Vol. 597 No. 5
95 Mr. English asked the Minister for Transport his position regarding the proposal to re-open the Navan to Dublin rail link; his views on whether the re-opening of this line should be a priority in view of the fact that Census 2002 indicated that Navan was the fastest growing town here and in view of the significant growth in commuter traffic from Meath to Dublin in recent years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4741/05]
132 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for Transport his views on whether the reopening of a rail-link between Dunboyne and Dublin’s city centre as expressed by Irish Rail cannot go ahead unless Irish Rail develops a third intercity rail station in Dublin, such as that proposed at Spencer Dock in view of the recent support for same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4754/05]
157 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for Transport if he will report on the factors inhibiting an increase in the number of trains accessing the Dublin city area (details supplied) per hour at peak periods; his plans to increase this capacity; if such should require the construction of a new station at the docklands; the timescale for submitting a planning application if required; the projected commencement and completion dates; and if approval has been given by the Government to Irish Rail for the funding of this phase of development. [4712/05]
171 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Transport if, in view of his allocation of €5 million for commencement of work on a new rail station in the Dublin docklands, announced during the budgetary Estimates 2004, this money has been allocated to Irish Rail; if a decision has been taken on the exact location of this new station; when this decision will be announced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4827/05]
344 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for Transport his views on the proposals from Irish Rail for the construction of an interconnector tunnel linking Connolly and Spencer Dock with Heuston Station with the provision of underground stations linking existing services including Luas in the context of an integrated transport system for Dublin. [4871/05]
354 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Transport the extent to which the passenger capacity of the various trains serving Kilcock, Maynooth, Leixlip and Confey in north Kildare can be increased to meet the ever increasing numbers of commuters who currently have to remain standing for the entire journey with consequent health and safety risks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5059/05]
360 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Transport the extent to which it is possible to increase the frequency of the commuter rail services serving Kilcock, Maynooth, Leixlip and Confey in line with growing demand; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5069/05]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 95, 132, 157, 171, 344, 354 and 360 together.
Iarnród Éireann has submitted a business case to my Department for the development of a greater Dublin integrated rail network, the aim of which is to meet the projected demand for rail services in the area into the future. The business case includes proposals to construct a new rail station in the city centre, provide an interconnector tunnel linking Heuston to the docklands, provide a spur off the Maynooth line to the N3 beyond Dunboyne and expand the capacity of the DART.
My Department is assessing the Iarnród Éireann proposed integrated rail network plan and I expect to respond to the company in the context of the ten year transport investment framework being finalised in my Department at present. In the meantime, Iarnród Éireann has undertaken preparatory work on some of the projects in the integrated plan.
Phase 2 of the DART upgrade project, to commence later this year and be completed by 2007, involves an upgrade of signalling in the city centre that will result in additional train paths across the loop line bridge and help alleviate existing congestion.
The company in consultation with Meath and Fingal County Councils has just completed a feasibility study into the possibility of providing a spur off the Maynooth line at Clonsilla to a point off the N3 beyond Dunboyne. While there are no plans at present to extend this line to Navan, the provision of a park and ride site near the N3 to cater for Navan traffic is being considered. It is now a matter in the next instance for Iarnród Éireann to decide how it wishes to proceed with this proposal.
The current technical constraints at Connolly Station mean it is essential that a new station is built in the city centre before the proposed Dunboyne spur is operational or before the additional city centre capacity required for Maynooth and Sligo services can be provided. While the Maynooth service has improved significantly in recent years, following the dualling of the track and the introduction of new rolling stock, projected future demand can only be met by provision of this new station, which would alleviate the current technical constraints and enable increased capacity to be provided.
Iarnród Éireann is examining suitable sites for locating the new station. I have provided €5 million this year for this project and expect a report on progress shortly.
When will there be a decision with regard to the new station at Spencer Dock, which determines the speed of delivery? There is a question mark about whether it will go over or under ground. Can we expect an expedient decision on the matter? It would have a greater effect, especially on the Dunboyne Navan link.
The Iarnród Éireann study has shown it is viable to open the line to Dunboyne and beyond. Will funding be provided to carry out these works parallel to works in Dublin, so that when Dublin is sorted out the line will be ready to start operating from Meath?
Will the Department fund a feasibility study — similar to that carried out with regard to Dunboyne — into extending the line the rest of the way to Navan? We were told a year or two ago the Dunboyne line would not work. It is now part of the plan and on the agenda. It can be done. This is after a report was completed and a study undertaken, driven at council level then through the Department and on to Iarnród Éireann. We were proven right in that we have a case for a railway line to Meath. No doubt, the same case will be proven with regard to Navan if the feasibility study is carried out and it is given a chance. It is wrong to banish the link to Navan without proper study and say it is not to be done because it is not on the agenda.
Navan and areas beyond must be serviced by rail. Navan is part of the greater Dublin region. The Department's spatial strategy states that the success of the greater Dublin region is based on rail. Navan is not mentioned as a hub or a gateway, but linked to Dublin. It is wrong not to provide a rail link and goes against common sense with regard to Government policy. The Government's spatial strategy states we should do it.
We should at least provide a few hundred thousand euros to complete the study with regard to the rest of the way from the N3 to Navan. Navan will serve north Meath, Kells, Cavan and beyond. A railway line is badly needed to reduce congestion. It will be proved viable. The Department should examine the matter and guarantee funding for the line to be built to Dunboyne. It should make a quick decision regarding the Spencer Dock development. It should certainly speed up matters with regard to Navan.
I expect to hear of progress regarding decisions on the work done by Iarnród Éireann regarding feasibility. I have already provided substantial funding for the station. We all agree that we urgently need the station in Dublin. Deputy Olivia Mitchell has spoken on the issue several times. I hope Iarnród Éireann will come to a conclusion on the sites it is currently considering.
With regard to the line from Clonsilla to Dunboyne, I am pleased that both Meath and Fingal local authorities are working with Iarnród Éireann on the issue. They do not have plans at present, but I take the Deputy's point. Navan is an important area and there is no doubt there will be continued growth there. Continued investment in connectivity into Dublin from Navan will probably be required. However, we must start somewhere. We are currently looking at the Dunboyne route being agreed. Clearly there is a logic to follow on from that. I do not deny that, but all things are not immediately possible.
We accept the line must be built in a phased way. Money could at least be provided and we should encourage completion of the study with regard to extending the link the rest of the way to Navan. It will make the entire line more economically viable. The least we could do is to agree to study the matter and have it ready, so that it can be built when funding becomes available. We do not expect it tomorrow. The feasibility study could be completed. It proved successful with regard to the Cork-Midleton line. Such studies are worth doing. It is not fair to banish the chance of a railway line to Navan without proper homework to prove the case one way or another. That is what happened with the rail review of 2003. It was put to one side on the basis of false figures.
I understand the Deputy's perspective; it is reasonable. When I get the report in progress, I will consider the Dunboyne issue. I will query the next step and ask whether there is any thinking beyond that and whether they will proceed with further feasibility studies on connectivity to Navan. It is a reasonable question, although I cannot promise an instant solution. However, it is a logical consequence if we proceed with the Dunboyne route.
I support the concept of the extension to the docklands or Spencer Dock, wherever it may be. I hope there will be an early decision, as so many other issues hinge on it. I also support the notion of an interconnector from that station out to Heuston. However, what is the Minister's opinion on the priority that might be given to the interconnector considering it is largely concerned with the important issue of interconnecting and integrating this system? It is mainly about facilitating people who are already off the road, out of cars and into public transport. They travel in from Maynooth or some other direction on a train. In terms of taking cars off the streets of Dublin, their contribution might not be as great as a metro or several Luas lines.
Given that we are spending €1 billion on a port tunnel to clear the quays, is there a great deal of sense making it our priority to build a tunnel under the quays? Are there other possible solutions that the quays might now present to meet that need? I am only looking for an opinion, not the answer.
The Deputy is bang on the money in every sense. That is one of the issues with which I am grappling. I have been asking similar questions in recent weeks to try to establish what exactly should be included. Where does one get best value? I do not just mean best value in terms of money, but also in terms of modal shift and getting people out of cars. The interconnector will encourage a further substantial modal shift because it will be possible to bring the trains directly into the centre of Dublin. That is a completely different concept to where we are at currently. That is why the new train station in the city centre is crucial to a whole range of issues, which cannot work without that station being in place.
The interconnector is a good idea and I see what it does. It also adds a route from Heuston, which will not be a direct line. One must do it in a manner that loops and creates further access and egress at different points along the route in and around the city. It adds another dimension to traffic in and around Dublin. It is a very good proposal, although that is all I am prepared to say at this stage. Unfortunately, I have many good proposals from many different sources. However, some are becoming more clear than others in terms of what they can do.
Can the Minister give an indication of his priority? Is he giving an undertaking that the northside will receive priority? Within days of his appointment, the Minister talked about joining up the two Luas lines. That is off the top of the head stuff and not helpful in the area of transport. The problem over the years is that there has not been joined up thinking.
Will the Minister confirm that the north side of Dublin will receive his priority attention in the implementation of the ten year plan? That is critical. I accept that the interconnector is required and that it is a good proposal. However, it will predominantly assist the south side of the city. Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will deal with the problem of providing a major rail link to the north side of the city before dealing with the other projects in the pipeline?
There is no question that there is a glaring deficit in north Dublin and it must be tackled immediately. There is no prevarication on my part on that issue. However, I am in a stronger position than having to concentrate only on that matter. The ten year envelope changes dramatically what I can recommend to the Government and what we can decide to do. We are focusing on Dublin in this debate but there are other huge issues with regard to the west and the midlands as well as Dublin. They are three big sections and each of them requires equal consideration.
However, the Deputy hit the nail on the head in referring to the interconnector. The issue I am trying to resolve is the connectivity of public transport. I referred to connecting the two Luas lines but what I was trying to illustrate was taken badly out of context. We can have interconnectors or metros and the existing or even expanded Luas lines as well as expanded bus corridors but the paying passenger must be able comfortably to use one mode of transport and switch to another mode. The question is whether it is easy, after getting off one mode of transport, to get on to the other mode of transport to travel somewhere else.
That type of connectivity is crucial. Regardless of whether one is talking about metros, interconnectors, the Luas, the DART or mainline rail services, all of them must be such that the user of public transport can be confident that wherever they embark on whatever mode of public transport he or she wishes to use, on leaving that mode of transport the passenger who wishes to travel from point B to point C can move to another mode of transport in a seamless way. If one travels into the city on the DART or by mainline rail, for example, one should be able to hop on the Luas or, if travelling to north Dublin, hop on to whatever service will be provided there. That is the challenge. One can continue to provide these services but I am anxious to get the best from all the proposals and much more than just the A to B element of them. I must ensure that the connectivity works and that it is seen to work by the public. However, I agree that north Dublin has a clear need.
The Minister says he has no plans to extend the rail line to Navan. What will it take to change his mind and to start planning for a rail line to Navan? Has he not considered changing his plans in view of the recent EIS on the widening of the M50? It showed that the M50 will not work even if its width is doubled. Regardless of what super highway is provided, there will be gridlock at the junctions with roads from Navan. Did that not encourage the Minister to change his plans and consider the alternative of providing a rail line which does not get stuck at the M50?
If the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government decided it was not a clever idea to run a motorway through an area of such important archeological and historical interest as the Tara-Skryne valley and decided not to proceed with the project, would that prompt the Minister for Transport to question and change his current plans and consider planning a rail link to Navan? That would provide the connectivity in public transport solutions to which the Minister refers.
That is a matter for Iarnród Éireann. Iarnród Éireann is willing to come forward with plans if there is a market and a need for——
Does the Minister have plans for a line?
Will the Minister provide the funding?
——the expansion of that line. I was open in giving my views to the Deputy earlier. I will raise the matter and I have no problem with that. The Deputy made a reasonable point earlier and I will come back to him about it on my next Question Time. I will try to expand on that point and see what the precise position is.
I do not accept the Deputy's suggestion that the expansion and widening of the M50 will achieve nothing. That is not the case. The Deputy forgets that people in this country, like people in other countries, choose the car as their primary mode of transport regardless of whether we like it. There has been huge growth in car usage in Ireland but Ireland is still below the EU average in terms of car ownership. One can only presume, therefore, that the number of cars on our roads will continue to grow.
We are trying to do two things. We are trying to create massive improvement in public transport, which the taxpayer has been funding for the past five or six years, and at the same time provide massive improvement in road infrastructure. The difficulty is that neither can be done overnight. There is a lead-in time and a number of years will pass before all the elements are in place to resolve the issues. That is a simple fact. Neither I nor anybody in any other country has encountered a solution whereby one can parachute something in overnight and solve the problems.
The taxpayer has been funding the huge investment in public transport and road infrastructure and will continue to do so for at least another ten to 15 years. Recognising that challenge, the Government has provided, for the first time in the history of the State, a ten year envelope to do that work.
People in this country do not choose public transport because the public transport options are not available to them due to the failure of this and previous Governments to provide them. With regard to setting out plans, the Minister said earlier that he had asked the NRA to consider plans for a new orbital motorway. Why does he not tell Iarnród Éireann that he, as the public policy maker, wishes to provide public transport options and ask that body to bring forward a detailed plan of how that would work? Why does the Minister not take a lead and, rather than throwing his hands up in the air and saying people like their cars and that he can do nothing about it, start providing the public transport people desperately want?
Connectivity is a good policy. One of the areas on which the Minister was in dispute with Ivor the terrible when he was first appointed to office was the Luas connection and the possibility of connecting the two lines. The Luas lines have been wildly successful beyond everybody's dreams. They are popular with the public and have been successful in taking cars off the road. They would be even more successful if they were connected. What is the position with the connection? Has the Minister asked the RPA to examine ways of connecting the lines that do not involve going through Trinity College and the like? There are other possibilities and suggestions for connecting the two lines. Has progress been made in selecting a route? A connection would make a big difference, even if it is mainly on the south side of the city.
If the Minister proceeds with the interconnector, I take it he will not come up with a separate solution for joining the two Luas lines. The interconnector connects those lines. I hope the Minister will not duplicate it.
It is heavy rail and I am not sure that is the solution.
The Minister mentioned the increase in the rate of car ownership and said these projects cannot be carried out overnight. However, what could be done overnight to greatly improve the traffic situation is increase the number of buses. Despite the undertaking given in the national development plan, why has not one additional bus been provided for Dublin Bus since 2000? It beggars belief that the Minister would allow that to happen. The local authorities are providing extra bus lanes and reducing the amount of space on the roads for drivers. That is a good approach but it is pointless unless the extra buses are provided.
Dublin Bus cannot meet the demand that exists because it does not have enough buses. This particularly applies to the commuter belt in Meath, Kildare and Wicklow. There are growing population centres in those counties and there is huge demand for public transport. Residents are meeting public representatives and representatives of Dublin Bus to ask for new services but Dublin Bus is obliged to explain that it cannot provide new services because it does not have the buses. The Government promised 275 buses under the national development plan but only 93 have been provided. Why is that? Why can the Minister not sanction the provision of these buses, which could be on the streets in a matter of months?
As regards the three issues, Deputy Eamon Ryan and I clearly have a different view of the world. We will just have to leave it at that. The only one throwing his hands in the air in the House today, that I can see, is Deputy Eamon Ryan.
Deputy Olivia Mitchell asked me about connecting the two Luas lines. I believe both lines should be connected. I have stated that publicly and I have asked the Railway Procurement Agency to examine the matter. I do not know where the notion arose that the link line would have to go through Trinity College.
It was somebody's suggestion.
It amazes me that when one makes a reasonably sound statement, somebody hijacks it and talks about Trinity College almost being knocked down to accommodate the Luas line. It was never a suggestion of mine and it has no basis in fact.
In fairness, I know that.
It is nonsense. I do not know where it came from but I can guess. I presume it was stirred up by those not far behind Deputy Olivia Mitchell.
Public relations consultants.
Deputy Eamon Ryan would know a lot about that all right.
So would the Minister.
I would and I can stand over everything I have ever done.
Deputy Shortall's comment with regard to connecting the Luas lines is true up to a point but not entirely so. It depends on how one routes the lines, as well as the stops along the way. The Deputy's point is fair but it does not necessarily mean that one excludes the other; it depends on how one does them. That matter is currently on the table. In terms of operational good sense and capitalising on the success of the Luas, as a point of principle, it would be good for both lines to be interconnected. It would be good for the integration of public transport in Dublin.
It was a Green Party idea.
I disagree with the Deputy about buses. In recent years, the State has provided major investment in CIE for replacement purposes. I do not have the figures in front of me but we have provided approximately €400 million or €500 million.
The additional funding was €275 million.
I know the point the Deputy is making and I will come to it but I just wanted to place on the record what we have done. As regards the Deputy's point with regard to CIE, of course I want to continue to invest in CIE and I will do so.
Why does the Minister not keep the promises he made?
Hang on. Of course, I want to provide new buses for CIE and I will do so——
The Minister has not done so and is not doing so.
——but I also want to examine how Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann's operations are run in order to get the maximum value for them as efficient, well-run companies. This concerns how they organise all their current assets. My view is that they can do much more with what they have.
The second point is that private investment in bus operations around the country has been phenomenal in recent years. There has been a huge investment in such transport capacity. I have met with the social partners — the unions and company management — and we have all agreed that the Dublin market needs to be opened up. The trade unions have agreed with that also. We now want to bring to a conclusion what exactly that means. I have views, as do the trade unions and company management, and we are not that far apart.
Deputy Cullen is the Minister.
Yes, exactly, but I want to be fair and give them the opportunity to make their points. I agree with both Deputies in this regard — I want to see greater capacity for buses operating in Dublin because that could make a further substantial contribution to public transport.
Why does the Minister not deliver on his commitment?
I will deliver on my commitment.
He has not done so.
I said I will.
96 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Transport if he has had discussions with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform in regard to private operators conducting speed checks on roads here; if any report on this matter has been conducted; when a decision on this issue may be reached; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4767/05]
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and my predecessor jointly determined in late 2003 to consider the engagement of operators from the private sector in the operation of speed cameras. This consideration responds to a provision in the Road Safety Strategy 2004-2006 — a copy of which is available in the Oireachtas Library — that the number of speed checks annually should be 11.1 million and this speed enforcement target could be achieved through the deployment of additional enforcement assets through the engagement of private sector camera operations.
The engagement of the private sector in the operation of speed cameras would have to be supported by new road traffic primary legislation. A working group representing our Departments and other relevant agencies is examining a range of issues, including the parameters for operation and deployment of speed cameras and the interaction of any private sector operation with other agencies. I understand the working group is due to report shortly. This will allow my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and myself, to consider all the implications that arise concerning this issue. When we have completed that process, we will consider presenting the matter to Government.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.
