Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 Nov 2006

Vol. 627 No. 2

Transport 21: Statements (Resumed).

Ms O. Mitchell

I welcome the belated opportunity to speak on Transport 21, although given the policy was announced more than one year ago, it is a shame we are only now making statements on it. This is a sterile and futile way of discussing a policy which merits a proper debate on the enormous investments it proposes on behalf of the taxpayer. I regret the Minister for Transport, who is responsible for Transport 21, is not here. Given the significance of this issue for everybody in the country, he should have shown more respect to the House by at least listening to the opinion of Opposition Deputies.

Fine Gael fundamentally believes there is nothing more important to this country than investing in transport infrastructure. I disregard the advice of the ESRI to slow investment in this area because transport is crucial to the economy. Far form causing inflation, it is necessary to invest in transport if we are to avoid inflation and remain competitive. We simply cannot cut spending on transport. The overruns that have arisen in major engineering projects have been a result of a lack of capacity in the economy but, since the expansion of the EU, labour has been readily available, although the need remains to strengthen project management teams and the technical and financial support required for major projects. Given the magnitude of the investments in transport planned for the next ten years, it is essential we spend money in such a way that taxpayers receive the best possible value.

While I have no problem with any of the projects proposed in Transport 21, and indeed support most of them, I know nothing about them other than their names. Apart from having a list of projects, I know nothing about any of the projects nor does anybody else. I do not know the cost or priority of projects. I do not even know if anybody has a list of priorities or what informed those priorities. I know nothing of a cost-benefit analysis, a programme of works, working budgets, tender dates or construction start dates. We know nothing more than we knew 12 months ago when the initiative was announced. While individual announcements have been made, we do not have any integrated sense of what is going on. We have a list of projects with nobody managing it, although we hear we are to get some detail on the Dublin transport authority today.

We are not even sure what falls into the €34 billion. For instance the metro was announced in recent weeks. While it is on the list it does not form part of the €34 billion because, as a public private partnership, we will not begin to pay for it until after 2015 when the plan expires. While I hope the metro will be built by then, it is not part of the €34 billion envelope. While I do not want to be too critical of projects that I support, I am critical about how they are being managed. It is not inappropriate for us to criticise the lack of information when the spend is €34 billion.

The bulk of this money will be spent in Dublin on public transport projects. I have a concern, which has been mentioned by others. The network of routes that forms the Dublin investment was first published in 2001 before the last general election and was based on a Platform for Change, prepared by the Dublin Transportation Office and for which a cost-benefit analysis was completed. In other words a cost-benefit analysis was carried out for the entire network of routes. Since then major changes have been made to the plan. Many projects have been taken out, including the Luas to serve Rathfarnham in my constituency, without any explanation. The interconnector that was not in a Platform for Change was added. There have been various additions, subtractions and changes. For instance, new metro stations have been inserted and the location of stations has changed. Major connections have been changed. Despite those changes, which will have a huge impact on the overall feasibility of and return on the investment, no network cost-benefit analysis has been completed and as far as I am aware there is no plan to do one, which is very disturbing.

The Minister talked about the importance of connectivity, with which I agree. However, the location of connections is vital. Making a major change, for example to move a connection to Drumcondra — everything seems to connect in Drumcondra these days — which might be the right thing to do, has a major impact on the overall costs and benefits because it impacts on the entire network and not just on that route.

The Luas was savaged by Senator O'Rourke when she took out its middle and did not join the two lines. The impact was not just an inconvenience to passengers — happily many passengers now benefit from the service — but affected 5 million passengers each year who would have used the service had it been connected. Not only did we get a bad return on investment, we must also always be conscious of the opportunity cost of not doing things or changing them. We received no explanation of the decision about the Luas line to Rathfarnham and its possible impact. Nor have we received an evaluation of the impact on the rest of the network.

We need not only a network appraisal and cost-benefit analysis, but also individual cost-benefit analyses. We are told these exist, but are being kept a secret. Even if we knew what they were, they are being done in the wrong way because each agency is doing its own cost-benefit analysis to different objectives and criteria. What one body regards as a benefit and will present as such when making a case for its particular investment project might be detrimental to another agency's project. There is no integration or co-ordination between them. A CIE project might be of great benefit to it, but might take passengers from Dublin Bus or another project that the RPA might have in mind. Without overall common criteria, cost-benefit analyses are meaningless. We are making investments without having established any good case.

Transport 21 is too big an investment for secrecy. We must make decisions based on hard information and not on intuition. We need transparency, openness and the hard-nosed professional cost-benefit analysis of the network and the individual projects to common criteria. While I do not know whether this country has the technical and professional experience and know-how to complete the kind of analysis required of projects of this size, we must buy it in before we get much further with any of the projects. For instance the metro is a very expensive project that needs the technical, professional and financial input that was never required for any previous project. We must learn from the mistakes that were made with the port tunnel, which will end up costing twice what it should have cost.

Today will see the announcement of the Dublin transport authority. This time last year we criticised Transport 21 as being a list into which no prior preparation had been put. It had no body to drive it forward, co-ordinate the projects or decide their priorities. Hurriedly the Minister announced the following day that he would appoint a Dublin transport authority. As further proof of how little thought went into it, he then asked Professor O'Mahony to go away and come back in a few weeks to tell him what the body would do. Twelve months later we understand the report is to be published. We still do not have the body or the legislation and projects are proceeding. It is no wonder that projects are proceeding without co-ordination between them. The agencies are clamouring for favour for their particular projects. Rows are ongoing between the agencies over, for instance, integrated ticketing and road space with Dublin Bus fighting with the RPA over road space. These unnecessary tensions exist because no overarching body is looking after the public good rather than the good of individual agencies.

The long-promised transportation authority is needed to integrate, prioritise and co-ordinate all the projects and to at least ensure they are not competing with one and other. It needs to be strong, professional and most of all independent of the agencies to ensure the interests of consumers and not the providers are put to the fore.

I am very conscious of the experience that has been built up in the various agencies, the CIE group, the DTO and the RPA. I hope the best of that can be maintained in the body to be announced today. However, we will need to bring in outside expertise for the management of major projects. I would prefer to see someone from outside the existing agencies heading up the new body. The DTO is the only body with experience in modelling. It has the expertise and has completed the training. It can provide validity to the other agencies' projects because it is respected and known to be the only body with that modelling expertise. It is important that expertise is not dissipated in the clean sweep that may occur. We have not heard the detail but I hope the expertise of all the bodies can be subsumed into the new transportation authority. Decisions must be made on a professional basis and not on the basis of who shouts loudest. Nor can we allow expensive projects to go ahead, as we have done in the past, simply because they have reached the stage where they have taken on a life of their own.

The port tunnel is a case in point. It may have a great purpose but nobody knows what it is. When the eastern bypass project was dropped, the port tunnel had reached the stage where nobody could make the decision to stop it; it had taken on a life of its own. It is now effectively serving only Dublin Port for trucks and the decision has been made to move the port, which was the justification for the tunnel in the first place. That makes little sense, particularly when we consider other infrastructure projects that are going ahead throughout this city. I do not know if the incinerator in Ringsend will go ahead — it is being talked about — but the tunnel is on the north side. The two baling stations for the entire Dublin region will be on the south side. That does not make much sense. There is a lack of co-ordination.

I understand it is planned to publish the legislation before Christmas but it must be passed and the body set up on a statutory basis as quickly as possible to ensure there is no waste in these projects, that priorities are established and that we do not have two major works as in the case of the port tunnel which, when finished, will direct traffic on to the M50 just when it is being dug up. We need a strong body to ensure that type of scenario does not happen in the future and that we get the best value for money in projects such as integrated ticketing. That must be a priority for the Dublin transport authority. I ask the Minister to ensure, when he announces the details of this body today, that he moves immediately to set up a shadow authority so that the work of co-ordination, integration and prioritisation can proceed with speed.

Ms Shortall

I share the views expressed about the purpose of this debate. It is disappointing that the Minister has not shown up for it. This is a major project costing a vast amount of public funding and it is a pity that he could not take the time to come into the House for the debate. It would appear that this slot for statements on Transport 21 is more about plugging a gap in the Dáil schedule and covering up the fact that the Government does not have legislation to produce than having a debate on what is required in the transport area in future years.

The Labour Party welcomed the publication of Transport 21 in so far as it goes. We welcome the approach taken in that there is a commitment to invest substantial public moneys in our transport system over a ten-year period and there is a roll-over programme in that we do not continue the stop-go approach to funding we have seen in recent years. To that extent we welcome it, but the Labour Party has a number of reservations about the approach taken in Transport 21 and the selection and timing of a number of the projects.

There is a shocking lack of detail in the list of projects. There are no costings on any of the individual projects. The Minister continues to refuse to publish the traffic modelling work which underpins the Transport 21 plans. We are told that modelling work was undertaken by the DTO but to date we have seen no evidence of that. There does not appear to be any justification for the Minister's continual refusal to provide that basic information. Members of the Dáil, and the public as taxpayers, are entitled to know the basis on which the Government decided to select the projects it selected. Why did it select certain projects over others? What is the basis for its proposed phasing of those projects?

We are talking about a massive amount of taxpayers' money and taxpayers have the right to know the reason the Government selected those projects, whether the costs stack up, whether it makes economic sense to proceed with them and whether there are cost benefit analyses that show a positive return for the economy. Unfortunately, there is no information on that. Further, there is no information on the way cost overruns are to be addressed, given the bad experience in the past of major transport and other projects ending up costing multiples of what was originally estimated. I expect the Minister would have at least examined the mechanisms that could be put in place to ensure, first, that robust cost benefit analyses were carried out at the outset and, second, that a mechanism was put in place to ensure cost overruns could be controlled as the project developed.

In the past, an early cost benefit analysis was done on major projects such as this one. At that point the estimate of the cost of the project might be X million euro but as the project went on there was no control on cost overruns. In some cases — this applies to roads projects — the original estimates were completely off-beam. Changes were then made to the contract, the specification was changed and so on and the project, as it proceeded, increased in cost.

There does not appear to be any mechanism in place to keep those projects under ongoing review. There is no doubt that in the case of some projects in the past, if at some point half way through the planning of a project or before the contract was awarded a cost benefit analysis was done, it may have shown a negative return on that investment. It is a question of being careful with what are vast sums of public money.

For any of the projects in the transport area, whether it is a public transport project or a roads project, we are talking about vast sums of money. That is why there is an even greater requirement on Government to have in place mechanisms to ensure that the costs are kept in control and that there is a constant evaluation of the return to the Exchequer on that investment, right up to the point where the contract is being awarded. So far, however, there is no indication that any of those lessons have been learned from the past and that there are new systems in place to deal with that problem, which has been prevalent in respect of public projects in the past decade or so.

The Transport 21 plan has come far too late. We are now at the point where, on any day in the city of Dublin, one is liable to be faced with gridlock. We are no longer talking about particular peak times in the day or year, or busy times coming up to Christmas. There is an ongoing problem with traffic congestion throughout the day and the year. It is a bit rich for the Government to come along, after nine years in power, with a plan to deal with congestion and transport when the problem has been allowed to deteriorate to its current point. We know now that the average speed in Dublin is seriously declining. The last count put average speeds at 10 mph. Dublin Bus has highlighted that average bus speeds during the morning peak have dropped 11% in the past four years — they are now at the 12 km/h mark. We all know that if it rains on any given day, traffic grinds to a halt.

In a modern society and economy, which we claim to have, it is intolerable that we are on such a knife-edge that a little rain can bring traffic to a standstill. It is clear that, over many years, there has been a complete lack of forward planning in respect of land use and the formation of the transport links required if houses are to be built to the extent they have been in recent years. The Government is now attempting to play catch-up, but will do so over the next ten years. Circumstances are bad at present and there is very little prospect that they will improve in the foreseeable future under Transport 21.

While I very much welcome the inclusion of the rail interconnector proposal and the emphasis on rail transport in Transport 21, it is a serious mistake to place the rail interconnector so far down the schedule. It is not to be in place until 2015, at the earliest. Of all the transport projects spoken about over the past 20 years, the interconnector project is probably the most significant. The initial investment will deliver a very significant return in terms of additional capacity and it will provide relief for the entire greater Dublin area and all the surrounding commuter counties. It can be achieved reasonably quickly and very cost-effectively.

It is important to note that, unlike private sector operations and many public sector operations, Irish Rail has delivered great improvements to date, particularly in respect of safety. These have entailed the replacement of a vast quantity of tracks and the delivery of many new rail cars. All the projects Irish Rail carried out over the past decade have been delivered within budget and on time. This is a remarkable record. Given the company's project management experience, which is second to none, there is no doubt that it could deliver the rail interconnector very quickly, perhaps within the next three years, if it were afforded priority in Transport 21. The Government's placing of the project at the end of the schedule is a very serious mistake and is regrettable. It is delaying a potentially considerable expansion of rail capacity. Irish Rail serves many thousands of commuters on a daily basis.

The Labour Party is also concerned that the Minister still has no policy whatsoever on rail freight. From economic, environmental and social perspectives, there is an urgent need to tackle this problem. We are all familiar with the many cities, villages and towns throughout the country that are brought to a standstill frequently because of large numbers of articulated trucks trundling through their streets which were never intended for such heavy traffic.

We know from accident statistics that trucks are disproportionately involved in fatal accidents and have an environmental cost in terms of wear and tear of the roads. The Government really needs to draw up a policy on how we can encourage industry to switch from road transport to rail freight. There are many good reasons for doing so. This important area has been completely ignored in Transport 21.

The traffic congestion associated with the school run is very significant. We all know how much congestion lessens in cities and towns when the schools are on holidays. This is a critical problem and requires attention. It is another problem that has been ignored in Transport 21.

I am concerned that Transport 21 seems to reflect existing regional developmental imbalances. Rather than act as a mechanism for rebalancing the skewed development that has featured all along the eastern seaboard at the expense of the west, Transport 21 does very little. It reflects the mindset that has been evident in the Department of Transport over recent years to the effect that priority has been afforded to roads and train and bus routes to and from Dublin. Adequate consideration has not been given to the need to have better connectivity between cities and towns outside the Dublin region.

The main criticism of Transport 21 was probably that the Government had no plan whatsoever to deliver on the various projects contained therein. Both sides of the House have recognised for many years that we very much lack a centralised transport authority to deal with projects in the Dublin area or nationally. There is no point announcing a long list of very expensive transport projects unless there is a body or authority charged with delivering them. When the Minister was criticised in this regard this time last year, when he announced Transport 21, he very quickly attempted to correct his mistake. Only after announcing a budget for the projects amounting to almost €35 billion did it occur to him that he might need an authority to deliver them. Deputy Olivia Mitchell referred to the long delays in this regard. Professor Margaret O'Mahony was appointed to produce a report and gave it to the Minister last March, yet we are only discussing it in November.

Today's newspapers state the Minister is to make some announcement on this matter this afternoon. That is probably why he is not present. It would be more appropriate for him to be in the House to tell us what he has in mind. Some 12 months after Transport 21 was first announced, there is still no body or authority to deliver the projects.

I gather from newspaper reports that the Minister is to announce a transport authority for Dublin today. I certainly hope he has taken on board the comments and criticisms made over many years on the delivery of projects. I hope the Dublin transport authority will have a role in respect of land use. It makes no sense whatsoever to divorce land use from transport. I hope there is very clear, democratic involvement by public representatives and local authorities in the authority and that it does not end up as a white elephant in terms of regulation. It has been estimated that if a separate body such as the Dublin transport authority assumed full responsibility for the bus market, it could cost approximately €35 million per year. There should be light-touch regulation. Dublin Bus has a very good network in place and it has expertise. The Dublin transport authority should concern itself with benchmarking Dublin Bus's costs rather than setting up a new layer of administration and engaging in a very expensive regulation process. We want a body that will deliver the projects which are planned, first and foremost. It should also be accountable, it should have democratic involvement and it should have a clear role in land use.

Mr. Cuffe

I would like to share time with Deputies Catherine Murphy and Crowe.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Cuffe

I am filling in for my colleague, Deputy Eamon Ryan. When I was sitting in my office earlier today, trying to come to grips with Transport 21, I asked the people who were with me what exactly is in the plan. One of the Green Party's researchers, Ms Sue Duke, said that there is nothing in it. That sums it up, in essence. There is nothing in Transport 21 — it is a case of smoke and mirrors.

When I recall the transport debates which took place in Dublin ten, 15 and 20 years ago, I remember that substantial plans, with timetables and costings, were proposed at that time. There was clarity rather than the puff of smoke that the Minister, Deputy Cullen, seems to leave around him every time he makes an announcement. The Government will be remembered for its guff and fluff — statements which mean nothing and promises which have not been delivered on — rather than for its completion of infrastructural projects.

The Navan rail link, for example, was promised on the eve of the election in 1997 and again in 2002, but it has not been delivered. It was promised again during the by-election campaign in County Meath a couple of years ago. When I stood on the rail bed of the Navan line last Saturday, I noticed that grass was growing up through the tracks. The railway station in the heart of Navan is boarded up. The Minister for Transport believes all our problems will be solved if we develop motorways left, right and centre. He is proposing to build motorways to the north, south, east and west of us, including in the Tara-Skryne valley. At least two thirds, if not four fifths, of the transport capital funds are being invested in roads. Rather than providing for sustainability, the Minister is deceiving himself about what will benefit Ireland.

The Taoiseach has recently discovered an interest in the works of Mr. Robert Putnam, particularly Bowling Alone, but he does not understand the point that Mr. Putnam makes. The manner in which Fianna Fáil is building this country is leading to social isolation and the breakdown of families. It is forcing people to commute to and from their places of work for up to four hours a day. The Government, which should be building communities in which people are closer together, is helping to create the problems I have mentioned. People should be within walking distance of churches, shops and pubs, but instead they are being shoved into their cars morning, noon and night. That is the essence of what Fianna Fáil is doing wrong in its transport policy. One can set aside the lack of costings and clear economic analysis of its plans because the real problem is that Fianna Fáil believes that our traffic problems will be solved by the construction of more roads.

I implore the Government to rediscover the dusty old volumes produced by the Dublin transportation initiative over ten years ago. I was privileged to sit on one of the initiative's committees. Even now, the Government is not delivering on what was proposed back then. It is unable to join the two Luas lines in the centre of Dublin. It cannot do any more than talk about the great things it will do if it is given the time to do them. The Government has been in office for the best part of the last generation, but it has yet to sort out the traffic problems in Dublin. I ask the Government to re-examine its public transport strategy. It should consider buying sufficient buses to fill the empty bus lanes in Dublin so that people can enjoy a reliable and efficient public transport service.

The Government should reflect on the success of the Luas, which has carried an untold number of people safely, cleanly and efficiently to date. It should try to repeat that success elsewhere in Dublin and in other towns around Ireland. I saw a paraplegic man on the Luas the other day. He was operating his wheelchair with a stick in his mouth. He is able to get on the Luas, go where he wants and come back again. The development of the Luas has given that man some freedom. We need more services like the Luas, which has been a huge boost not only for people with disabilities, but also for parents who are trying to bring their children to and from the city centre and for older people who find it hard to get on and off buses. We need more systems now like the Luas, such as the proposed metro system.

Every time there is a damned announcement of a new plan like Transport 21, Platform for Change or whatever is the flavour of the month, I am reminded of the need for the Government to get off its high horse and do the work that is needed. Rather than pontificating about what needs to be done, it should deliver the services that are needed. I ask Ministers to read about what is going on abroad. It makes much more sense to invest in public transport than in roads, particularly in urban areas. The thinking in this regard has moved on since the era of Seán Lemass. The current debate is about the type of public transport in our cities, rather than about the construction of new roads to solve the problem.

Mr. Crowe

A television advertisement that has been running for a while shows a man pulling up in his car to ask an elderly country man for directions. At the end of the advertisement, the elderly man tells him: "If I was going there, I would not start from here." Such a comment could be applied to this country's transport difficulties — if one was looking on from afar, one would not want to start from here. The level of congestion and overcrowding on our roads has never been as bad. Members of the bus unions in Dublin have told me about the problems they face in trying to get from A to B at certain times of the day and year.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell spoke about the difficulties of many people in getting to school. We do not seem to be able to tackle the many problems of this nature. The work being done on our roads network is adding to these problems. Many people in my constituency are suffering as a result of the state of the M50, which is a giant car park. This is an issue that divides people. The lucky people who are not stuck in traffic every day do not really understand the grief and frustration experienced every morning, day in day out, by those who are trying to get on with their lives by going to work, dropping the kids to school or going to the shops but instead face the difficulties I have mentioned.

There are some good proposals in Transport 21. My colleague, Deputy Cuffe, spoke about the redevelopment of the derelict Navan railway line. There is enough money in the country to fund such reconstruction of infrastructure. The pursuit of that proposal is way down the track, however — no pun intended. In the case of the western rail corridor, which is in the local area of the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, the existing line is there to be developed. It seems that we will not actually move ahead with it for another ten, 20 or 30 years, which does not make sense to me. The development of the Navan line would assist many people in the Meath-Dublin area who have to cope with the giant car parks I have mentioned. Their lives would be transformed overnight if we were to use the available infrastructure to its full potential, but that is not being done. We are continuing to facilitate the private car as a means of transport, rather than seeking to address the overall problems in this regard.

Greater emphasis needs to be placed on public transport. Other speakers have referred to the Minister's announcement of a further 100 buses for Bus Átha Cliath as an example of the Government's success in this area. This is another example of delays in keeping a promise. We were told that the delays were caused by the desire of the Progressive Democrats to privatise a larger section of the bus market. Many difficulties are continuing while people are crying out for more public transport. It is ridiculous that people have to sit in lanes of traffic while bus corridors are not being used.

Some Members spoke about the Luas. I tried to take the Luas on Sunday night and the machine at the station gave me a ticket. However, the service stops at 11.30 p.m, which is ridiculous. Sixty people were standing at the tramway in Abbey Street and the machine kept churning out tickets on receipt of money, but the intelligent sign system was not working and did not inform us what was going on. Such a vital piece of infrastructure should be used until 2 a.m or even 3 a.m. when people need it.

There is an over-reliance on trucks and less freight is being moved by rail. There is a possibility of using rail for freight from our ports and this might take some of the HGVs off our already congested roads. For truck drivers who currently transport our valuable freight, it is unacceptable that proper facilities and services are unavailable on motorways.

I do not see any major improvements coming from this incompetent plan that is being put forward. In fact, things look like they will get worse.

Ms C. Murphy

If delivery of all components of the public transport element of Transport 21 in Dublin and the surrounding counties occurred in the next couple of years, there would be reason for optimism about the current crisis. However, the more critical components are ten years' away, such as the interconnector that will remove 750,000 daily commuters from the roads. I have been in favour of the interconnector for years as a former member of panels of the Dublin transportation initiative and the Dublin Transportation Office. I have never understood why it has such a low priority given the benefit it would bring. Money spent expanding our rail network, especially in urban areas, is a very solid strategic investment as long as it is spent in the right location and the costs are reasonable. A decent cost-benefit analysis of these must be made. There has been a significant shortage of specifics for many of the projects outlined in Transport 21, even though most of them have merit.

Given that these serious investments will be in the long term, my concern is what can be done in the short term. I was appalled by recent developments. There is an emergency every day for many people and the only response is bus-based. About 14% of public transport use is by bus while 4% is by rail. This is obviously due to the extent of the rail available and the bus is clearly the work horse of the public transport system. However, we only got 100 buses this year when 200 were proposed following a network review.

On 3 May 2006, the Minister for Transport informed the Dáil that he wanted to see not alone the 200 buses required going to Dublin Bus, but the private sector adding significantly to the capacity. However, there was a row between the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil over the summer and the number was reduced to 100 buses. The other 100 buses will be considered when the new transport authority is in place. The legislation to develop this authority will probably not be brought before the Houses until the autumn of next year, so it is likely that the other 100 buses will not be added until 2008.

In a written reply to a parliamentary question, I was told that 27 licences were issued to private operators for new routes under the 1932 Act. I was also told that there is no obligation on any of those operators to have integrated ticketing, which is part of Transport 21. Instead of a coherent service, we are getting further fragmentation. I live in an area which has two providers and the routes coincide in locations. There are separate bus stops, separate timetables and separate ticketing. One has to stand between the two bus stops and decide which one is coming. What happens if a dozen operators exist in the same place? There will be nothing but chaos. We are going back to a pre-1932 scenario. Private bus providers must negotiate with Dublin City Council and the Garda for a city centre bus stop and terminal space, and such spaces are at a premium.

Instead of hundreds of new buses and a whole range of new routes, especially in areas where there are thousands of new homes, we are getting a fragmented approach. Services such as feeder buses and parking spaces go hand in hand to encourage rail use. The Maynooth rail service is called the Calcutta express, which describes it very well. People come from Longford and Enfield and park in the streets and housing estates of Maynooth. Nobody wants to live there because it has become absolutely intolerable. These are short-term issues that must be examined. Some bins are not being collected and emergency vehicles are not getting in and out.

The train service on the Maynooth line is so overcrowded that it has become dangerous. There is some additional rolling stock intended for delivery, but that needed to happen years ago. There are eight stations after Maynooth, but one cannot get a seat at that stage. One can get a seat on the peak-time trains on the Kildare line in Celbridge if one gets on at the back of the train. The people at the front of the train are those who make the hundred-yard dash for the Luas. That is how people are living their lives. We must provide a public transport system that makes it attractive for people to leave their cars at home.

In regard to the institutional arrangements, will we see a repeat of the creation of the National Roads Authority over which there is no democratic control? The authority must be elected and delivery is a key element. The big impediment to the M50 is the addition of heavy goods vehicles following their removal from the city centre. This will turn every road network outside the M50 into total gridlock. Something can be done about this if the Government lifts the tolls, but there is no commitment to do it. There is an emergency out there so we need to see an emergency response. It must be part of Transport 21, but I do not see it.

Mr. O’Connor

I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this important debate on Transport 21. I am always happy to follow Deputy Catherine Murphy because when she mentions every street in her constituency, it means I can mention Tallaght the odd time. Many of us note that Deputy Olivia Mitchell finds it possible to support some of the Minister's work. I was driving into work today — sometimes I cannot use the Luas — and I was following a bus into which I nearly crashed. It had an advertisement with Fine Gael faces that I do not recognise, although somebody told me that one of the faces was from Tallaght.

Ms O. Mitchell

The Deputy will know all about them.

Mr. O’Connor

I noticed that Deputy Mitchell's face was not on the advertisement. Can she tell me when she will be on it? I would love to see how she looks on the back of a bus.

I hope the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuiv, takes the opportunity to tell the Minister for Transport that there is much appreciation of the effort he is making on transport infrastructure. I come from a bygone era in Dublin and I remember horses, trams and going back and forth to Crumlin on the bus service. I knew Crumlin in a different era to the Deputy.

I understand the challenges of public transport, and there is no question that there have been many positive developments recently. I admit that on some days I must drive in to attend the House owing to other business. There are undoubtedly challenges regarding the roads and this morning I found it difficult to get into the city centre.

There are several answers and public transport is certainly one. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will know that I suffered a health scare some seven years ago and the cardiac rehabilitation unit in Tallaght would always wish me to point out that we should all be walking as much as possible. Like everyone else, I fail to walk enough. However, I try, and I also endeavour to use public transport. I am glad there has been so much progress in that regard in the Dublin region and the city. I find the Minister's plans very exciting.

Some Members will be aware that I live in Tallaght, the third-largest population centre in the country. I represent Dublin South-West, which includes not only Tallaght but such rural areas as Brittas and Bohernabreena, as well as other urban areas such as Firhouse, Templeogue and Greenhills. Many people talk about transport and while some of those areas are extremely well served, others are not. I do not know the degree of frustration felt in trying to secure public transport in Wexford, but even in a major population centre such as Tallaght, we suffer difficulties.

The Luas service has been absolutely tremendous. I was glad to note during the week that the number of Luas passengers on the red line had reached 50 million, a tremendous boost to my town. People are clearly using the service to enter the city from Tallaght, but many others are going out to Tallaght. I have always made the point that it needs that transport infrastructure, since there are many things that people can do. They can visit the Square, the civic centre, the National Basketball Arena, the hospital, and all the facilities that one would expect. Transport infrastructure should keep pace.

I was absolutely delighted the Government was able to announce the extension of the Luas service beyond the Square to the Tallaght west estates, Saggart and Citywest. I am often in Citywest, which is just outside my constituency. The crowd at the Ard-Fheis proved yet again how Citywest can attract such conferences, something I expect to continue. People will be able to come from the country and other parts of the city, jump on the Luas, go through Tallaght, stop for a few minutes and go out to such places as Saggart and Citywest. It is a good use of public transport, and the Minister should be applauded in that regard.

Like other colleagues, I am unable to understand why Dublin Bus keeps telling us that the success of Luas in my region means it cannot develop its services further. I ask the Minister of State to make that point to the Minister. I contact Dublin Bus every day about bus services in Tallaght. I remind Members that it is the third-largest population centre in the country, with a great many new communities having sprung up even in the last five or six years, but one cannot get a bus.

Dublin Bus maintains that the success of Luas means it cannot develop bus services. That is absolute nonsense. I am no marketing expert, but I can see the worth of developing a service around the Luas. One could jump on a bus in an estate such as Westbrook or any other in west Tallaght, Ballycullen or Kiltipper Road. Many people from outside Tallaght have come because they have heard the good news about it. Now they find getting public transport, especially peak-time buses, challenging. Dublin Bus should sort the matter out and do something positive.

The first thing I do every Thursday morning is read the Tallaght Echo. Today, there is a story about Firhouse, which is not a new community. It has been there for ever, and those houses that need bus services are well established. However, they cannot get a decent service at any time of the day, particularly peak hours, whether they wish to go into the city centre, the college or the Square in Tallaght. I am delighted with the progressive attitude shown by the Minister, Deputy Cullen, and it is important that we support that and work through the issues. However, that is really not good enough and regardless of whether we wish to be positive in any discussion on Transport 21, we must also say that something needs to be done.

I hope my constituency receives plenty of the shiny new buses when they arrive, since many people are using them. When Deputy Crowe spoke, he reminded me that we two are colleagues on the community bus forum, which is based in Killinarden in Tallaght. Each month we meet the gardaí, the local authority, community groups and Dublin Bus management and unions to ensure the safety of bus services. I made a commitment to it that at every available opportunity I would make the point that new buses must be provided to Tallaght and elsewhere in the Dublin region. Other colleagues will talk of their regions, but I wish to make the case for mine.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will know that the Minister has facilitated us on several occasions when through Adjournment debates and other Dáil business we raised the threat to bus services in such places as Tallaght. I am always sensitive about the fact that Tallaght is no different from anywhere else. My colleagues, Deputies Mulcahy and Martin Brady, represent areas that are also often picked on regarding such issues.

The communities in our areas are absolutely entitled to a bus service. Where people break the law, act like morons and threaten the bus service, the company and unions should not give in to them. The last thing we should do is withdraw bus services from any community. Whatever the problems, they should be dealt with and Dublin Bus has a particular obligation to work in conjunction with gardaí and the community to ensure buses keep running.

I will never accept a situation where, simply because people threaten buses or crews, which I absolutely condemn, we allow the bus service to be withdrawn. That is the last thing we should be doing. That should not happen in O'Connell Street or anywhere in the Dublin region. I hope I have the support of the House and the Minister for Transport in saying that. I hope the Minister of State will take a note of this and relate my stance to the Minister, Deputy Cullen. I will continue to make that point, and I will never give in on the subject.

There are things that one must say and criticisms one can level. However, I have been particularly energised by the Minister's work on Transport 21. We are headed in the right direction. I have reached an age where I am no longer able to walk to Tallaght every day, but I am happy to use public transport and we should be doing everything possible to support it. I look forward to giving the Minister my continued backing. He is doing a good job and, despite what some people say, delivering daily.

Mr. Browne

He mentioned Tallaght 25 times.

Mr. Crawford

I welcome the opportunity to speak on a very important initiative and say in praise that work on the M1 from Dublin to Belfast, which is linked to my county, Monaghan, through Ardee, is an example of how proper infrastructure can transform opportunities for us. The M1 and, one hopes, the port tunnel will facilitate those in the north east getting into Dublin to do their business.

I wish to comment on tolling, an issue raised several times in the House recently. Only this Monday, I travelled from Monaghan via the M1 toll bridge, and, using Eazy Pass, I was able to drive through at approximately 25 mph to 30 mph, slowing down enough to allow the machine to work. However, when I went through the M50, the machine had to wait until the toll bar had gone up and down twice. In this day and age, how can they not transfer the services available on the M1 to the M50, which is a much busier road, thus encouraging people to use an Eazy Pass system? There is something scandalously wrong when such a matter cannot be dealt with in a simple way.

Another issue about which I become annoyed on driving into the city revolves around empty bus corridors. I do not understand why people should be obliged to sit in their cars on roads that are jammed with traffic while the bus lanes on those roads remain empty. Those involved in operating the Dublin transport system must give consideration to this matter. If one considers the position in Canada and other countries throughout the world, one will discover that ways to circumvent this problem have been found.

In Canada, for example, vehicles containing three or more people are entitled to use bus lanes. If park and ride facilities were available along the M50, many people could park on the outskirts and use buses to travel into the city. This would ease many of the traffic jams in the city. These are simple initiatives and it is impossible to understand why the Government does not take action in respect of them. I understand that Operation Freeflow will come back into effect in the coming days. If action such as that to which I refer was taken, traffic would be much more free-flowing.

I welcome the extension of the M1 towards the Border. I wish to comment on a number of issues relating to the Border in light of the St. Andrews Agreement and on the possibility of funding from the UK and Irish Governments in this regard. One of the best ways to cement the agreement and the entire peace process in place is to create an environment in which transport can move, industry can prosper and tourism is given an edge.

There is an urgent need to exert pressure at European level to ensure that the transport link between Belfast and Carlisle, which provides road access to England and, beyond it, Europe, is improved. The road from Stranraer to Carlisle is totally unacceptable as a trans-European link. It is the Government's job to press, within EU structures, for it to be upgraded.

The figure of €34.4 billion sounds impressive, but I am concerned about the lack of transparency and information regarding the costings involved with Transport 21. The Minister indicated that it is becoming the practice for many new roads to be completed on budget and ahead of schedule. The Monaghan bypass came to public notice for more than one reason, but on the day it was opened it was not finished. When the figures relating to the construction of this road are totted up, I am certain that it will not be on budget. It is actually impossible to discover what is the budget in respect of the Monaghan bypass.

It is more than ten years since Monaghan County Council proceeded with plans for three bypasses at Carrickmacross, Castleblayney and Monaghan town. This shows the importance of proper strategic planning. The council was condemned at the time for employing consultants to oversee all three projects. However, the Carrickmacross bypass is completed, the part at Monaghan town is usable and the Castleblayney road is well on track. The only matter to which I would refer in respect of the latter is the hesitation on the part of the Government, through the county councils, to deal fairly with property owners.

The cost of property has increased dramatically in recent years, but old systems are still being used to finalise property deals. Many people are extremely annoyed about that fact. As the budget approaches, I beg the Government to take action to replace the commitments it gave at the last election to the former president of the IFA — he is now Minister of State at the Department of Finance — Deputy Parlon, that funding from the roll-over tax would be made available. This never happened because the tax was discontinued.

I emphasise the need for the N2 to be continued through Emyvale. I understand that progress is being made in this regard. However, in light of the peace process, we must ensure that North-South institutions work together to continue that road through Tyrone and on to Derry. The latter is the fourth largest city on the island of Ireland and the N2 link is vital not just for the sake of Dublin and Derry, but also for that of north-west Donegal. It is vital that the action I have outlined is taken.

The Government must state clearly how it will work with UK and Northern Ireland political personnel on projects relating to all cross-Border routes. I refer here to national primary roads that run from north to south and east to west. The road from Belfast to Galway through Monaghan must be made a priority, as must the extension to the Belfast-Sligo route. It is over 20 years since the latter was extended to Dungannon, but it has never been extended to Enniskillen and places further west. Matters of this nature must be dealt with in the current discussions. The road from Dundalk through Cullaville to Castleblayney includes the dangerous Ballynacarry Bridge. It is vital that this fairly short link is upgraded to ensure that it is made safe and that lives are saved.

Previous speakers referred to the good old days. I am old enough to remember the railway line that ran through my family's farm. That line was completely removed. However, a line to Kingscourt in Cavan remains in place but the section of it that runs into Monaghan is closed. It is scandalous that this line is not included under Transport 21. There is a proposal to bring it to Dunboyne and eventually on to Navan. The railway line to Kingscourt, with park and ride facilities provided, could transform the lives of many people who are obliged to commute to and from Dublin and ease the pressure on their families.

The situation relating to rail infrastructure in the north west is unacceptable. There are no railway lines in counties Cavan, Monaghan, Fermanagh or Donegal. I suggest that, at the very least, a feasibility study be carried out in this regard to ensure that value for money is obtained.

The N3, which runs from Dublin to Navan, Cavan and on through Fermanagh to Donegal, is a vital link and it must be given priority. The latter does not appear to be the case at present. A number of Oireachtas colleagues met representatives of Cavan County Council recently and were informed that major delays continue to obtain in respect of the Belturbet section of that road, on which many deaths have occurred in recent years. There is also a delay on the Meath section of the Virginia bypass. It is vital that such matters are dealt with and resolved. I understand that the Castleblayney bypass will be a three-lane road, with two lanes on one side and one on the other. The relevant authorities are considering making the Virginia bypass a four-lane road, which is vital. Many questions arise in respect of the three-lane model and I am glad that the Virginia bypass, even if its completion is delayed, is constructed as a four-lane road. The N3 is extremely important because it provides access to Cavan, Enniskillen and Donegal.

The situation relating to Enniskillen is important in the context of the St. Andrews Agreement. There is an urgent need for a bridge across the Erne there to release the traffic. If that was done, it would leave enormous potential for different routes to be considered as the best route for an east-west road from Dundalk along the route of the old railway line. I urge that, in discussions with the Northern Ireland authorities, the matter would be dealt with sympathetically.

There is an opportunity to cement the Good Friday Agreement and what is now known as the St. Andrews Agreement. I urge the Government, in the next few days — not months — to ensure that it comes forward publicly with whatever form the proposed package will take and state clearly what funds and infrastructure will be involved. Obviously, it will include the likes of the Ulster Canal, but that will not come under Transport 21. These issues are vital and could be the means of bringing forward and cementing a lasting peace, for which many of us have yearned long before we ever entered this House.

Mr. Mulcahy

With the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's permission, I will share my time with Deputy Callanan.

I also congratulate the Minister and the Government on Transport 21. I was privileged to attend its launch this time last year in Dublin Castle. It is an ambitious plan and I believe it will be implemented.

I call on members of the Opposition to stop mealy-mouthing this plan. I am not saying the previous speaker did, but, in general, there has been a mealy-mouth response to it. They should get behind it because the public, by and large, want this ambitious plan implemented in the national interest.

There are a few key points I wish to make about the plan. There is no point going over all the detail of it, although I congratulate my colleague, Deputy O'Connor, on mentioning Tallaght at least 22 or 24 times. I will not mention Ballyfermot, Crumlin or Drimnagh 24 times. I just reiterate the good news that there is a new Luas line planned for Lucan which will go through Ballyfermot. The Minister is looking at a feasibility study for a Luas line to Terenure. There is good news for my constituency, but I do not really want to speak about that today.

I wish to address a recent controversy on transport. The ESRI stated a few days ago that we have all this money and all these plans, but if we try to do it all too quickly, we might raise inflation which could be problematic. I wish to give my rebuttal clearly here to the ESRI — the public is impatient for the implementation of this plan. The public does not want to wait until the next recession before being able to drive to the west quickly. The public does not want to wait another ten years for proper commuter facilities to the suburbs. The public does not want to wait until the next recession for a metro line to the north of this city and for the western corridor to be completed.

The public has been given a schedule with this plan. I have the schedule, covering from 2006 to 2015, that was given out last year and I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, to convey in the strongest possible terms the support of the House to the Minister for Transport to get on with this job and not be deflected by any mealy-mouthing from the Opposition or, indeed, from any negative criticism by the ESRI. This schedule is a good and ambitious one and it should be stuck to.

I agree with one point, which is made sometimes by members of the Opposition and sometimes by people on this side of the House. We should not go overboard on road tolling. There is a place for road tolling, but it should not be used everywhere. If one examines the finances of the State, there are large surpluses running and there is a large sum of money in the pension reserve fund. There is a strong argument to be made for using some of those capital resources to finish those road projects rather than giving those projects out to toll companies. I have no ideological hang-up about toll companies and, as I stated, they have their place, but let us not litter every highway with a tolling scheme. Let us use some of our capital resources to finish this project.

More generally, the disability issue should be given top priority in the Transport 21 plan. It is absolutely unacceptable that there are still buses which are inaccessible to the disabled in this city and in the suburbs. We should give a strict timetable whereby every bus in the State is fully accessible to the disabled. I led a campaign to make one of the Ballyfermot bus routes accessible to the disabled. In that area, there was a lady who had not been out of her house in ten years because she could not get on to a bus and that is unacceptable. I ask the Minister of State to convey to the Minister the message to put this matter at the top of the agenda. It will not happen overnight. Nothing happens overnight. One must be realistic, but I would like to think that in two or three years there would be a public announcement by the Minister that every bus, rail, DART, Luas and metro facility in the State is fully accessible to the disabled. In that regard, let us be ambitious, set ourselves a timeframe and, hopefully, live up to it.

This is only possible because of the economic progress. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, stated at the launch of Transport 21 that one of the assumptions of the plan is that the economy will grow over the medium term at close to its potential rate and that this implies an average real growth rate of approximately 4.5%. It is important that we keep the economy on track because if the economy is not doing well, it will not be possible to implement this transport plan. For that reason, I pay tribute to the Government in general for having an economy where this plan is feasible. I commend the Minister and I commend the plan and wish it well for the future.

Mr. Callanan

Transport 21 involves investment in transport infrastructure of in excess of €34 million over the ten-year period that covers the areas of national roads, public transport and regional airports. Never in my lifetime have I seen such investment in infrastructure and I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Cullen, and the Government in this regard.

This investment is shared all over the country. No matter where one drives at present, one will see significant programmes on our roads. County Galway shares this progress. The completion of the Loughrea bypass, a 4 km single carriageway, is a considerable asset to the town and I thank those involved. At present, there are many other schemes, such as the Galway city outer bypass, which is progressing to CPO and which is expected to proceed in 2006 at a cost of €3 million. The N6, between Galway and Ballinasloe, is being developed as a PPP project. The site clearance contracts have been procured and commenced in September 2006. The N6, between Athlone and Ballinasloe, is also in the planning stages. As I drive home, there is already a motorway to Kinnegad and I understand in January it will extend to Kilbeggan. We will carry on then with the upgrade of the N6, to Athlone and Ballinasloe. This will mean that the time involved in getting from the west to Dublin will be cut considerably. I am delighted with this; I never thought this type of roadway would be built in my lifetime.

On the Galway to Tuam road, the An Bord Pleanála hearing on a carriageway providing a bypass of Tuam concluded on 25 April and a decision is awaited. A CPO was published in 2005 for the N17 Castletown project, which involves the realignment and removal of poor junctions north of Tuam.

The Milltown to Mayo boundary project, involving 8 km of two-lane carriageway, is at the planning stage. The route selection report for the Athlone to Gort 27 km high quality dual-carriage is nearing completion, with investigations taking place at present. The Gort to Crusheen project is 22 km long and 50% of this would be in County Clare. However, a second entrance to Gort is crucial to that development. The current proposal, which provides for only one entrance, is not adequate.

I congratulate the Government on the western rail corridor. Many commentators said this was a dead duck and it would not be re-opened. However, work has commenced and I congratulate everybody involved. It will open up the west and allow isolated areas to come to the fore. Plots of land have been bought up near the stations on the old line and I am delighted the corridor is being re-opened.

The Ennis-Athenry section involves the introduction of scheduled train services between Limerick and Galway, the enhancement of existing commuter services between Ennis and Limerick and the development of the Galway commuter rail service between Galway and Athenry. This phase, with a capital cost of €106.5 million, involves the upgrading of 36 miles of track and associated infrastructure, the elimination of approximately 125 farm-accommodation crossings and the provision of five stations at Gort, Ardrahan and Craughwell on the Ennis-Athenry line, Sixmilebridge on the Limerick-Ennis line and Oranmore on the Athenry-Galway line.

Seven services a day in each direction are proposed between Limerick and Galway targeting commuters, as well as providing links to Intercity services from both cities. Construction is expected to commence in 2007 and the Government is on track to meet that target. The provision of new stations at Gort, Ardrahan, Craughwell, Oranmore and Sixmilebridge will facilitate more sustainable commuting patterns between these expanding satellite centres and Galway and Limerick. The project will also provide incentives for more sustainable and efficient land use planning by local authorities. In the context of considerable population growth projected for the area, the development of stations in existing centres should also facilitate improved land use planning on the part of the relevant local authorities. It will give commuters a strong rail link between Limerick and Galway, the country's third and fourth largest cities, and a key corridor under the national spatial strategy.

Those of us in the west used to look to Dublin a few years ago and say all the work was being provided there but we are delighted the tiger is moving towards the west and investment is taking place in roads between Dublin and Galway. I compliment everybody involved and I look forward to the opening of the western rail corridor and the completion of the dual carriageway between both cities.

Mr. M. Higgins

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Transport 21. While I am delighted I am following another western Member, I cannot manage the same level of congratulation regarding the prospects or achievements of Transport 21. Those of us who welcomed investment in transport infrastructure reasonably asked questions regarding the relative allocations under Transport 21. A more specific commitment to public transport is needed compared with the commitment to the road network. I wish to be constructive, irrespective of which Government takes decisions in this regard. It is revelatory that, while we have a National Roads Authority, we do not have a national transport authority. If such an authority were in place, it could be reasonably assumed it would deal with multimodal forms of transport.

Transport issues are not solely based on commercial factors nor are they simply defined in terms of time. Inevitably, all transport decisions are structured within the two parameters of time and space but a rights dimension to such decisions must be respected. A person who is too young, old or infirm to drive a car or who cannot afford a car has the right to communicate with other people. If it is accepted that one has a right to be in communication in one's society, this right should be implemented in a multimodal way. People walk, cycle, use taxis, drive private cars and take the train or bus. The clearest fact staring us in the face is that it is in everybody's interest, globally and domestically, to reduce the priority given to the private car in transport planning and to provide a greater space for pubic transport, through investment in buses, trains, taxis and multiple occupancy in private cars. This is important not only for the soundest environmental and ecological reasons but it also makes a great deal of sense in regard to waste.

I have had the honour of representing Galway for a long time and we are on the verge of a disastrous decision on public transport in the city. Given the lack of a national transport authority, I wish Members from the west would support an integrated regional approach to transport. There should be a regional transport authority to deal with, for example, Galway city and county. The previous speaker outlined a litany of road improvements in County Galway. However, Ceannt Station in Galway City sits on a 14-acre site. A former Minister for Transport wrote to CIE requesting an audit of its land so excess land could be sold. The 14-acre site in Galway is desperately needed to provide a hub for an integrated regional transport solution for the west. I agree with the previous speaker who was correct to welcome the development of the Sligo-Limerick connection. However, if commuter traffic by rail and bus increases, which is also welcome, bus lanes are introduced in Galway city and Connemara is linked to the other side of County Galway, Iarnród Éireann needs to retain ownership of that site to provide a proper terminus in the city. Currently, people using bus services struggle with their cases as they enter the station without shelter from the rain because they are fighting for space with people who have alighted from trains and are leaving the station. It is primitive in terms of its under provision.

An additional track will be laid to Galway and five or six bus bays will be added but it has been suggested the remainder of the site will be sold for retail and residential development, which is not needed in the city centre. A study was conducted, which highlighted that the last thing the city needs is another significant retail establishment because it would be developed at the cost of retail activity in satellite towns such as Tuam and Athenry. It is outrageous that there is no public discussion about a regional integrated approach to transport. Only two public meetings have been held and they were organised by the Labour Party. One was held in Oranmore and the other in the Great Southern Hotel, Galway, as a result of which it was proposed to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of a light rail proposal. Following that meeting, I wrote to the Minister for Transport. The Minister responded by stating that because such a proposal was not included in Transport 21, he had no intention of funding it. I received the same answer to a follow-up parliamentary question. Galway City Council passed a unanimous resolution asking for a study to be done on a light rail project, but it was refused. I welcome the possibility of CIE's involvement in this regard.

It is important for those of us with an interest in transport in the west to realise that more bus lanes are needed in Galway city. It is pathetic that a Minister of State opened an extension to a bus lane instead of granting permission for more lanes. An integrated multimodal transport provision is needed.

I agree with Deputy Callanan on another aspect, that is, if such a provision were made, stations were linked and there was a proper terminus, one would increase options for families who want to live near the new towns, reduce the amount of time a person spends locked in a car and make possible all sorts of educational opportunities. Balanced and better provisions relieve urban diseconomies and use rural infrastructure better. All of this is possible if there is proper planning, but nothing in Transport 21 refers to a regional approach to transport, a regional or national transport authority or whether priority will be given to public transport options, and whether the ratio between buses and rail services on the one hand and roads on the other will be changed.

Regarding the outrageous disposal of public property, CIE is not a property development company. Under the transport Acts, it is a public transport company and it is for this purpose that it owns land and sites across the country. The onus is on CIE to show what is surplus to public transport needs, but there has been no attempt to do so.

One lives with the real fear that sites in the ownership of CIE, the statutory public transport authority, will be sold on the market for purposes that have nothing to do with public transport. If such were to happen, there should be public consultation. If CIE goes ahead with its plans and pursues the realisation of the maximum commercial value of its sites, it will probably be operating ultra vires and should be challenged legally. CIE has a clear duty under the Acts to show its projected needs.

In Galway city, County Galway and Connacht, we want ease of access. We would all welcome the elimination of bottlenecks in the road network, but if one is to develop north-south access as described previously, one must do so in an integrated way. It would provide a wonderful opportunity to solve school transport problems. Not only does one make it possible for families to live in rural County Galway towns by enabling them to purchase sites, but one also makes it possible for them to send children to local schools, which assists significantly in terms of planning.

In the event of Ceannt Station in Galway city being surplus to public transport requirements, CIE's first duty should be to offer the site to the local authority for the provision of badly needed facilities. For example, Galway has no school of music or city art gallery — I could give a long list. The surplus space could be used for performances in summer and as an ice rink for youngsters in winter, a place of recreation that, unlike many others now being provided, is not steeped in alcohol.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy's time has concluded.

Mr. M. Higgins

I have spoken about the specific disaster that will stare us in the face if CIE does not decide to use all of its site for the provision of a long awaited, much needed, proper and regional-structured centre at Ceannt Station. I also made the case for integrated regional transport authorities and a national transport authority. While welcoming many of Transport 21's features, we should stress and valorise public transport by changing the ratio of investment in its favour for ecological, economic and social reasons.

Cecilia Keaveney

It is with mixed feelings that I discuss Transport 21. I agree with Deputy Michael Higgins regarding integration and the necessary regional approach. Perhaps it is for this reason that the north west has often failed to have lines on maps recognised, particularly in respect of transport infrastructure.

Unfortunately, a good, simple and clear reason for this is that most access to County Donegal is through a jurisdiction for which we cannot legislate or plan. Will those with influence over getting the Northern Executive up and running as soon as possible do so and avail of the significant funding offered by the British Chancellor, Mr. Gordon Brown, and our Government to try to raise Northern Ireland's roads to a certain standard? Donegal was frowned upon because of its poor road infrastructure, but the tide has turned. When one reaches the Border, one encounters worse infrastructure in the North. Infrastructural funding is key to our development. Unless the north west is seen as a region, with lines on maps that enter and exit it, things will go nowhere.

Cross-Border co-operation on the Dublin-Belfast motorway galled us, as did the Dublin-Galway, Dublin-Limerick, Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Waterford developments. We are looking forward to the new national development plan because we want the line on the map and we want the N2-A5 upgraded to motorway status. Significant improvements have been made to the road and Transport 21's national improvements will also benefit the people of County Donegal. To go anywhere in Donegal, usually one needs to leave the county.

It was with great amusement that people learned of our road to Waterford. Rather than the traditional route of taking the shortest way to Waterford, we will have a road that links us via the western and southern coasts. When visiting my brother in Cobh, I will be well served by a wonderful road network. While most people appreciate the benefits, such as tourists in County Kerry travelling as far as Donegal, most people want to be able to reach our capital city and want business people there to be able to access the north west as easily as anywhere else.

The Dublin-Derry-Letterkenny motorway is important. At this point, the 2+1 projections discussed with the NRA would improve the situation, but why should we not be provided with a motorway? Representatives of IBEC and the CBI with whom I spoke at a recent sub-committee meeting of the British-Irish Interparliamentary Body in Belfast supported the emphasis on Donegal. I pointed out that while most people emphasise the Dublin-Belfast corridor, it was time for business people to speak out on the western corridor's development, the A5 road in our case, as much as politicians do.

It is also important that the east-west link between Belfast and Letterkenny and beyond be developed, because the road's quality has diminished despite an increased number of people using it. The time required to get anywhere is substantially longer than it has been even recently. I hope the Letterkenny-Lifford expansion will be included in the development.

I do not understand why we cannot have a train system. I listened to my colleagues from the west extolling the virtues of the western rail corridor and I am disgusted with the fact Donegal, while it used to appear in some of the posters on the western corridor route, was never advocated as a place to which the train would go. What was wrong with the west, including Donegal? Donegal is usually included in campaigns relating to the west and we are in the western region for many other purposes. I cannot see any physical reason why a train cannot set out from Dublin and stop in Derry. We put substantial investment into the Enterprise service, which is excellent because it takes only two hours to get from Dublin to Belfast, and there is no reason we cannot look for cross-Border funding at European level to make further investment in the Derry-Belfast stretch and have a direct train service from Dublin to Derry. I do not rule out reopening some of the line into Donegal and ultimately having an all-Ireland service that would loop the country.

We want infrastructure so people can get about and so business people and tourists can access all areas. If a person buys an Interrail ticket in Europe or uses a student travel pass in Ireland he or she cannot get to Donegal by train. When I table parliamentary questions Ministers reply to the effect there are buses but we want trains, motorways and the ability to access locations as easily as in other parts of the country.

In the last national development plan we were not in a position to, if politically sensitive people pardon the expression, infiltrate the North with lines but the context is different now and the opportunity cannot be missed. As a recent example of this, at the Ard-Fheis the Taoiseach announced there would be a development of the Ulster Canal to link Coleraine, Dublin, Limerick and Waterford. If that project to join up a line is politically acceptable in the North then the rest of the Six Counties, having suffered from underdevelopment in regional infrastructure, must not be left out of the next national development plan, which I am assured is to be unveiled in the near future. It cannot be put on the long finger any more.

We should also recognise the fact we are an island. Given rising transport costs, so many lorries on the roads and the difficulties caused by an increasing number of cars, alternative methods of moving cargo should be explored. We should put more investment into the marine sector. Marine infrastructure should be part of our transport infrastructure and receive as much emphasis as other modes of transport.

I will introduce a parochial aspect. In the entire Inishowen Peninsula, in my constituency, there are no national primary routes and only a couple of miles of national secondary routes serving 30,000 people. The changes in the speed limits to 80 km/h mean we cannot move any faster throughout the peninsula. Safety is very important but people are trying to get around at the equivalent of 50 mph on roads which are of a generally high standard. There must be a way of upgrading the Inishowen 100 to national secondary level so we can bring the speed limit up to the equivalent of 60 mph. I would not ask for that if I was not confident that most of the road surfaces could absorb that speed. It is an important issue which must be progressed.

Investment in infrastructure will benefit locals, businesspeople and tourists alike. Investment in roads will help public transport and investment in the train service, no matter in what region, will indirectly impact everywhere else. The number of bypasses on the N2 have helped people get to and from Donegal. In the context of the current discussions on getting the executive up and running in Northern Ireland we must do what was outlined in the north west gateway initiative, namely planning and developing regionally and putting those lines on the map which for political or other reasons were not deemed sensible in the past. That has taken place with the Ulster Canal and motorways and a direct train service into the north west must follow.

Mr. Gogarty

I wish to share time with Deputies Ó Caoláin and Finian McGrath.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Gogarty

It is a year since I last spoke on this topic in the House. There has been a series of announcements in the past couple of years but nothing of great benefit to my constituents. My colleague, Deputy Eamon Ryan, has put forward reasons why Transport 21 is flawed and how we would do it differently. Deputy Cuffe spoke recently but I want to stick wholeheartedly to my constituency, because it is probably the most gridlocked part of the country. Bad planning by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Progressive Democrats councillors has led to a lot of houses being built with absolutely no facilities.

Mr. S. Power

The Deputy is happy to live in one of them, though.

Mr. Gogarty

From the N7 to the N4 to the Newcastle Road there is a gridlocked rectangle, a traffic island from one end of the day to the other, from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. One little accident can cause tailbacks of three or four miles. While efforts are being made to address these problems they are too little, too late. Transport 21 contains a number of ambitious proposals that could work as part of an integrated transport plan, such as the recently announced metro west, which follows on from the metro northern route. It is supposed to link Tallaght, Clondalkin and Liffey Valley shopping centre, covering Lucan and Blanchardstown but will not work unless the main Kildare line is operational.

With Adamstown coming on stream with 10,000 new houses, all traffic experts say there will not be the capacity to cater for it, let alone for Hazelhatch, the rest of Lucan and Clondalkin, unless the line is electrified. Under Transport 21 the electrification of the Kildare line is not due to take place until 2015. The interconnector linking Heuston Station with the city centre is not due until 2015 so what is the point in having a Luas to Lucan or Clondalkin, a metro west plan or what is a negligible bus service if they will not be serviced by the main transport plank, which must be the existing railway line? When that line is four-tracked and electrified it will have the capacity to take the huge amounts of residential work traffic and act as a hub for travelling north or south, into the city centre or west. Without that missing link any transport plan is doomed to failure.

The cost of the works currently being carried out on the M50 has risen to €1 billion from the estimated €300 million and will cause four years of gridlock. We have an opportunity to fast-track, if Members pardon the pun, the electrification of the railway line and the interconnector. If the investment is made now then, after four years of gridlock, people will have a choice of how to get from one place to another.

A survey carried out by Maynooth College two years ago found that two thirds of workers in Lucan worked outside the city centre. Whether they want to go to Citywest, the airport or Blanchardstown, they have no choice but to drive. Let people spend an hour stuck in traffic if they have a choice, but I call on the Minister for Transport to fast-track electrification and the interconnector so they are given a choice.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

I want to highlight a number of priorities in the Border counties and the mid and north-west area of the province of Ulster on a cross-Border basis. It is very important that in the preparation of the national development plan our transport plans are not made in isolation of the Six County area to the north-east of our country. The approach must be on an integrated all-Ireland basis.

The N2-A5 from Dublin to Derry and Donegal, which goes through County Monaghan, is an artery that needs to be substantively addressed by an upgrading to a high standard dual carriageway along significant sections of its length. This is imperative if we are to see the areas serviced by the N2 reach their natural potential and be able to compete in terms of attracting both indigenous and inward investors. It is also very important that we recognise there is a willingness to assist on the part of the European Commission, as indicated to me and my colleagues during a recent meeting with EU Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot in Strasburg.

We also need to address the need to upgrade the N3, through County Cavan in particular, and the importance of ensuring bypasses of Virginia and Belturbet. We must upgrade this road to a common standard as it makes its way through County Cavan towards the southern reaches of County Donegal.

I also wish to highlight the need for an east-west link from Dundalk to Sligo, by whatever bed is decided. This route would significantly service all of the counties along its length on a North-South basis and not from a Hadrian's Wall viewpoint, further copper-fastening partition. It is critically important we have this development and that we do not look at development on the island of Ireland focused as if on the spokes of a wheel coming to the hub in Dublin.

It is important also to immediately address the need to develop the Ballinacargy Bridge between Dundalk and Castleblayney, which services a significant volume of traffic and has been the scene of many serious accidents over the years.

It is important that the infrastructural developments I have highlighted and the many others I could highlight if I had more time should be seen not just in the context of a new national development plan but as an imperative of both Irish and British Governments in the context of the developing peace process. There must be a real dividend for the Border counties and the north-west of this island and this can best be expressed in critical infrastructural improvements that will allow the populations of these areas to at last compete on a more level playing field with the eastern seaboard and the southern reaches of the island of Ireland.

It is not only the issue of roads we need to address. We also need to look at the urgent requirement of rail transport to service this area. We should also remember that it is not only the main arteries that need investment. There is a critical need for significant investment in our local, regional and county roads and these are a priority that must be addressed. The people need to see a real difference.

Mr. F. McGrath

I welcome the opportunity to speak on Transport 21. While I support and welcome all sensible projects and solutions to our transport needs, it is important to also look at the downside and at value for money concerns. I accept we have moved on and now have some of the best roads in the European Union. This is welcome. I particularly welcome the major motorways, cross-Border roads and any plans for the future development of the island as a whole.

When it comes to major infrastructural projects, there are some downsides. The hidden story in my constituency concerns the Dublin Port tunnel and how it affects residents in my community. As well as the tunnel being €250 million over budget, the hidden story is there are now 273 houses in the Marino, Fairview and Santry area that have been damaged as a result of the tunnel's construction despite residents being given a commitment their houses would not be damaged. Of the houses damaged, 152 were inside the 30 metre zone with 121 outside it. The homes of 149 families have been repaired so far and in another 113 negotiations are ongoing.

I raise this issue because it is important when planning major projects to ensure professionalism and that local communities are taken care of. I urge the Minister to ensure the residents of Dublin North-Central whose homes have been damaged are given proper compensation. The compensation offered so far has been way below a sensible solution. I urge the Minister to persuade the Government to pay the people whose homes have been damaged and get on with business. The tunnel is there now and that is the reality. Of course, the Government must also be concerned with safety issues.

I strongly welcome the metro to the northside of Dublin. I welcome in particular the two stops for Griffith Avenue and Drumcondra. Griffith Avenue is probably one of the nicest avenues in the European Union as Deputy Carey would know having visited many cities. The metro will be a great service for the people on the northside and I welcome this major project. I hope the Government will look after local residents and commuters and make sensible decisions with regard to these projects.

Mr. Carey

I endorse the laudatory comments made by Deputy Finian McGrath on the virtues of Griffith Avenue and surrounding areas. The importance of Transport 21 is that for the first time here we see a critical shift in transport policy, away from roads towards public transport. In this regard, I make no secret of the fact that we in the Dublin North-West constituency welcome the initiative taken by the Government as part of its programme for metro north. We are impressed by the remarkable speed with which decisions have been taken.

The alignment of the route has been agreed and while further discussions must take place, the principle has been established that we will have a high quality, high speed rail link from St. Stephen's Green. The line will link with a station under O'Connell Bridge and Parnell Square and serve areas like the Mater Hospital, Drumcondra, Griffith Avenue and Dublin City University. Critically, it will also pass through Ballymun, the greatest rejuvenation project in the European Union, serve Dublin Airport where there will be a station under terminal two which has already begun construction and run on to the Pavilion shopping centre in Swords and beyond. This project has significant importance for the country and is a good example of how an integrated transport policy can work.

Deputy Finian McGrath raised some valid issues. We have learned lessons from building roads. Equally, we have learned lessons from building the port tunnel. Undoubtedly, the question of better consultation and engagement with residents is important. I urge the Minister in his discussions on the furtherance of this project with the RPA to look at how the project can be brought on stream in the fastest possible time by, as far as possible, tunnelling on a 24-hour basis. We have learned that it is irritating for residents to have a boring machine working beneath them for two or three weeks when a number of days would suffice if the work was done on a 24-hour basis.

Mr. F. McGrath

Hear, hear.

Mr. Carey

I also welcome the initiative taken by the Government to neutralise the value of land below 10 metres. This will be helpful. I agree it is important that the major part of the system will be tunnelled. My area will discuss concerns with the RPA on Friday. The idea that any part of the metro system could be erected on stilts or above ground level is, I suggest to the Minister, unacceptable. Currently, it is proposed that metro north be tunnelled as far as Collins Avenue. A number of alternatives are then proposed, including that it be at grade level. I do not believe this is possible because at maximum capacity metro will be operating one train every 90 seconds and the conflict with vehicular traffic would be appalling. A second alternative that it be run on stilts is unacceptable on the grounds that, either architecturally from an engineering point of view or aesthetically, it would do nothing for Ballymun which is currently being regenerated. The third alternative is a form of cut and cover similar to that used during construction of part of the Port Tunnel. It is a little more refined than that but, essentially, that is what is being proposed. I do not believe it is the best solution and will be pushing strongly that this should not be adopted.

If the metro can be tunnelled as far as Collins Avenue, it can be tunnelled as far as Santry Cross at a cost of an additional €100 million to €200 million. To run the metro at grade level or on stilts would involve building a complicated and dangerous interchange in the heart of the new town of Ballymun. That in itself will cost an enormous amount of money. The RPA should be instructed not to take that alternative. The rest of the system has great potential.

I welcome the Minister's announcement regarding the route alignment for metro north and that public consultation on metro west will begin in a few weeks. This shows the Government's determination to proceed as quickly as possible to deliver a metro system. Metro west will run from metro park, just beyond the M50, linking newly developing and existing areas in my constituency of Finglas — people in this area are highly dependent on public transport as many live too far from the relatively decent bus links — across to Abbotstown where the National Sports Campus is being built and on to Blanchardstown, one of the largest population centres in the country. It will then run on to Lucan, Clondalkin, Tallaght and places beyond that as mentioned by Deputy Gogarty.

It is important we recognise we are speaking for the first time about integration of transport. This will mean people travelling on the Kildare line will be able to get to Dublin Airport by making one change at Drumcondra. Similarly, making maximum use of the Liffey junction and other existing infrastructure, it will be possible to provide a high quality rail network in the city.

I want to speak about road construction. The M50 upgrade has begun. We have learned many lessons, most of them positive, from upgrading what used to be known as the Naas dual carriageway. While there may have been difficulties during certain stages of the management works, the outcome has been truly superb. We need to heed those lessons while upgrading the remainder of the M50.

I will now deal with the difficulties that will be posed by the National Roads Authority through the manner in which it is dealing with the upgrading of the M50 and its impact on IKEA, a key feature of the regeneration of Ballymun, a project that stands to deliver up to 500 jobs for that area. That the NRA persists in its determination to limit to approximately ten per day the number of additional vehicular exits from IKEA onto the M50 is laughable. The danger of creating gridlock in the local road system is enormous. I again ask the NRA and, perhaps at this stage, An Bord Pleanála — though I do not dare to try to influence its decision on the matter — to bear in mind that the decision on this matter will have a knock-on effect on others.

The port tunnel is an enormous engineering project which will be of great value to the city. There is a possibility — there is no point pretending otherwise — that in the initial stages it will have a negative impact on the local road network in my constituency. We will need to work with Dublin City Council to ensure, for example, that trucks not meant to be on the local road network or clogging up the quays are not doing so. I suggest to the Minister that it is important we look at an issue which arose during the planning stage but which for a variety of reasons was shelved, namely, the link between the port tunnel on the northside and the N11 along the east coast. It makes very little sense not to utilise that link. Given the expertise available today and the availability of public private partnerships and other systems to deliver road and other infrastructural projects, it must be possible to extend the tunnel across to Dublin Bay.

I welcome the decision by the Minister and Government to allow Dublin Bus to increase its bus capacity by 200. Dublin Bus is doing a good job. Despite the criticisms of the company by some, by and large it delivers a quality service to the city as does its sister company, Bus Éireann to areas around the country. However, Dublin Bus has not only been hamstrung by a lack of buses but by a delay in the delivery of bus lanes. I was a member of Dublin City Council for many years. I cannot understand why it takes years, not months, for what would appear to be a relatively simple engineering job to be completed. I recognise that utilities and so on must be diverted but I cannot understand why such projects cannot be completed on time. Perhaps we could introduce penalty clauses for those contractors who do not deliver on time.

Integration is important and is part of Transport 21. It is the first time in the history of this State that we have witnessed a shift from private transport to public transport, an initiative and policy move which I welcome.

Mr. Perry

I am delighted to speak on this important issue, Transport 21. However, I am disappointed the plan contains very little for Sligo and the north west. While I welcome the recently opened outer relief road which is of great benefit to Sligo, Transport 21 makes no sound provision for this region. The amount of money available under Transport 21 is €34 billion and it is disappointing the plan does not include a timeframe within which the Claremorris to Collooney section of the western rail corridor will be opened. When one considers this 46 mile track in State ownership cost €193 million, it is disappointing it will be only fenced and cleaned up with no further development planned until, possibly, 2020 despite the level of money being spent on the east coast.

There has been massive growth and development in the region from Charlestown to Tubbercurry, Coolaney and on to Collooney. The land in this area is in State ownership and the necessary works which could be carried out quickly would have an enormous impact on the region. It would certainly open up the Claremorris to Galway route. Much has been said about the road network along the west coast. There are huge opportunities in this area with potential for enormous value for money. More than €1 billion was spent on the Luas project and it is now proposed to develop a metro system in Dublin, which I accept is much needed.

The track from Dublin to Sligo was laid with extraordinary speed. Apparently, continuous welded track can be laid at the rate of one mile per week because of the technology available and in the absence of compulsory purchase issues. The land along the corridor is in State ownership and a large proportion of the costings have been completed so all that is needed is the political will to deliver the route. A line from Galway to Claremorris and Sligo, with a possible extension to the Dublin line, represents a significant opportunity for the west. I hope, therefore, the Minister will reconsider the matter. With regard to the return on the investment, the project will offer a unique and unprecedented opportunity for developing housing along the rail corridor.

I am aware the matter has been politicised and that several Ministers have been looking at the weeds growing along the track. However, the Minister for Transport is in the driving seat and he has €34 billion to spend. A survey conducted by the National Competitiveness Council indicates that 58% of respondents do not believe the rail corridor will be delivered, while a further 21% are uncertain about it. The Minister has been reluctant to reveal costings for projects. Having been on the Committee of Public Accounts for the past two years, I acknowledge that contracts are being more closely supervised and that the capacity for completing projects on time has been greatly improved. However, the Minister is making a mistake by refusing to prioritise the western corridor. The €193 million required to build 46 miles of track is reasonable compared to the money spent on national roads, which can cost as much as €15 million per kilometre when services are included.

A route has been selected for improvements on the N4 at Castlebaldwin. The N50 is a superb road as far as Mullingar but improvements are needed along the short stretch from Castlebaldwin to Drumfin. Drawings and costings have been agreed by the local authority and commencement of work is awaiting the Minister's approval.

The N17, or the Atlantic corridor, has been much discussed. The section of that road from Sligo to Knock is one of the most treacherous roads in the country, with heavy traffic and regular fatalities. The bypass of Knock has been helpful but the stretch from Charlestown to Collooney is narrow and dangerous. The route for the improvement to this section has been selected and agreed with the local authority. It is essential that a bypass is built to Tubercurry.

The N16, which carries cross-Border traffic to and from Enniskillen, and the N15 are extremely dangerous. As the Taoiseach noted last week, all cross-Border roads have been opened. However, I am amazed that the timeframe for work on the N16 was not mentioned in Transport 21.

Transport 21 has largely ignored the N15, the N16 and a considerable portion of the N17. The Minister should recheck his plans in that regard. The worst roads of all are the R294 and the R297 from Ballisadare to Enniscrone. The latter route carries heavy traffic, yet no money has been invested in it. The Government has failed to deliver for the north west. The silence of the six Government Members from the region with regard to Transport 21 is appalling. I would at least have expected Deputy Devins and Senator Scanlon to have intervened vocally on this matter. I urge them, even at this late stage, to use whatever influence they have to make amends.

Ms F. O’Malley

I welcome the announcement by the Minister of the establishment of a Dublin transport authority. That is great news for Dublin's public transport users because the authority will consolidate the functions of various agencies in providing services and, more importantly, will deliver new licences.

An additional 100 bus licences will be delivered to private operators, who will also be subject to public service obligations. For the first time, accurate data will be collected on commercial viability, which will allow us to identify profitable routes and help us to deliver a better transport service. Despite repeated efforts by the Department, Dublin Bus has been very reluctant to provide figures on the viability and profitability of individual bus routes. Henceforth, private operators will be required to provide this information to the Dublin transport authority and because they will be competing directly with public operators, the disparity will not be great between their figures and those of Dublin Bus.

Where there was competition from both Luas and DART services, Irish Rail transformed its practices to such an extent that while Transport 21 proposed the opening in 2009 of a new Dublin city centre rail centre at Spencer Dock, this will now happen next March, two years ahead of schedule. This is because Irish Rail recognised that it was a competitor for public money and decided——

An Ceann Comhairle

I ask the Deputy to move the adjournment.

Ms F. O’Malley

I will move the adjournment, but does that mean I cannot even finish my sentence?

Debate adjourned.