believe we should have an underground system. My experience of the port access tunnel plan leads me to dispute any claim that a tunnelling system would be less controversial than a ground level system. Difficulties have been experienced in the areas in which the port access tunnel is to be built with regard to access, pollution, ventilation and tunnelling methods. An underground system would not be easier to achieve; it would be as disruptive as an overground system. It is misleading to present it as an easy option. The present proposal fails to integrate the new system with existing public transport in the city, particularly the DART. We will have the benefit of examining schemes in other cities and experience indicates that there must be integration with other major public transport systems. Design details are being considered at present. Those in Iarnród Éireann involved in supervising the design and managing the public consultation process must take these elements into consideration.

Disruption is unavoidable, although every effort will be made to minimise it. The work will begin in the suburban areas and will continue into the central areas which will cause more difficulty. It has been suggested that one cannot have the light rail trams and cars running on the streets. The Amsterdam tram system runs along the major streets and most cities have a major part of their light rail overground.

There may be simpler routes for the lines. There is a simple line through the north side of the city but it would be distant from centres of population. It is difficult to find routes that will achieve the two objectives of minimum disruption and maximum service. Every effort should be made to meet local needs, as has been the case with road and motorway schemes in the past. It is essential that the new light rail system is integrated with the other public transport systems. These changes and a positive result from the review of the Ballymun link will provide a satisfactory system.

Mr. S. Kenny

This Bill implements the recommendations of the Dublin Transportation Initiative. The Dublin Transportation Office's report to the Minister for the Environment last month sets out the means of achieving the vision for Dublin as defined in the DTI's final report. It states:

... to reinforce Dublin's status as a leading European city by ensuring improved access for all against a pro public transport background. The city must remain the heart of the region and must not be allowed to stagnate as access becomes more difficult as a consequence of land use policy in neighbouring counties. Growth in employment in activities in the centre city must be maintained without generating an increase in car trips.

The key question is the type of transport infrastructure needed to help realise this vision. An investment of £200 million is being provided under the 1994-99 transport operational programme for the LRT network. The Dublin Transport Office is satisfied in the context of this programme that the LRT lines approved in principle by the Government are more readily implementable in the time scale of the programme and represent a greater potential for a shift from private cars to public transport. It is equally satisfied that an on-street light rail option better meets the DTI's vision for Dublin than an underground system. It notes the development of many on-street light rail systems throughout Europe.

The DTI strategy also recommended an extension and upgrading of the DART and suburban rail services. I welcome the proposed refurbishment of Kilbarrack DART station and the contribution this work will make to enhancing the environment of the surrounding area. I support the case for the extension of the DART to Malahide and I call for the provision of a new DART station at Baldoyle Bridge to relieve traffic congestion in the Baldoyle-Donaghmeade area. This railway bridge was part of the original Baldoyle station and it is being reconstructed with EU funding as part of the Grange road improvement scheme to improve access from the northern cross route to Baldoyle industrial estate. Due to the growth of new housing estates in the area, access to the DART is vital to ease traffic on the existing road infrastructure.

The DTI is currently evaluating the provision of a conventional rail link between Dublin Airport and the Dublin-Belfast rail line, which I strongly support. Dublin is the only European capital city without a rail link to its airport and with the number of passengers using the airport set to reach almost nine million this year, the provision of a rail link to the rail network would enable travellers to continue their onward journeys by rail. The extension of the LRT to Ballymun and Dublin Airport should be a priority to achieve a north-south balance in the network.

The DTI report sets out the need for public transport interchange facilities in the city centre. These are necessary between the LRT network and mainline rail and provincial bus services to reduce delays for commuters and tourists. To facilitate a higher level of passenger interchange and an integrated fare structure and ticketing system an investment of £4 million has been recommended by the DTI. A traffic management plan in the vicinity of Busáras and the Custom House dock site is crucial to facilitate better movement of buses leaving the city centre.

The DTI strategy recognises the role of feeder buses in linking people with the LRT network and rail routes. The current system of feeder buses serving DART stations has been successful in switching commuters from cars to public transport. There are two DART stations in Dublin north-east which operate successful feeder bus services. At Harmonstown station a feeder bus enables commuters from Airfield. Darndale and Priorswood to gain access to DART services and at Sutton station a feeder bus service connects Baldoyle, Portmarnock and Malahide.

For a light rail network to be successful it must be part of an integrated and co-ordinated strategy dealing with traffic management, car parking and quality bus corridors. Effective compliance with and enforcement of traffic parking laws is essential to the successful implementation of the DTI strategy. The most acute traffic congestion is currently caused by commuters travelling to an from the inner city cordon between the canals at morning and evening peak times. The city is effectively gridlocked during traffic peak hours and failure to address these issues would undermine the DTI strategy.

The Dublin Chamber of Commerce, which is part of the roads lobby, has adopted a negative attitude to the light rail proposals and is exaggerating any temporary disruption which may be caused by the construction of the light rail system. To gain a balanced approach, it should examine the success of light rail systems in Manchester, Grenoble and other European cities. Critics of light rail refer to the experience in Sheffield where there was not an integrated approach to traffic management or public transport. Bus services in Sheffield were deregulated before the construction of light rail and when this happened passengers switched to private cars which put pressure on the road space required to develop the light rail system. Lessons have been learned from the mistakes in Sheffield. It is also worth noting that the Dublin City Centre Business Association has warmly welcomed the light rail proposals. The Government has decided there should be a director of traffic for the corporation area to take over responsibility from the gardaí and traffic wardens for on-the-spot fines and towaway services in the capital.

The DTI set itself performance targets of a peak hour target of 50 per cent and an off-peak target of 35 per cent of all trips to the city centre by public transport by the year 2001. It also predicts that accidents will have reduced to 90 per cent of the current level by then and there will be real reduction in pollution levels generated by all forms of transportation over the next 20 years. It is vital that any strategy is open to new ideas and approaches and is to the forefront in assessing new technologies and initiatives that may affect transport in the future.

Mr. Haughey

The Luas proposal, involving a core light rail network made up of lines to Tallaght and Cabinteely via the Harcourt line and to Ballymun and Finglas via the Broadstone railway line and an extension of the Ballymun line to Dublin Airport and Swords, has been recommended by the DTI. This represents a major infrastructural development for the city and will involve a massive investment of some £200 million in transport with much of the funding coming from European Union sources under the operational programme on transport. The project will have a major impact on the citizens of Dublin and must be welcomed in principle. As the proposal is now before us it would be almost impossible to reject it out of hand. Nevertheless, I am not sure alternative routes were given due consideration or that the finer details of the project were fully examined.

The process of public consultation has been hopelessly inadequate to date. The project will involve major disturbance and disruption to residents and businesses and will cause major traffic disruption, particularly during the construction stage. The Bill gives sweeping powers to CIE in this regard. The provisions on consultation and community involvement are not satisfactory. The contents of the Bill are needlessly legalistic and bureaucratic. The project will succeed only if there is adequate negotiation with a real attempt to achieve consensus on the issues involved.

I am not satisfied the LRT system will be fully integrated into the overall public transport system of the city. That matter should have been examined more carefully. It will not integrate with the DART system. It could be argued that it is being imposed on the city without any consideration of the overall transport requirements. However, the light rail network will be environmentally friendly. It will not cause pollution and will help promote the concept of a living inner city.

Like other Deputies from the northside, I deeply regret the original decision to defer construction of the Ballymun line. Everyone on the northside breathed a sigh of relief when the Minister finally admitted that in November 1995 the EU Commission ordered a socio-economic study, involving independent and in-depth analysis on the prioritisation of the three lines. We were told the Ballymun link was originaly deferred due to the low car ownership statistics for the area and the disruption and congestion which would occur in the Drumcondra area, in particular, with two major projects under way, the Dublin Port tunnel and the Ballymun light rail link.

The so-called north Dublin black are involves the largest cluster of deprivation in the State. According to the president of Dublin City University this belt of deprivation has a population of 106,000 people, more than Galway and Waterford cities combined. There is a serious long-term unemployment problem in the locality. Of course, it makes sense to examine the social dimensions of any infrastructural development. Several studies concluded that the Ballymun link would greatly enhance efforts to develop the area economically. The task force set up by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment to examine job opportunities in and around Dublin Airport strongly recommends the provision of the Ballymun line. It is also supported by Dublin City University, the Ballymun Partnership, the Finglas-Cabra Partnership, the Nortside Partnership and more recently by a combination of residents' associations in the locality known as the North Dublin Transport Alliance.

It is unbelievable there is no rail link to Dublin Airport, a major international airport which grew by more than one-third in the past two years and had eight million passengers in 1995. Dublin Airport may be the only airport in Europe without such a link — other Deputies referred to that matter. It is vital that detailed planning and necessary preparation and design work for the Ballymun line is commenced so that it has a realistic chance of inclusion in the final package to be put to the European Commission. There may be no funding available from the EU after the year 2000 and if the Ballymun line is not included in the first phase the general fear is that it may not see the light of day if is has to be funded solely from domestic sources.

I do not subscribe to the view that two major projects, the Dublin Port tunnel and the Ballymun line, would lead to massive disruption in that locality. Potential disruption could be minimised by adequate phasing and co-ordination between the two projects. The people on the north side of Dublin want fair play in the prioritisation of the three light rail lines.

I wish to refer to a proposal put forward by a group known as the Transport Users' Support Group, an alternative to the Luas proposal or an option which could be taken in association with that proposal. The plans involve a circular rail line from Malahide to Booters-town DART station, linking Malahide, Swords, the airport, Ballymun, Finglas, Blanchardstown, Coolmine, Lucan, Clondalkin, Baldonnel, Saggart, Tallaght, Sandyford, UCD and Booters-town. There is merit in such a proposal. Perhaps the Minister will clarify whether that project and the Luas line are mutually exclusive. Has he received a submission in that regard and, if so, what is its status?

The Dublin Transport Initiative was a very important and worthwhile endeavour. For the first time all aspects of transport in the greater Dublin area were examined in a comprehensive way. Most importantly, for the first time, there was public involvement and consultation regarding the deliberations. I recall attending a number of public sessions organised by the Dublin Transport Initiative in local areas, which were very well attended, and the standard of debate was first class. The initiative is a very important milestone in the development of transport policy in the city. My only regret is that it did not study adequately all proposals for a port access route. In particular it did not analyse and evaluate in a satisfactory way proposals from National Toll Roads plc for an east-west Liffey tunnel. Perhaps that battle is lost, or perhaps the project will be resurrected in the future.

Information submitted to public representatives at the time was that the proposed Liffey tunnel would create 600 jobs over the five years' construction period; directly create 35 full-time jobs; involve no cost to Government — funding would include 70 per cent Structural Funds, £70 million, and 30 per cent private funding, £30 million; generate £25 million in tax revenues on capital cost from VAT, PAYE and PRSI; generate significant company tax, PAYE, PRSI and VAT payments for the 30 years' duration of the toll scheme; reduce traffic congestion on the quays and facilitate public transport, particularly on the quays; the toll franchise would return to Government ownership after 30 years; it would increase the competitive advantage of Irish exporters through Dublin port; stimulate development and economic growth in the city, particularly the port area; require no Government subvention of operating or maintenance costs, estimated at £1 million annually, and provide a much needed port access route. The Dublin Transportation Initiative did not evaluate that project as well as it should have and perhaps it will be resurrected at some stage.

A port access route is vital for the survival of manufacturing in the City of Dublin. Dublin port is being strangled because of traffic congestion generally. Nevertheless, I have much difficulty with the proposed A6 Dublin port tunnel route from Whitehall to East Wall. As an isolated proposal it makes no sense and would simply result in thousands of cars using the East Wall road area — it is estimated that it would double traffic in that area. Perhaps the Minister for the Environment will say whether the southern leg of the eastern by-pass is back on the agenda. To propose in isolation a port access route to East Wall would cause many difficulties, a matter of which we should be very conscious.

There has been very little consultation with local residents about the Dublin port tunnel. Many residents have legitimate concerns and cannot get satisfactory answers from the technical people involved — for example, people have fears about their homes. There are many rumours in the locality about the effects of this tunnel. I am unable to allay the concerns because I do not have the technical qualifications to deal with the queries raised. It is disgraceful that people cannot get satisfactory answers to their legitimate queries.

Many concerns have been raised locally about the Dublin port tunnel. The location of the tunnel portal in the Whitehall area on the Swords Road has been questioned. Concerns about emissions and noise in the Whitehall area have led to requests to move the tunnel portal northwards, and I support that view. There is concern about construction disturbance; construction vibration from the tunnel, particularly in the Marino area; possible damage to houses in Marino; compensation arrangements, should that arise; noise and vibration from the tunnel after construction; amenities and facilities in Fairview Park; air quality in the East Wall Road area and at the northern portal; and recreational amenities involving water sports in the Tolka River. These are genuine concerns but to date they have not been adequately dealt with by the consultants. An environmental impact statement was promised in March — it is now June. Dublin County Council is not able to facilitate the project until these questions are answered satisfactorily.

The engineers involved say the A6 route must be taken and the routes A1 to A5 cannot proceed — it must be the A6 route or nothing — but I do not believe what engineers say. In his contribution our leader, Deputy Ahern, said that he has observed engineers for years and while they always say they cannot do a task, after adequate consultation they come up with satisfactory solutions as to how it could be done. An acceptable alternative to the A6 route must be brought forward, following real and meaningful consultation with all concerned.

The Austrian tunnelling method, known as NATM, is being used to construct the tunnel but the reports we receive about this method lead to worries. There was a damning review of the use of this method by the British Health and Safety Executive, which dealt at length with the possibility of tunnel collapse. It is estimated that new safety measures will have to be introduced, which will increase the existing £130 million cost.

Members of the public must raise funds to make submissions on issues like Luas and the Dublin port tunnel but they have no satisfactory way to hire experts to make proposals which differ from those put forward by the local authority or CIE. Now that we are trying to encourage community activity and participation, a system of funding should be put in place for voluntary groups who confront proposals such as this on infrastructure, etc. The EU will probably implement it for us in due course but it is an issue for the future.

A number of Deputies asked who was looking after transport in Dublin. Three Government Departments, four local authorities, a host of transport providers, the Garda, the National Roads Authority and, most recently, the Dublin Transportation Office are all concerned with one problem. That is unsatisfactory. Dublin Bus Nitelink service should be extended because it is inadequate at present. Given the current number of taxis in the city, the overall picture should be examined and Dublin Bus should play a greater role. Cycleways are another development for the future and local authorities should be seen to do more in that regard. I welcome the provision of new DART stations in Clontarf and Drumcondra which will improve public transport in the city.

The "road rage" phenomenon has been observed in the US and the UK and Dublin's transport problems are becoming so chronic that we will witness this phenomenon here also. We must tackle our problems now. We have the opportunity and the funding to do it. We must get our priorities right and get these major developments under way.

Mr. Shatter

I am pleased this Bill is before the House and that we are finally making progress in this area. I congratulate the Minister because, as a Deputy representing Dublin South since 1981, I recall various candidates at election time promising people in my constituency that, if they were elected to Dáil Éireann, the Harcourt Street line would be re-opened. This has been promised so many times it is remarkable that there are not ghost trains travelling the line on a nightly basis carrying people into the city centre. I never made promises about this issue, but as a Member of this House and of the local authority I have long complained about transport problems experienced by my constituents and the abysmal service offered to the people of Dublin. This proposal deserves the whole-hearted support of all sides of the House but, as I understand it, Fianna Fáil will oppose the Bill this evening. I find this quite extraordinary and am not sure what political point it thinks it is making by doing so.

The hard-pressed citizens of Dublin want a speedy, efficient and environmentally friendly transport system. They want a system they can rely on and which is superior to the service currently provided. They want the State to enter the 21st century without being dependent on a public transport service which had its foundations in a different era. New buzzwords are always interesting to hear and we have heard much about "integrated transport systems". If I may view this project from the parochial perspective of a backbench Deputy concerned for his constituents, if we are to have the proposed line from Dundrum to the city centre it is essential that the words mentioned mean exactly what they say in practice.

I repeat in this House what I have said previously to the Minister — the overwhelming majority of my constituents welcome this initiative, want the light rail transit system put in place as rapidly as possible and would like to see the Government comply with the timescale prescribed. However, there is also an anxiety to ensure that, if the system is put in place as currently envisaged, it does not solve some problems while creating others along the route.

A matter of particular concern is the impact of the proposed system on the village of Dundrum and the surrounding areas of Sandyford and Ballinteer. The plans publicised by CIE and the Minister propose that the light rail transit system terminus in my constituency will be opposite the Crazy Prices supermarket in Balally, but there is not one person who believes this is a sane choice. I fully understand and accept that there are financial constraints, but it is important to ensure that, in seeking to resolve a transport problem, we do not create gridlock and bedlam in the places where people will use the system. From my personal knowledge of this area and the roads in it — this goes back to the time I was in short trousers — there is absolutely no possibility of Dundrum village and the road leading out of it to the proposed terminus point being able to cope with the traffic input which would result. The intention is to provide a park-and-ride system and to make it attractive for people from the surrounding areas of Sandyford, Rathfarnham, Glencullen, Balally and Mount Merrion to use the light rail transit system terminus in Dundrum. This is being done for two reasons: first, to take cars off the road and, second, to provide a speedy and, one would hope, profitable public transport service. The only logical place for the line to end is the Sandyford industrial estate which has more than 6,000 employees and a large landbank where the parking facility could be constructed. This facility cannot be constructed in Balally where the proposed maximum number of car parking spaces will be grossly inadequate to meet the needs.

It will cost an extra £15 million to extend the line from Balally to the Sandyford industrial estate. It will be a false economy not to provide this funding. If the proposed system is put in place the resulting traffic chaos and on-street parking on main roads and in residential suburban estates will inevitably lead to the extension of the line in a very short time, by which stage the current estimate of £15 million will be substantially greater. These issues will be teased out in the ongoing public inquiry and debate but they should be considered seriously and urgently. I say this as someone who fully supports the project. I am relaying to the House the strong message given to me by my constituents, particularly those who live in Dundrum and Sandyford.

I wish to refer to the timescale for the project. When I entered public life in 1979 I was told that the southern cross route, which is part of the Dublin ring road, would be open to traffic by 1983. This is 1996, yet not one sod has been turned on the southern cross route. The procedures necessary to get the project to the stage where it would go to tender have been completed but it is snarled up in court proceedings and we will be lucky if the route is open by the year 2002. We have an extraordinary ability to produce worthy plans in the transport area which Government genuinely committed to them finds it impossible to implement because people take it, the local authority or a State body to court which, due to the nature of the system we operate, takes years to reach a decision.

The timescale for the building of the light rail system is vital, not only because of the European funding issue. It is popular to say that if we do not build the system by a particular date the European Commission may deprive us of the funding. That may be the case but it has been my experience in the context of past projects to which the European Commission committed itself that funding is not usually withdrawn where delays occur. This project must be proceeded with urgently to alleviate the traffic gridlock which afflicts not only my constituency but Dublin city and county and to provide a modern and adequate public transport system.

The Minister should reconsider the Bill between now and Committee Stage. Bearing in mind the history of other schemes, it is inevitable — no matter how much I may wish to discourage it my voice will not have any great impact on this — that someone will launch a court challenge to this project at some stage, whether it is before or after a public inquiry or after the making of ministerial orders. The Bill seeks to delimit the extent to which court applications can be made. The Minister should consider the inclusion in the Bill of provisions which would require courts to determine challenges within a specified period or which would give such proceedings a form of priority within the court system. This would give ensure that challenges of any description which would hold up the project would be dealt with and resolved within a few months rather than years.

I wish to refer to the opposition voiced by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to the light rail transit system. Any business group in the city centre which seeks to oppose this project has dinosaur vision. The city centre is dying and business is being transferred to suburban shipping centres because of a lack of transport access to the city and inadequate parking facilities. In suburban shipping centres people can shop in a more attractive and traffic free environment. Traders in the city centre should be crying out for the rapid implementation of this project.

In the context of integrating the scheme, we must ensure that the various public utilities, including Dublin Corporation, use the opportunity to complete any outstanding works which need to be carried out. We have an extraordinary inability to co-ordinate these works. In the city new roads are dug up within weeks by Telecom Éireann, Bord Gais or the corporation. In many cases one section of the corporation does not check with another section what work it proposes to carry out and one suddenly discovers that there is a need to lay new sewers or piping. We have seen the frenetic activity on roadsides and the landscape pockmarked by repair works. It frequently looks like a lunar landscape which has suffered a meteorite holocaust.

Advanced planning in this area should take place now. It should be made clear to all utility providers who feel the need to dig up our streets regularly, that the last opportunity to modernise existing structures or to provide additional ones, will arise at the time of the construction of the light rail transit system. Otherwise, I can guarantee that within four or five weeks of its construction a utility company will sabotage its work in some part of the city by digging up a portion of the road to undertake work that could have been done months earlier.

Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications (Mr. Lowry)

I express my thanks for the constructive way in which comments were put forward in this debate and the general support expressed for this Bill.

The Fianna Fáil decision to oppose this Bill is impossible to understand and runs counter to the content of and sentiment expressed in many of its party members' contributions in this debate. Fianna Fáil, in particular Deputy Séamus Breannan, seems to be intent on obstructing progress on this vital transport initiative, having consistently and deliberately attempted to sabotage the light rail project for short-term political expediency. I ask Deputy Brennan and his party colleagues to reconsider their attitude and recognise that this affords a golden opportunity to address in a meaningful way the chaotic traffic congestion in our capital city. Indeed the Fianna Fáil position is totally out of line with everyone else. Community groups have supported it, as has the DTI as an integral part of its proposals. City traders are in favour of it, in the past week I had a meeting with the Dublin Chamber of Commerce and expect a positive response to our discussions and exchange of views.

Issues in relation to transport and indeed in relation to Dublin's particular traffic difficulties have been debated many times in this House. The proposal to remedy these difficulties in part through the provision of a light rail system has been a key element of these debates. It is a proposal which commands broad support in this House, as evidenced in this debate, and among the public at large. The majority of people recognise that something must be done to tackle traffic difficulties in Dublin and that light rail represents the best option available in practice.

This Bill represents a vital stage in the process in that it will provide the statutory framework for the development of the light railway for Dublin. It provides that CIE will develop the system and this is reasonable given its pivotal role in providing public transport services in Dublin. CIE will be the formal implementing agency for the construction of the light rail network. However, it is envisaged that the role of the private sector in the detailed design and construction of the light rail project will be maximised. An international consultancy team with extensive experience of implementation of light rail projects abroad is working on the detailed planning with the CIE project team. The actual construction of the light rail links will be carried out by private sector firms on the basis of specific contracts awarded after Irish public sector and EU competitive-tendering requirements have been observed.

This Bill does not seek to dictate the detail of how light rail will be implemented. That will be decided only after detailed public consultation and a public inquiry at which all interested parties can have their say. This part of the process, which is essential to the success of the project, has given rise to a considerable number of questions during this debate. Therefore I want to clarify the position.

This project is being developed on the basis of a policy of openness and public consultation which is very much in keeping with principles enshrined in the DTI. The clear message from the DTI experience is that successful implementation of strategy depends on ongoing local consultation and effective two-way communication on issues of importance to those concerned.

No less attention is being paid to the public consultation aspects of the light rail project. In launching the light rail public consultation programme last December, I invited the people of Dublin to become involved in a process designed to explain what light rail was about and the benefits it could bring with it. I strongly emphasised at that time my determination that the consultation programme would not be a one-way process. I, therefore, reject the suggestions made during this debate that the consultation stage would not amount to genuine consultation. I have insisted that the CIE project team listens carefully to concerns and opinions from all interested parties in relation to the light rail proposals, and to respond to those concerns wherever possible.

These concerns do not undermine the prospect of improving the traffic situation in Dublin but reflect the very real and genuine difficulties which individuals and businesses perceive at local level.

This Bill follows through on my commitment to full and open public involvement at all stages in the light rail project. Deputy Brennan expressed his fear that the inquiry will be extremely bureaucratic, legalistic and bewildering to local communities. I do not believe this will be the case. More to the point, this confuses two aspects of the process: it fails to distinguish between the consultative process, now under way, and the formal public inquiry stage which will be undertaken later.

The detailed consultation at local level must take place now and done in a variety of ways. Since the public consultation process was launched, the LRT project team has been engaged in a constant series of meetings with residents' associations, individuals, businesses, public representatives and others to ensure that all interested parties are kept fully informed on the project. The meetings have taken place both at the initiative of the LRT project team and at the request of local communities and public representatives. There have been large gatherings with hundreds present; there have been small groups; there have been meetings with residents and there have been meetings with business interests. There have also been newsletters, special phone lines, exhibitions and videos.

The very type of interest group representation to which Deputy Séamus Brennan and Deputy Bertie Ahern referred in the context of other developments has in fact already been formed in relation to light rail project. The business and environment consultative group brings together business, tourist and environmental interests. I expect more such groups will form at a local level. Indeed I believe they will last beyond the approval stages and continue to liaise with the LRT team as construction takes place in their areas. This type of association must be allowed develop in response to needs; it cannot be legislated for. That would give rise to the very bureaucracy and legalistic difficulties that Deputies seek to avoid. The legislation must concentrate on the formal procedures which are required to evaluate the proposals which emerge from the consultative process.

Of its very nature the consultative process is bound to bring out issues of difference and highlight areas of contention. Contrary to what may have been implied by some contributions to this debate, issues of contention and difference raised at local meetings are not being ignored by the project team. Options and alternatives to solve difficulties which have been put to the project team by local representatives and others are being considered by project design and engineering experts as a matter of urgency.

It is imperative that the consultation process is used to the maximum extent possible to resolve issues of concern to local interests. Where possible solutions that can be found within the obvious constraints of budget, timeframe and operational requirements for the project must be accommodated. Where a positive response is not possible, it is equally important that people are given a full and honest explanation. There is no attempt — as was suggested — to ride roughshod over people's rights.

The formal procedures for which this legislation provides serve to strengthen the informal consultative process by providing an opportunity to comment on the details of the light rail order itself. It requires the Minister to consider all the submissions before he makes a decision to grant a light railway order. The legal process allows any person affected by the project or interested in any way in the project to be kept informed and updated to the fullest possible extent at this important stage in the development of the project.

Deputies have queried the extent of some of the general powers provided in the Bill. I assure them that such powers are similar to those provided for in existing legislation; they are already used by other public companies and local authorities.

Deputy Molloy, while supportive of Luas, raised the question of the suitability of on-street light rail in the context of our streets becoming a battle ground for trams, buses, trucks and cars. As part of an integrated transport policy, and given proper traffic management priority, light rail can provide a high level of public transport service in segregated running and on-street as appropriate, without the battle ground scenario presented by Deputy Molloy and without substantial disadvantages to other road users. It must be remembered that this issue was considered by the DTI in the preparation of a long-term integrated transportation strategy for the period up to the year 2011. The DTI recommended an on-street light rail system as a key element of its public transport strategy. It recommended against an underground system on economic, financial and accessibility grounds. It also concluded that a wholly bus-based solution would not be as effective as an integrated public transport strategy based on DART, suburban rail, quality bus corridors and light rail.

The on-street light rail system is the option favoured by the DTI. Certainly it is a lower cost solution compared to the underground option and will provide a better economic return. That is not to say it is a second rate solution. In fact light rail will be more accessible on-street than underground. More stops will be possible on-street. Apart from being very expensive, underground stations are less accessible to mobility impaired people. I am advised that on the basis of a very preliminary estimate CIÉ calculates the additional cost associated with constructing a two kilometre underground section of light rail in the city centre would be in the region of £65 million.

Mr. Molloy

That is absolute rubbish. The Minister should give us the basis of that estimate.

Mr. Lowry

This would include the cost of stations and of upgrading the rolling stock.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister should substantiate that estimate.

Mr. Lowry

It must be stressed that light rail is not the only element in the plan. It cannot stand alone.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister is trying to jackboot through this legislation.

Mr. Lowry

It is part of a wider strategy proposed by the DTI and supported by Government. This strategy is now being implemented in a spirit of co-operation between the various agencies involved.

As part of this overall DTI strategy it is recognised that light rail represents a sound investment bringing together the reliability, speed and comfort of the traditional railway with the flexibility of the bus. We can all appreciate that, given traffic levels today, street space is at a premium and it makes sense to employ those forms of transport that make best use of it. Light rail is just such a form of transport, being most cost effective when traffic levels are broadly in the intermediate capacity range between the upper limits of high density bus services and the lower limits of heavy commuter rail systems such as DART.

With regard to concerns of Deputies that the north side of the city is being ignored, nothing could be further from the truth. The Ballymun line remains part of the core light rail network recommended by the DTI. The Government remains committed to the construction of the full core light rail network — that is the three lines to Ballymun, Cabinteely and Tallaght. In this regard I have recently appointed Oscar Faber, international transportation planning consultants, to carry out the comparative socio-economic evaluation of the Tallaght-Ballymun and Tallaght-Dundrum light rail lines. The consultants have commenced their work and are expected to complete their assignment within a 12 week period.

The issue of integration of light rail with other services has been raised on a number of occasions during the debate. While cost is an issue it is not simply a question of funding. Direct links with DART, Connolly Station and Busáras raise significant technical issues. The issues involved and the potential tradeoffs between alternative options on integration are quite complex. The current proposals provide a direct light rail link to the Arrow and mainline rail routes at Heuston Station.