Joint Committee on Rural and Community Development debate

Flooding at Ballycar on the Galway-Limerick Railway and Investment in Heavy Rail: Discussion

Chairman

Apologies have been received from Deputy Canney. I remind members, staff and witnesses to turn off their mobile phones because they interfere with the sound system.

We have two related topics on our agenda: opportunities for investment in heavy rail and flooding at Ballycar on the Galway-Limerick railway. I propose that we discuss both together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I will call on representatives from each organisation to make an opening statement. I will then invite members to put their questions to the various organisations. I suggest that members should limit their questioning to between three and five minutes, but I will allow them to contribute twice if appropriate. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I will now read some formal notices for the information of the witnesses. I draw their attention to the fact that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the Chair to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Any submission, opening statement or other document they have supplied to the committee will be published on its website after the meeting.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

On behalf of the committee, I welcome the director of the Geological Survey of Ireland, Mr. Koen Verbruggen, and his colleagues from the groundwater flood programme, Dr. Ted McCormack and Dr. Owen Naughton. From the National Parks and Wildlife Service, I welcome Mr. John Fitzgerald, principal officer with responsibility for legislation, licensing and property management. From the Office of Public Works, I welcome Mr. John Sydenham, commissioner, Mr. Cian Ó Dónaill, regional engineer, and Mr. Liam Basquille, principal officer in engineering services. From Clare County Council, I welcome Mr. Tom Tiernan and Mr. John Leahy, who is the incoming senior engineer. From Iarnród Éireann, I welcome Mr. Jim Meade, chief executive, and Mr. Colin Hedderly, senior track and structures engineer.

I would like to provide a little of the background to this discussion. Since 1834, when the first commuter railway in the world was opened in Ireland, railways have helped us to conquer space and time by bringing cities, towns and villages closer together. They have always been very important to rural Ireland. The committee decided to make consideration of rural transport and connectivity a priority in its 2018 work programme. We have met representatives of the National Transport Authority. A great deal of progress has been made in Dublin with light rail and there are plans for a metro. We should not forget that there are many opportunities for investment in heavy rail throughout the island of Ireland, including some low hanging fruit. Funding may also be available from the European Union. I suggest we need to improve connectivity by designing intermodal nodes such as heavy rail connections at ports and airports. One of the most important heavy rail projects in recent years was the restoration of the railway line between Galway, Ennis and Limerick as the first phase of the western rail corridor. The line has increasingly frequently been closed for long periods as a result of groundwater flooding at Ballycar, probably due to climate change. Groundwater flooding is not as well understood as other types of flooding such as river flooding, rainfall-related flooding or coastal flooding. It seems to be particularly common in rural Ireland, especially in several western counties, including Clare, Galway, Longford, Mayo and Roscommon. The committee has asked Geological Survey Ireland which recently took over as the lead agency dealing with groundwater flooding for its advice on the causes of such flooding and how the risk of such flooding could be mitigated. I understand there have been some successes in County Galway. It is possible that these lessons could be learned in Ballycar.

I ask the director of Geological Survey Ireland, Mr. Verbruggen, to make his opening statement.

Mr. Koen Verbruggen

For the benefit of the joint committee, I will provide a little of the background to Geological Survey Ireland, GSI. GSI, Ireland's national geoscience organisation, is a division of the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment. It has just under 100 staff, most of whom are geoscientists and technical specialists who operate from offices in the Beggars Bush area of Ballsbridge. It carries out its role as a key knowledge centre and data repository with a library, archives and extensive digital data holdings. It provides an extensive advisory service, particularly for local authorities. It has a statutory role as a national archive and a consultee on planning in areas such as wind farm development, county development plans and foreshore licences. In addition to supporting the Government and the local authorities, it provides data and advice for industry and researchers and acts as a project partner in all aspects of Irish geoscience, especially in European projects.

GSI carries out a number of major initiatives, in addition to the geological mapping of Ireland's bedrock and subsoil. INFOMAR, Ireland’s national seabed survey and marine mapping programme, is on schedule to complete the mapping of all Irish waters by 2026. It is funded by the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment, managed by GSI and delivered jointly with the Irish Marine Institute. GSI operates five inshore survey vessels. The data collected are used to update national charting and support maritime policy and Ireland's marine plan, Harnessing our Ocean Wealth. INFOMAR is globally acknowledged as a world class endeavour. It has trained over 100 people in modern, high-tech seabed surveying methods.

Tellus is the national geological and environmental baseline programme which will complete its coverage of the entire island of Ireland by 2028. There are two components to the acquisition of data through Tellus: airborne plane mounted geophysics mapping which records magnetics, electromagnetics and radiometric properties; and ground geochemical sampling of soils, stream sediments and surface waters. The data generated improve our mapping and inform the agriculture sector in areas such as animal and plant health. It underpins radon mapping which is conducted in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as peat mapping and environmental assessments. As the programme involves flying at the low altitude of 60 m and aerial surveying, an extensive communications and outreach programme is carried out in advance. All householders are leafleted and there is extensive direct consultation with owners of sensitive livestock.

Groundwater 3D is a major groundwater resources and protection characterisation project. It is targeting high priority regional complex groundwater systems, including those where there have been pollution incidents or where boil notices have been imposed on public or private drinking water supplies. The programme builds on a long history of work in this area. GSI has been instrumental in developing the groundwater protection schemes risk assessment methodology and providing national maps to enable planning and licensing authorities to carry out their functions with respect to groundwater protection. The groundwater programme collaborates with Irish Water, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Federation of Group Water Schemes, the local authorities, the Office of Public Works and other State and non-governmental organisations. It supports the implementation of the water framework directive, the drinking water regulations and the nitrates directive through the provision of data and expertise.

In addition to the specific programme areas I have mentioned, GSI holds databases and carries out work across a range of geoscience areas, including minerals, aggregates and metals. It is involved in geoheritage, for example, by supporting geoparks. Its work on geohazards includes mapping of landslide susceptibility and ground motion. It provides advice on tsunamis and volcanic ash. It is also involved in geotechnical and urban geology. Its extensive data holdings and maps are made available online for free via a suite of websites and digital platforms. It also supports job creation through a dedicated business cluster programme, Geoscience Ireland, with assistance from Enterprise Ireland and the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Business, Enterprise and Innovation. GSI also supports research through data, partnership and funding and regularly provides co-funding with Science Foundation Ireland, the Irish Research Council and EU programmes. It helped to set up and is now supporting the Irish Centre for Research in Applied Geoscience which was established recently with support from Science Foundation Ireland and industry.

On groundwater flooding, GSI has developed particular expertise in understanding complex karst systems, including turloughs, which can be important conduits for pollution. The climate change and flooding section of the 2016 programme for Government, under the heading of Turlough Systems, promises to "provide resources to the OPW to commission studies into individual problematic (prone to flooding) Turlough systems, if requested by a local authority or another relevant State agency". GSI has been tasked with gathering historical and new information to deliver on this objective. It has initiated a new dedicated groundwater flooding project in response to it. It is working with and supporting researchers at Trinity College Dublin in the specific area of modelling the behaviour of complex turlough systems such as those in the Gort lowlands, building on previous studies. The primary objectives of the project are to liaise with key stakeholders to provide technical input into proposed flood protection schemes; to install a temporary exploratory network to maximise data collection, with over 60 monitors having been installed to date; to establish permanent monitoring networks to provide long-term quantitative flooding data; to develop a methodology for improving groundwater flood hazard maps and real-time monitoring of groundwater flooding; to develop modelling and analysis methodology for estimating groundwater flood frequency, or the likelihood of flood events; and to assess the likely impact of climate change on groundwater flooding. In 2018 GSI will deliver new groundwater flood maps to the OPW, as required, in the second implementation cycle of the floods directive.

The area of Ballycar affected by flooding is not listed as a turlough and is not one of the areas selected for monitoring by the programme in consultation with the local authorities. GSI was not consulted on the railway development plans. It received reports on the issue from the committee at the end of last week, followed by further updates yesterday. Unfortunately, therefore, we have not had an opportunity to carry out a review of the information. After GSI was contacted for information by the committee last month, it was able to download satellite data from the European Space Agency and create a visualisation of flood extents in the area in the time period of interest to the committee. It has been provided. My colleagues have put together a short presentation which provides some more details of our work in the areas of turlough flooding and the Ballycar visualisation. They will go through it briefly.

Dr. Owen Naughton

I will give an introduction to the nature and characteristics of groundwater flooding. I will speak about how it differs from other forms of flooding and the influence it has on the flooding at Ballycar. Historically, groundwater flooding has been relatively poorly understood and overlooked. The standard of data on this form of flooding is very poor, especially by comparison with that on river flooding. There are no established methods for risk management or frequency analysis of this kind of flooding.

Groundwater flooding in Ireland is strongly linked with geology. It occurs mainly in the west in areas of pure well bedded limestone that are susceptible to a process known as karstification which occurs when limestone dissolves to form caves and conduits. Such areas tend to have discontinuous or absent surface water drainage. This means that it does not tend to be the case that there are continuous rivers draining rainfall out to sea. Instead, the groundwater system plays an important role in drainage. The movement of water through the landscape occurs mainly through the groundwater system, rather than through the surface water system. Groundwater flooding tends to require sustained rainfall of relatively long duration. Fluvial flooding tends to occur after hours, days or, in some cases, weeks of rainfall, whereas groundwater flooding tends to be caused by weeks or months of rainfall. The documentation I have furnished to the joint committee provides some examples of this. It includes three representative hydrographs for groundwater flooding. As members can see, there is quite a range. The red dot on the hydrograph shows where the annual peak takes place.

In terms of flood management, it is the highest level reached in any given flood season. The top turlough responds quite quickly so the annual maxima is quite early in the season. That is responding to rainfall in the order of two to three weeks. We get a range of those from weeks, to two to three months, all the way to maybe six months.

The second and third graphs show that the flood peak happens later in the season. The flood extent in any given year is a function of the amount of rainfall that fell in the previous three to six months. Ballycar appears to be in this range. Flooding tends to occur due to sustained rainfall over months. This also gives rise to the longer durations as it takes quite a while for flood waters to build up and it also takes quite a while for them to recede.

The other element of complexity with groundwater flooding is that there tends to be a range of flood mechanisms. This is the way in which a flood manifests. Groundwater flooding is more related to volume than discharge. In rivers, the flood is the peak discharge so it is the peak flow. In groundwater it is more an accumulation of water. It tends not to be flowing water; it is more hydrostatic water. It is just a build-up of volume within the landscape. We have developed some conceptual models for this. The most common form of groundwater flooding in Ireland is the turlough. These are topographic depressions in the landscape. They tend to dry out during summer but during winter, because there is a discontinuous surface drainage system, there is not enough storage in the landscape. What happens is excessive recharge is stored in these depressions so there is a build-up of flood water over the winter period which is then discharged back into the groundwater system when the capacity becomes available. In most years this would not present a flood risk but in some cases, in periods of extreme sustained rainfall events, it can pose a flood risk to surrounding areas.

Another flood mechanism of particular relevance to Ballycar is backwater flooding. This is where there is point recharge, where a stream or river is discharging into the groundwater system. Under normal conditions, the capacity of the groundwater system to drain this water away is sufficient not to cause an excessive build-up of floodwaters so there would not be a flood risk. Under extreme circumstances, such as in the example in the second graph, there can be a large build-up of floodwater that can pose a flood risk. What causes this is the balance between the rate at which water enters the sink and the rate at which it exits. The rate at which it exits is a function of the size of the conduit draining it. It can be a function of downstream hydrological conditions. That is the most relevant groundwater flood mechanism with regard to Ballycar.

That is the background. I will now hand over to my colleague, Dr. Ted McCormack. The purpose of our programme is mainly to address the lack of historic data and provide more relevant information on how, why and when groundwater floods occur.

Dr. Ted McCormack

As Dr. Naughton said, our primary focus is on data collection and identifying the lack of historic data in turloughs as opposed to rivers and coastal flooding and to improve the understanding of groundwater flow systems as a result of the new data. The project is a collaboration between Geological Survey Ireland and Trinity College Dublin.

One of the primary things we did early on was set out our monitoring network. We have 60 monitoring stations in various flood-prone turloughs around the country. These sites were chosen primarily if they were brought to our attention by a local authority or the OPW. I should have said that 20 of these sites will be upgraded to telemetric status so they can be accessed online. It is a work in progress. Aside from those 60 stations, there are about 400 turloughs in Ireland. We cannot put physical monitoring in all of them so we came up with a strategy for monitoring the turloughs that we do not have equipment at. These ungauged catchments are important if we want to implement the second cycle of the EU floods directive. To create our groundwater flood map of Ireland, we need the data from all these sites, both current data and historic data. This is accessible by the Sentinel-1 satellite as part of the European Space Agency programme. It offers good spatial coverage. It is an all-weather day and night system. It is systematic data collection so we get an image over Ireland four days out of every six. It is good resolution which is useful for turloughs. These satellites were operational during the 2015-2016 floods so we have good images of the worst flooding that occurred.

I will show members an example of normal aerial imagery of Ballycar. I will hopefully move to a video that works. I will show the committee what Ballycar looks like during a summer from a synthetic-aperture radar image. It is pretty blurry and that is due to the nature of the radar but it is still useful. The video shows the 2015 floods as well as the most recent floods, both of which closed the railway line. The ultimate output of the timed series of satellite images combined with topographic mapping is to pull out elevations of the flood in the image. This image is our synthetic hydrograph of Ballycar flooding. It is preliminary. We are still working on it so the numbers are not perfect. It gives us a good idea of how bad the floods were in 2015 and more recently.

The reason we are collecting this data for everywhere is that we can apply hydrological models to them to start building long-term hydrological data. If we have three years of synthetic satellite generated hydrographs, we can apply models to them using rainfall. For as long as there is a rainfall record, we can go back and estimate 70 years of flooding in the turlough and how it operated and that gives us a grip on coming up with a one-in-100-year flood at the turlough. That is useful for flood risk, climate change and conservation objectives.

Mr. John Fitzgerald

I thank the committee for its invitation and for the opportunity to make this presentation on behalf of the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Our Department has not had any central involvement in the various issues surrounding the flooding in the Ballycar area or the various engineering solutions being considered over the years to alleviate this problem. While the Department does not have a decision-making role in the technical, funding, planning consents or environmental issues on any project that may emerge, should the committee wish, I am happy to outline, in so far as it may be helpful or relevant, how certain sites of nature conservation value are protected, the role of our Minister in nature conservation, as a prescribed body and also in environmental assessments.

As the committee will be aware, like all member states, Ireland is bound by the requirements of the EU nature directives. The habitats directive and the birds directive are the cornerstone of the EU’s nature conservation policy and establish the EU-wide Natura 2000 ecological network of protected areas. These directives aim to ensure the protection of habitats and species which have been selected for conservation within special areas of conservation and special protection areas. These directives have in turn been transposed into national law under the European Communities (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011, the Planning and Development Acts and the Wildlife Acts. In Ireland, there are some 439 sites selected for protection as special areas of conservation including Lough Gash turlough at Ballycar. There are 154 special protection areas and 148 areas designated as natural heritage areas.

The Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht is the statutory authority for nature conservation in Ireland and also has a number of statutory functions, including that of a prescribed body or consultation body under various statutes, including the Planning and Development Acts.

As such, the Minister may provide observations and advice to relevant public authorities on the implications of the activities they are regulating, which may have an impact on the built or natural heritage. In this capacity, the Minister’s role is not a decision-making one but rather to provide observations that may assist a consent authority in its consideration of the implications of a proposal for the environment and in its own statutory decision-making role. The Minister may also provide observations on the implications for the natural and built heritage of plans and programmes that public authorities may wish to undertake.

All public authorities, including the Minister, whose functions may affect nature conservation must exercise those functions in compliance with the habitats directive and the birds directive. In that regard, public authorities are obliged to ensure that they do not undertake or adopt, or give consent to any party for, any plan or project that may adversely affect the integrity of a European site. This is achieved through the appropriate assessment provisions set out in Article 6 of the habitats directive. These provisions require that a screening for appropriate assessment of a plan or project for which an application for consent is received, or which a public authority wishes to undertake or adopt, must be carried out by the public authority. The purpose of this screening exercise is to assess, in view of best scientific knowledge, if that plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on the conservation objectives of a European site. If, following an appropriate assessment screening exercise, it cannot be excluded that the plan or project will not have a significant effect on a European site, this does not mean that the project or plan cannot go ahead. Instead, the public authority concerned then undertakes an appropriate assessment before deciding if consent may be granted for the plan or project. Having carried out an appropriate assessment, a public authority can grant consent for a plan or project where it determines that it will not adversely affect the integrity of a European site.

As regards Ballycar Lough catchment, the Department understands that Iarnród Éireann commissioned RPS Group in 2010 to carry out a flood risk assessment of the Ballycar catchment and to undertake an assessment of flood alleviation options for Ballycar Lough. RPS Group issued its report in 2011. At the time, RPS Group consulted various bodies and stakeholders, including our Department. Following this assessment and a review of the potential implications of the various options identified, the consultants put forward a preferred option for a variety of reasons. RPS Group then carried out an appropriate assessment screening on that preferred option, identified in its report as Option 1C. This option involved the construction of a pipe culvert along the underground section of the Ballycar Lough outflow channel.

The appropriate assessment screening report examined the impacts of the preferred option in terms of its potential impacts on the Natura 2000 sites in the area. Lough Gash turlough special area of conservation lies within the study area and some other European sites also lie adjacent to or within a 5 km distance of the study area, and these Natura 2000 sites are the focus of the consultants' appropriate assessment screening report. The report concluded that as the full scale and magnitude of potential impacts on Lough Gash turlough special area of conservation were, at the time, still to be determined and due to the sensitivity and importance of this Natura 2000 site, an appropriate assessment should be carried out regarding the preferred flood alleviation works.

We note that in its 2011 main report for Iarnród Éireann RPS Group had outlined what it saw as the next steps to progress the project. These steps included consultations with stakeholders, including the NPWS of our Department, public consultation and an information day, preliminary design of works, carrying out of an appropriate assessment and obtaining the necessary consents and planning approvals. We in the NPWS are not aware of any initiatives or steps taken since the 2011 report was published; certainly, we have not been contacted since on the project and are not aware of any planning approvals being sought. In the last couple of days, in the context of documents being made available for the meeting of this committee, it became apparent to us that the 2011 RPS Group report has been followed by a 2015 report. The Department had not received or previously been made aware of this report but on request yesterday it was made available to us yesterday evening.

The Department fully appreciates the importance of this issue in this part of rural Ireland, as it appreciates the need to deal with flooding more generally around the country. The Department, including through the NPWS, is more than willing to work with the proponents of any project in a constructive fashion on this matter, for example, with regard to the scope of any further assessments that may be required for any flood alleviation works that may be pursued.

I thank the members of the committee for their attention and I will try to answer any questions that may arise.

Chairman

Thank you. I invite Mr. John Sydenham, commissioner for flood risk management from the Office of Public Works, to make his statement.

Mr. John Sydenham

I thank the committee for inviting the OPW to the meeting to discuss the problem of flooding at Ballycar on the Limerick-Galway railway. The OPW engaged constructively with both Clare County Council and Iarnród Éireann over recent years in considering the flooding problem at Ballycar and participated in a working group on the matter convened by the council in 2014.

In 2011, Iarnród Éireann commissioned a leading international firm in the area of flood risk assessment, RPS Group, to undertake a study of Ballycar Lough and its associated flooding. However, the OPW had concerns about the solutions proposed in the 2011 RPS Group report, specifically that what was being proposed by way of drainage of the lough would involve discharging the flood waters downstream to an embanked area that experiences flooding occasionally, contains some critical low lying air traffic control infrastructure, was in part the subject of significant environmental designation and where discharges to the sea were subject to the tidal cycle. The OPW identified that the proposals in the report would require some further mitigating measures not taken into account at the time.

The RPS Group report also did not include a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed flood relief works. Proposed works on this scale could only proceed on the basis of an appraisal which indicated clear economic justification for spending in the order of €10 million. The estimated cost of raising the railway line was only marginally more than the cost of the flood relief works that were proposed. However, when account was taken of the additional cost of further mitigating measures that would be required but were not covered in the report, the economic argument clearly tilted in favour of raising the railway line. The OPW has been clear in its position that as Iarnród Éireann is the primary stakeholder and beneficiary of any proposals to resolve the flooding problem at Ballycar, it is for that body to take the lead in resolving the matter.

At a meeting of the working group in September 2014, Iarnród Éireann confirmed its acceptance that it had the lead role in resolving the railway line flooding problem. Following the meeting of the working group in 2014, RPS Group was requested by Iarnród Éireann to review its 2011 report.

Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt but a mobile telephone is interfering with the sound system. Perhaps it can be turned off.

Mr. John Sydenham

Okay. The 2015 updated RPS Group report acknowledges the concerns raised by the OPW and, following an assessment of five flood alleviation options, proposes as its preferred option raising the existing railway embankment in the vicinity of Ballycar Lough. RPS Group states that this preferred option has been chosen because it provides the least ecological impact on the special area of conservation, SAC, and other protected sites in the area, it does not increase flood risk elsewhere in the catchment, especially at the internationally important air control communications infrastructure, and it has the least negative effect on geology and hydrology in the area.

The OPW supports the finding and recommendations of the updated RPS Group report. It is a matter for Iarnród Éireann to progress the proposed preferred solution of raising the railway line and to pursue the associated funding requirement through its normal channels for investment in its infrastructure. It is to be noted that the estimated capital cost of the proposed solution is just under €10 million and the benefit to cost ratio is calculated by the consultants at just €400,000. The proposed works, therefore, are not economically feasible. I also note that as a result of the road raising works carried out by Clare County Council in 2015, all residential properties in the area now have access to their properties even in extreme flood events.

The OPW will continue to co-operate with Clare County Council and Iarnród Éireann in whatever way it can in this matter. I thank the members for their attention and I am happy to take any questions they may have.

Chairman

Thank you. I invite Mr. Tom Tiernan, senior engineer from Clare County Council, to make his opening statement.

Mr. Tom Tiernan

I thank the committee for inviting us to address it on this issue.

I confirm that the Newmarket-on-Fergus-Ballycar area is within the jurisdiction of Clare County Council, hence the rationale for the council having a particular interest in this issue. The Newmarket-on-Fergus drainage district is one of the drainage districts within County Clare for which Clare County Council has a responsibility in a maintenance context. This drainage district is part of the issue surrounding Ballycar but, as I said, we have a maintenance responsibility in respect of that drainage system. We have had serious concerns over the years about the fact that the extent of flooding which occurs in this area goes above and beyond what normal maintenance requirements can facilitate. Our concerns about the importance of finding a resolution to this problem have been repeatedly aired. We have a flood alleviation role as a local authority in dealing with various flood alleviation issues as they arise here and there around the county, but this is generally in the context in which residential properties, business premises and so on are impacted, as distinct from this case, in which flooding has not been a major issue from a domestic flooding point of view.

We are available at all times, and always have been, to support the development and maintenance of key infrastructure such as the railway line which facilitates strategic access between Ennis and Limerick, the western rail corridor, etc. We see ourselves as having a facilitation role and have always made ourselves available to facilitate the resolution of this issue in whatever way we can. We have liaised in recent years with both the OPW and Iarnród Éireann in a bid to facilitate an appropriate strategy to deal with this problem. The key meeting in this regard, which Clare County Council, Iarnród Éireann and the OPW attended, was held in September 2014. There was a clear understanding at that meeting that Iarnród Éireann saw itself as the lead agency in the pursuit of a resolution to this problem, it being the key stakeholder. Clare County Council's concerns until that time had related not just to the railway line, but also the fact that local roads in the area became inundated from time to time through flooding events which have evolved repeatedly over the years, with the result that access to a number of homes was cut off. Clare County Council dealt with this issue in 2015 by the reconstruction of a local road to an elevated level in order that the homes in respect of which access was affected in those extreme flood events were facilitated in all circumstances.

As I indicated earlier, Clare County Council sees itself as a facilitator in whatever way possible to move this issue forward. We remain available to facilitate in whatever way we can, whatever solution, whatever options, may be put forward in this regard.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Tiernan. I know he retired from Clare County Council last Friday. I have worked closely with him down through the years and I thank him for that and wish him well in his retirement. He has an able replacement in Mr. Leahy, whom I also wish well.

Mr. Tom Tiernan

I thank the Chairman.

Chairman

Lastly, I call Mr. Jim Meade, chief executive of Iarnród Éireann, to make his opening statement.

Mr. Jim Meade

Along with my colleague, Mr. Colin Hedderly, I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for their invitation to attend to discuss the topics of flooding at Ballycar and opportunities for heavy rail investment. Before I directly address the two issues, I will give the committee a brief snapshot of Iarnród Éireann today - our services and service outlook for the future. Our team of more than 3,800 colleagues maintains a network of just over 2,200 km of rail; operates 4,300 services each week; carries just over 900,000 customers per week, with numbers growing; operates 144 stations across the network; transports 100 million tonne-kilometres of freight by rail; and brings 2.3 million tonnes of freight and 900,000 passengers through Rosslare Europort annually, for which we are the port authority. After an extraordinarily challenging decade, in 2017 we equalled our previous record number of customers at 45.5 million passenger journeys for the year, and 2018 will undoubtedly see a new record high. Our funding shortfall, while not fully resolved, and while the accumulated impact remains, has been reduced significantly, and the commitment in the national development plan to bridge the shortfall completely by 2021 is very welcome as it will give us the foundation on which to play the fullest role possible in the future. We are ambitious for our rail service and for how it can deliver solutions to congestion and environmental sustainability for Ireland. I will address this further as we look at opportunities for heavy rail.

As chief executive of Iarnród Éireann, as a former district manager in Limerick whose area of responsibility covered the Limerick-to-Ennis line and as a Clareman who lives close to Ballycar, I am acutely aware of the impact of recurring flooding at Ballycar on our customers and services. We are all aware of the unique hydraulic constraints which have been identified in the Ballycar Lough catchment. The underground section of the Ballycar Lough outlet channel is the main hydraulic constraint on the Ballycar Lough drainage system. This restricts outflow and thus causes flow backup and flooding in the vicinity of the lough. The Ballycar Lough catchment is a very slow response type catchment owing to the mild nature of the topography. Diversion of the Rosroe Lough catchment flow to the Ballycar Lough catchment increased the flows in channels within the Ballycar Lough system. The stream channels do not have adequate capacity to deal with the increased flow, and the inadequate capacity of the existing bridges and culverts located at various locations on the drainage system also restrict flow.

Without delving too much into history, it should be noted that while the railway line has been in existence and operational since 1859, no flooding was recorded prior to 1930, the year after the Rosroe Lough catchment diversion was undertaken by the Office of Public Works. The 1930 flooding was the first of 17 flooding closures to have occurred since. That five of these closures have taken place in the past decade illustrates how climatic factors are increasing both the frequency and severity of flooding, particularly as the line was raised by 0.7 m, or approximately 2 ft 6 in. in old money, in three separate works programmes between 1984 and 2000. The most prolonged flooding event occurred from December 2015 to May 2016, with a peak flood level of 1.4 m over the rail, while the most severe in 2013 saw flooding peak at 1.9 m over the rail. The flooding event earlier this year saw the line close for seven weeks from late January.

In 2011, following engagement with the Department of Transport, the OPW and Clare County Council, Iarnród Éireann commissioned a study by RPS to examine potential flooding alleviation options. The consultants and Iarnród Éireann worked closely with the OPW in particular in undertaking the study. The study, which has been provided to the committee, identified five potential flood alleviation options, numbered 1 to 5, with three flood flow discharge routes, A to C. The optimum solution which, as well as alleviating flooding impacting on the railway line, ensures that flooding risks in other areas such as Newmarket-on-Fergus are not worsened was option 1C, namely a 1.5 m diameter piped culvert, with inflow to and outflow from Lough Gash via the existing inflow and outflow stream channels. It is Iarnród Éireann's position that this approach should be pursued jointly with the OPW and Clare County Council, and that just as the railway is not the cause of the flooding, the solution is one that requires a more holistic approach than a focus on the railway line alone, given the potential impact on the wider catchment and the expertise of the agencies involved.

In the absence of progress on the optimum solution, Iarnród Éireann has identified an option of track raising which will reduce the probability of line closures. The cost of this solution is in the order of €10 million and involves raising the track by 1.2 m.

The proposal will not resolve the issue, however, and would merely reduce the frequency of flooding events to approximately a quarter of the current level and reduce the length of individual closures. Therefore, the option is not as attractive as the optimal solution I have outlined, not to mention the potential worsening of flood levels as the impacts of climate change continue.

I will now discuss investment in the rail network. Both the National Development Plan 2018-2027 and the national planning framework, Project Ireland 2040, provide for significant rail investment and the expansion of our role in meeting the transport needs of Ireland over the coming decades. While the NDP explicitly details funding of €2 billion over a decade for what has been referred to as the DART expansion programme, this refers to the physical location of these works. The benefits of this programme are national and network wide. Put simply, it will allow us to operate more trains with more capacity on all radial routes on the national network. It includes meeting the steady state maintenance and renewal requirements of the network by 2021; delivery of the national train control centre to maximise the capacity and performance of the existing network; non-tunnel elements of the DART expansion, including increasing the capacity of key rail corridors such as Cherry Orchard to Heuston station, which will benefit all Heuston intercity routes, and Maynooth, which will benefit the Sligo line; the targeting of improved inner-city journey times on the Dublin to Belfast, Dublin to Cork and the Limerick and Galway routes, with knock-on benefits for Kerry, Westport and Waterford; enlargement of the rail fleet by 300 carriages to give network-wide benefit; further appraisals of projects such as the western rail corridor phases 2 and 3, Cork commuter rail and a high-speed Belfast to Cork, M3 Parkway and Navan line; and investment in park-and-ride facilities, rail station improvements, passenger information and accessibility enhancements. These elements are all part of the plan.

The national planning framework is supportive of all that I have outlined and of further investment. While it is silent on some aspects of the roll-out of rail, we must stress that we in Iarnród Éireann view the strategy as very positive. Railways, more than any other form of public transport, rely on critical mass and higher density population centres to provide the economic case for investment and societal benefits. By developing strong cities as a counterbalance to Dublin, we will ensure that the development of railways in Ireland in the future is beyond Dublin-centric commuting, as critical as that requirement is. As things stand, the existing network is underfunded, and we in Iarnród Éireann must see the funding issue resolved before further network expansion can be considered where increases in the public service obligation, PSO, funding are likely to be required. While previous studies have shown a weak business case for further regional rail lines to be opened, the renewal studies conducted as part of the NDP will definitively establish the position under the current Department of Finance investment guidelines. In the meantime, nothing will occur that will prevent the development of railway lines should a business case support it.

I will now discuss greenways, which have generated considerable debate in many parts of the country. Our position is that where there is no realistic medium-term likelihood of a rail line being reopened, greenways help to protect the rail alignment from encroachment and adverse possession by providing a public amenity on otherwise unused alignments. In every case where we, along with CIE property, issue a licence for the operation of greenways on disused alignments, it is with the explicit provision that the alignment would revert to us should a decision be made to invest in the reinstatement of the railway.

I have outlined our position to the committee in terms of the agenda and welcome any questions on the issue.

Chairman

I thank the chief executive. I will call members to speak in the order that they have indicated and the first to speak is Senator Coffey.

Senator Paudie Coffey

I welcome all of the officials from the various agencies to the meeting. It is important that we discuss and debate the issues of concern to committee members and, indeed, the wider public. When we consider our national transport routes, whether they are motorways or rail networks, it is important that we acknowledge and identify where problems arise. That is why we are discussing the issue of flooding at Ballycar in County Clare and how flooding has a negative impact on the Galway to Limerick railway line. I am from Waterford which is in the south east, so this issue does not impact on me personally, but I have an overall interest in sustaining the national rail networks. I supported Deputies and Senators when they sought this debate and asked the committee to invite the representatives that are here before us today. I have no problem supporting them again. I want to put it on the record that I am disappointed that some of the Deputies who promoted this issue are not present today for a debate, a fact that should be noted on the minutes of this meeting.

With regard to flooding on the Galway to Limerick railway line, I found the various submissions interesting. I note that Iarnród Éireann commissioned RPS Consultants to carry out flood risk assessments and to bring forward recommendations of which there were five in total. As somebody who lives outside of the region but is an observer who is interested in sustaining the national rail lines, it seems to me that when State agencies are not directly responsible, while they will say they will facilitate, that they are available to assist and that they acknowledge the problem, unfortunately, when it comes to putting their hands in their pockets and dealing with the problem, they run a mile. I am being blunt when I say that but that is what this looks like. It is not in the national interest for the State agencies to do so. I also say that directly to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Clare County Council and to the Office of Public Works, OPW. Iarnród Éireann is experiencing a very real issue with a significant piece of our national transport infrastructure. I am disappointed with the representatives of our State agencies, who represent our citizens who depend on them to act in their best interests. The answers and submissions are now on the public record and sound like these people have washed their hands of the problem.

Five recommendations have been made and the optimal solution was put forward by Iarnród Éireann. I am disappointed by the silo mentality that has become apparent straight away, and we have seen this happen with many issues of public concern. The attitude adopted is one where if it is not my problem, it is someone else's problem, I will give it lip service, I will talk about it, I will offer my help, I will offer to facilitate, but when it comes to dealing with it and putting my money where my mouth is, it is not my problem. Essentially, there is no solution.

Iarnród Éireann wants to invest €10 million in raising the railway line but I believe that is not a good way to spend taxpayers' money. I am sure the company could find a lot better ways to invest that €10 million such as promoting more use of rail services. Iarnród Éireann depends on the assistance of other agencies and the assistance of the State. I am disappointed with the replies that I have heard from the various agencies. They will walk away, which is their right from today, as it is not their direct responsibility, but the problem will remain. Until the next flood arises and citizens kick up again and flooding becomes an issue of public awareness, the agencies will make statements and repeat the cycle but the problem will remain unresolved. It is important that we have had this debate because we have been afforded an opportunity to hear the witnesses' replies and put them on the record. There is no point in beating around the bush. The problem is not resolved.

I will take the opportunity to deal with some other issues. I mentioned the National Parks and Wildlife Service. It is important that the delegation is here. I wish to acknowledge the organisation's important statutory role in the protection of our natural heritage and conservation.

During flooding events in the area that I represent in the south east, and I refer to where the River Suir and its catchment area experienced serious flooding, I detected poor co-operation from the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I saw farmland flooded and people being put out of their homes due to flooding. When attempts were made to repair the riverbanks, however, all that the National Parks and Wildlife Service meted out was bureaucracy, licensing and planning issues. These issues are not a primary concern when somebody is on their knees, and I mean farmers who had their land and property flooded and who were forced out of their homes. The National Parks and Wildlife Service can rightly point to EU directives, national policy and all the rest, but I am talking about a time when citizens have had to leave their homes and land due to flooding. All those citizens want to do is repair a breach in a riverbank, yet they are read the riot act about bureaucracy.

Rather than trying to gain stakeholders' support for conservation and the protection of habitats etc., which we all should try to achieve, all I know from being a public representative for the past 20 years is that the National Parks and Wildlife Service has gone the wrong way about things. If we want to garner support for conservation and protection, we need to engage with stakeholders in a proactive way, identify their problems and show empathy when people experience problems. When a family have been forced out of their home due to flooding, they do not want to hear about bureaucracy, directives and rules. All they want to hear are solutions.

This is not the way that national agencies should work towards solutions. Rather than bureaucracy and orders, we should consider engagement, solutions and protocols in times of an emergency. I mean instances where directives and orders may be circumvented in the event of an emergency so that a breach on a riverbank can be repaired, thus getting people back into their homes. If that is done, then State agencies will receive great support from local communities. I would like the witnesses to respond to my comments.

We are here to talk about solutions to flooding problems, but there is not a solution in every case. We all know and have to accept that there are flood plains, but there are practical solutions to difficulties where citizens are impacted on, whether on a railway line, a farm or in a house, and we should all work towards them.

One of the best ways to travel is by rail. It is peaceful and a person can work or engage in good conversation while travelling. It is also very safe. I do not believe, however, that we are doing enough to promote rail travel. I see the odd advertisement on television, but the benefits are not being sold to the younger generations. Older people have used rail services far more than young people. One could point to the motorway network and the increased use of cars. Every young person now has a car. Every family possibly has two or three cars, especially in rural Ireland, but if Iarnród Éireann sold the benefits of rail travel better, there would be increased use, even during a trial period. It needs to do more in that regard.

Does Iarnród Éireann have plans under the new national planning framework, Ireland 2040, to invest more? Mr. Meade spoke about enhancing routes from Dublin to various cities. He said "improved inter-city journey times will be targeted on the Dublin to Belfast, Dublin to Cork and the Limerick and Galway routes." As somebody who comes from the city, I am very disappointed that Waterford is only mentioned as an afterthought, with County Kerry and Westport. According to Ireland 2040, the population of the city is expected to double from almost 50,000 to 100,000. I would not, therefore, have expected Waterford to be an afterthought. As one of the five cities identified in the national planning framework, I expect it to be a priority. I, therefore, urge Iarnród Éireann to upgrade what I have just read from the submission to ensure Waterford will be a high priority. There are huge plans for the redevelopment and regeneration of the entire north quays and Plunkett Station. CIE and Iarnród Éireann are co-operating with the various stakeholders in moving the plans forward. Waterford has to be a priority. As it is just 20 years away, we need to plan now for the priorities identified in Ireland 2040. Iarnród Éireann has huge responsibilities in that regard. I would like to hear responses to my questions.

Rosslare Europort has been mentioned. I understand Waterford Port is one of the only ports in the country where the railway line passes directly through the port, next to where ships berth. It is essential that there be investment to take some of the heavy freight off the roads and use the rail infrastructure which I believe is an asset to deliver freight from elsewhere in the European Union and around the world to Waterford Port and Rosslare Europort, if necessary, and redistribute it throughout the country through the rail network. I would be interested in hearing a response on this point.

I welcome the co-operation of CIE and Iarnród Éireann on greenway development. It is a huge area of growth. In County Waterford we have seen the advent of the Waterford city to Dungarvan greenway, one of the biggest tourism success stories we have had. There were challenges in and barriers to getting back land that had originally been part of the railway line and which had been taken over by landowners. By way of the proactive approach taken by Waterford City and County Council and Iarnród Éireann solutions were found. They did not just walk away as we are doing today. It took almost ten years to find solutions, but they were found and the council made it happen. The citizens who reside in the area are very grateful; the landowners who were engaged with are happy, while the many thousands of tourists who come from all over Ireland and beyond are also very happy. I encourage continued engagement in that respect and a positive perspective. Does Iarnród Éireann have a formal protocol in dealing with greenways, learned from other experiences, that it can adopt and adapt for use in other areas?

I am sorry for going on a little, but it was important to outline many of my views and there was an opportunity to do so this morning. We all have a responsibility to deal with flooding. Politicians are often left to carry the baby when the crises happen. We look to the State agencies for help. We do not expect them to look the other way just because it is not their direct responsibility. We expect them to come to the table to find solutions and work with all stakeholders in finding them.

Mr. Jim Meade

I fully take on board the Senator's comment on Waterford being a city. In rail terminology we think of the radial routes. Westport is not on a secondary route; it is off the Galway route. That is the layout. I am glad that the Senator mentioned the Plunkett Station development which we see as very exciting. We are very involved in and supportive of it. We have recently done some major work in Kilkenny in resignalling. It is on the Waterford line. We treat all lines equally and want to continue to grow services and achieve journey time improvements on all routes. There is no question of Waterford not being on a par with other cities. It absolutely is.

Rosslare Europort is under our direct control, whereas Waterford Port is not. Our general manager responsible for freight is in constant communication with Waterford Port and, with Brexit on the horizon, is considering how the two ports can contribute in the long term. It is on our agenda with our commercial people and freight manager.

We have a protocol for greenways and are actively engaging with any group that wants to discuss or consider the provision of greenways because they are a way of protecting our alignment and protecting us from encroachment or adverse possession which we have had going back decades. Reference was made recently in a different conversation, outside this building, to the Harcourt Street line having been in State ownership and going out of it and how it had taken a lot of work to bring it back into it. We recognise that mistake from the past and will not be relinquishing ownership of any route. They will all be protected and if greenways are the way to protect them, that is what we will do. If in time there is a business case to go back to providing rail services, we will be building this into the greenway licence.

Mr. John Fitzgerald

I am not aware of particular circumstances on the River Suir or what happened there. The Department is not responsible for planning or whatever licences are involved. Throughout the country many of our regional management staff were first on the ground with the other agencies to try to help people find solutions. Our aim on those occasions was to put people first. There may sometimes be sense in assessing emergency works. It is possible that they could have effects on other communities downstream and it is often worthwhile carrying out some assessment of what is proposed to ensure they will not. The Department has been working very closely with other agencies in the meantime, for example, the Office of Public Works on its catchment flood risk assessment and management, CFRAM, programme. We have been as proactive, helpful and co-operative as possible.

We will continue to work within our statutory functions. On emergency works to relieve flooding, we have put the details of liaison officers in each area in the country on our website. People or agencies that have concerns can contact the regional staff who will be available to deal with them and co-operate in whatever way they can. The Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government co-ordinated an emergency response protocol between various agencies and the National Parks and Wildlife Service will work with them. It has been a question of people first. As I said, I am not aware of what happened on the River Suir or that we have to any extent put barriers in the way of emergency flood relief works. In Ballycar we will work within our statutory remit to do what we can. We do not have funding to carry out these infrastructural works.

However, we will do what we can to help in such situations.

Mr. John Sydenham

As Mr. Fitzgerald mentioned, the OPW has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the flood risk countrywide, culminating in the recent launch of the catchment flood risk assessment and management, CFRAM, programme, which is a ten-year, complex programme involving the development of approximately 150 projects, incorporating 118 new projects as well as existing projects in the pipeline. When complete, it will have protected approximately 95% of the properties in the country that are at risk. We are working hard on the problem of flooding nationally.

The Ballycar problem is a slightly unusual one insofar as it relates to a particular aspect of the catchment, that is, the rail line. While it sounds harsh, that is not cost effective in an economic sense. I accept that there are broader issues and I appreciate the concerns in that regard and the importance of rail. In developing CFRAM, we had to examine quite a number of areas countrywide where there were properties at risk. After assessing the pros and cons of possible solutions, any project that did not pass a certain threshold in terms of economic viability - the benefit-to-cost ratio, BCR - was not one that we could progress. There is an economic reality to which we must adhere.

That said, we work extensively with bodies countrywide. It is in everyone's interest to work collaboratively in attending to flooding problems. Even though there are many matters that are effectively not our job, we will do everything we possibly can to work with local authorities and other agencies on attending to serious problems. Everyone working in the field of flood relief and flood risk management sees the devastating impact on communities, which is problematic and recurring, so it behoves everyone to work together.

There has been an emphasis on the 2011 RPS report. After assessing the five possible solutions, the revised report that was published by the same consultants in 2015 recommended raising the rail line. That is an important consideration. When they are looked at, there is a solution to most problems. Senator Coffey asked who would pay for this if it came down to a simple issue of funding. There is more work to be done collectively to find a solution, as there are differing views in the room this morning. We need to be clear on what can be done to fix this, what is the best approach and from where the funding will come. It is a piece of infrastructure and there are well-tried methodologies for obtaining funding to invest in infrastructure, which is an important criterion.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. The year 2011 was mentioned. I am not from the area in question, but I am well aware of the problems experienced by people who have travelled on that line in recent years. I am looking across at the witnesses, where one side of the State is telling the other side what it cannot do. Were they in the private sector, they would not have jobs. If one cannot deliver, one will not have a job. Senator Coffey pointed out how one crowd will write to the other telling it that doing something is not "cost effective", which I have just heard from the OPW. The west does not deserve a train line because it is not cost effective. The OPW is considering how many houses there are in an area. I know how it analyses cost effectiveness. The number has increased slightly in some areas. However, we are talking about the bigger picture. This is about the tourism on which Clare, Galway and Limerick are relying. This is about the west. Do we just want to shut the train track down? It looks like that will happen.

We have been looking at the same problem for seven, eight or ten years. No one else would still be looking at a problem after so long. Nothing is being done because, given what has been said, no money will be forthcoming from the OPW. Five different solutions have been examined.

Mr. Fitzgerald referred to the NPWS helping. Given the loughs and turloughs in the area, any farmer, council or State body undertaking work must adhere to 34 types of permit. This even affects private property, which is a burden the State has placed on owners because of EU regulations. The 5 km up the road and the environment were mentioned, but we should be discussing the people in the area and those who travel on the train line. They come first in my book regardless of the EU or statutory obligations. The term "statutory obligations" is used time and again. The first thing we are elected to do is represent the people of an area and solve problems.

It will cost €10 million to raise the track, but Iarnród Éireann does not have that money and there is no point in saying it does. Debt has been taken on in respect of Lough Funshinagh and elsewhere in County Roscommon, but we want solutions. Four or five years ago, two of us went to a field with diggers and dug through the night. Fair play to the council in Galway. We opened a drain all the way down to a river. From that day on, 10 km of flooding was solved. We did that work voluntarily because it would not have been done quickly enough otherwise. It was piped and done. Why can the NPWS not install a pipe that would take the overflow? It could then worry about the environment while ensuring that enough water was held.

Due to the hen harrier, many parts of the country are drowned because we cannot clean drains and alleviate flooding. Mr. Fitzgerald referred to the NPWS being helpful, but he should go to Connemara in County Galway and see the problems being caused on its roads. The NPWS objected to them being widened. When the council opened a drain on a road that was flooded, the NPWS rang up to tell the council to close it again because it was a suck-all SAC. Am I correct in saying that there is not an individual statutory instrument in respect of every SAC? I followed the situation in question tightly. It was a site of community importance. My understanding is that at least half of our SACs are not actually SACs.

I wish Mr. Tiernan from Clare well in his retirement. He said that he and the council would help in any way and that Iarnród Éireann was the main stakeholder. Of course it is - it has the train line. However, does that benefit Clare, Limerick, Galway and elsewhere in the west? Do we want to shut the line and, as per usual, say it was causing problems and that the people can either go to Dublin or jump on a plane at Shannon and leave the country? From what I have read and heard, we have been dealing with a bit of a flood for eight years. When there was flooding in Athleague, we voluntarily used our own diggers to solve problems. There were no papers, meeting after meeting, environmental impact assessments, appropriate assessment screening reports and so on, as we would have been told by the NPWS to go through the imperative reasons of overriding public interest, IROP process, which would have taken four more years and seen the can being kicked down the road.

This is about solutions and someone making a decision quickly. There are five options. If the recommended one cannot be afforded, then it is gone. It is as simple as that. Will the Government provide €10 million to raise this track? Would it be good value for money? Culverts in various areas were mentioned. Could a pipe be placed along the line? Would that help a larger catchment area? The pipe could be laid at a height that would not damage the environment because a trapdoor can be placed on any pipe to let out as much water as desired.

However, no one will make a decision. Everyone will say that we cannot do that but there is no solution as to what we can do. At the end of the day, we will keep reading in the newspapers or hearing on the "Nine O'Clock News" that the line is blocked. We are trying to get balanced regional development, to get people to live and work in Clare and the west of Ireland and to get businesses to set up there so that people can go to work. Government after Government and the great EU, that devised all these regulations, talk about public transport. From what I have listened to today, the flora and fauna, birds or whatever else is more important than a person. If that is the way things have gone, by God our country has gone wrong. This happening countrywide.

Business people around the country are afraid to go near certain areas because of the amount of designation. They are closed off. A circular - it is not even a law - has been sent to every council from the NPWS to set a 15 km buffer zone around an SAC. I can be contradicted on this if I am wrong but I have been met officials from Galway County Council, Roscommon County Council and so on. The 15 km buffer zone is in case the integrity of a site might be damaged. If we want to go by the book then every part of the west of Ireland will be caught in that.

Deputy Willie Penrose

I welcome the officials and thank them for their presentations. However, I broadly concur with some of the comments made by my colleagues, Senator Coffey and Deputy Fitzmaurice. We all experience frustration dealing with bureaucratic bodies. That is the perception of the witnesses' organisations. Rather than engage with stakeholders or affected persons in a practical way, much of the time agency personnel clothe themselves in the armour of bureaucracy. I could give a multitude of examples after 35 years as an elected representative.

I do not know anything about the flooding in County Clare, but listening to the discussion about it brings to mind the flooding of Westmeath from the Shannon, which was heartbreaking. In 2000, I brought forward legislation which sought to get all of the organisations talking to each other. All of the agencies are working in silo, like cocks crowing on their own dunghill.

The CFRAM report is an excellent document, in respect of which I salute the OPW. It is well drafted. It is an iconic document on which the OPW is to be commended. In my experience, getting a practical response from some of the agencies is as rare as a white blackbird. When I was a member of Westmeath County Council, Jim Hearn, the county engineer, was always trying to come up with solutions, but when it came to getting a response from Iarnród Éireann, one had a better chance of winning the lottery. When it came to proposing solutions to road issues, for example, taking a piece of land from Iarnród Éireann, the process was mind-boggling. The agencies need to buck themselves up and accept that they are public servants working on behalf of the public. They need to treat the public as their paymasters. We have had enough of them passing the buck.

As I said, I know nothing about the problem being discussed today but this has all the hallmarks of passing the buck. We were told earlier by the witness from the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, that he only received most of the documentation required for this meeting late last night, which is desperate. The 2011 RPS Consulting Engineers report included no cost-benefit analysis. A first-year student would know that such analysis is vital.

In regard to the work done by Clare County Council, county councils can be a little obstructive at times but generally they can be brought around because local authority members require to be elected every five years so they can be held to account. The local authority executives know they have to run a show but they generally come around to practical solutions. I have no doubt that Clare County Council will rise to the occasion.

In September 2014, the OPW, Iarnród Éireann and Clare County Council came together on the issue. In 2015, they had another run at it, yet in 2018 the issue has still not been resolved. As stated by Deputy Fitzmaurice, this is unacceptable to those who are being flooded and cannot access their homes and so on. There are all sorts of emergencies, which we are hearing about constantly on "Liveline" and "Morning Ireland". The agencies need to get their act together. The Ballycar problem tallies with what I have experienced. Many ordinary Joes and elected members have been dealing with flooding issues for many years and they have good ideas on how to address them. Many years ago, we had small stone drains. There was many a good job done by people who did not have expertise or a list of letters behind their names. We sometimes need to listen to ordinary people because they often have the solution to the most complex problem. I am flabbergasted but not surprised that eight years on this problem has not been resolved.

I would like to deal now with rail issues. I note Mr. Meade is new to his position and I wish him well. I am an advocate for public transport provision. I know that, as in the case of hospitals, it is not possible to have light rail at every corner. People travelling to Dublin from Mullingar, however, benefit indirectly from light rail transport. It is to be hoped the issue around Luas provision at Maynooth will be sorted out soon. I would like to be able to leave my car at home and travel to Dáil Éireann via light rail transport. The Dublin local authority wants a ban on cars in the city centre, but that is a nonsense without proper connectivity. At what point will I be able to connect to the Luas to get to Dáil Éireann? Theory must be complemented with practical solutions.

When it comes to heavy rail infrastructure, what is proposed in the national development plan, Project Ireland 2040 and the national planning framework sounds great. The Sligo-Edgeworthstown-Mullingar-Enfield-Maynooth to Connolly Station route is one of Iarnród Éireann's busiest. I travelled on this line many times 35 years ago when I was studying law in Dublin and I regularly took part in the so-called guess the breakdown station competition. Every winter I could be certain that the train would break down at the Hill of Down. My wife also travelled on this line when she was going to the health centre in the Croke Park area. It was horrendous. From November to March each year this service was a disaster and it left a sour taste in people's mouths. In fairness, the service has improved but more needs to be done.

We need more carriages. I note it was mentioned that 300 carriages will come on stream over the next number of years. A good share of them is required for the Sligo-Longford-Mullingar-Maynooth to Connolly service. As the Chairman will be aware, people do not mind standing an odd time but in general people paying a weekly or monthly fee want to sit down. Some people do some work on the journey to Dublin. We have a huge migration from west to east, unfortunately. If IDA Ireland did more work for the west, people would not have to travel east for jobs. People need to be properly accommodated in terms of seating and I appeal to the witnesses to ensure it is provided.

I am a supporter of greenway development. I was one of the first people to get involved in the restoration of the Royal Canal from Spencer Dock to the Shannon. I am delighted with the Athlone-Mullingar greenway. It is being well used. However, there is a huge lack of commonsense when it comes to the rail structure between Mullingar and Athlone. Mullingar is akin to the capital of Westmeath and Athlone is a huge industrial belt in Westmeath. There has been mass migration of students to Athlone Institute of Technology. People from Athlone come to Mullingar to attend the Midland Regional Hospital and for various other reasons. The railway structure from Mullingar via Castletown and Streamstown to Athlone is in pristine condition. There is a rail connection between Athlone and Galway and Athlone and Tullamore. There is also a rail connection from Athlone to Dublin, yet there is no connection between Mullingar and Athlone. Every time it is suggested it is rejected. It is included in the Westmeath County Council county development plan. The greenway has been developed. It runs alongside the railway line and would not interfere with a rail service.

I will give another example. I am sure Deputy Fitzmaurice will go mad when he hears it. The area of east Westmeath has exploded. Kinnegad, Killucan, Raharney, Milltownpass, Rochfortbridge and The Downs have exploded in population. A huge number of people could access the train at Thomastown. There is an area at this location where the train could pull up. Currently, every train that passes it has to pull up to allow the train coming in the other direction to pass.

For the information of Deputy Penrose, the President, Mr. Michael D. Higgins, lived in Ballycar and was raised there. He lived very close to the rail line we are discussing. It is the next parish to me, Newmarket-on-Fergus. It is a long-standing issue and as I understand it, over the past ten years, the railway line has been flooded six times. I have raised this, as have many other public representatives in Clare, and absolute frustration has been expressed today by all the members here. Standing back to look at this, nobody wants to grasp the nettle or take responsibility.

Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice

I propose we bring everybody back in three or six months. We want a solution by then. Once the witnesses go out the door today, it is goodbye.

Chairman

I was about to propose something along those lines. There is a willingness to try to deal with this and everyone feels every agency could have an input. In fairness to the Office of Public Works, there is frustration and we want clarity on what solution should be put in place. There must be an agreement between all agencies and a decision on who will pay for this. Could each agency make a contribution towards a solution? Why does it have to be one agency above another? This is about County Clare, the west of Ireland and the attractiveness of the mid west. It is about commuters, whether they are working or going to college or school, and tourists. This really takes from County Clare. Every year the railway line is closed for an extended period, which is just not good enough.

The pass the parcel approach that has gone on for the past ten years must stop. Through the former county manager in Clare I proposed some years ago that a working group be set up. When that happened, there was a bit of engagement but it has now been parked. I agree with Deputy Fitzmaurice on calling in the agencies again in six months. They could then have some solution worked out with a recommendation on how it would be funded. I ask each agency to reflect on these deliberations and recognise that a solution must be found. This infrastructure is important and it is just not good enough for it to lie idle for months on end, as occurs far too frequently now.

There is a section of rail line with a speed restriction from Ballybrophy. Is there an intention to try to address that? I advocate the need for a spur from the Limerick-Ennis line to Shannon Airport. I know some work has been done on a proposal for that. It would complement the infrastructure that we have at Shannon. An alternative to that would be a regular commuter bus to bring passengers from the airport to Sixmilebridge station.

The rail review conducted a cost benefit analysis of the entire rail network. It outlined the cost of operating each part of the network on a segment-by-segment basis. As railway people, we do not want to close any line. If there were no issues, we would like to open and run more railways. The decision is not ours to make; it is with the Department and the NTA. We fed all the information into it and they developed the document. The decision is with them and we are not making a recommendation one way or the other.

Senator Paudie Coffey

I am conscious of the review and I am aware there are question marks regarding the Waterford to Limerick railway also. I refer back to Project Ireland 2040. If the population projections for the five regional cities of the State and the increased populations in their hinterlands are not taken into account in the review, then the review is not bona fide. Project Ireland 2040 is an ambitious plan that, for the first time, provides for capital expenditure in tandem with the growth strategies for the State. If we are planning for population growth, it is important that we also plan for the infrastructure associated with that growth such as housing, broadband and especially public transport. Any review that does not take Project Ireland 2040 into account needs to be reviewed again because that is the plan for the next 20 years. When the ten-year capital plan is announced, there will be funding to support that. We should certainly take account of that plan, especially with regard to rail infrastructure, and support it where possible.

I reiterate my earlier point on the promotion of the benefits of rail travel among our younger generations. Many younger people have not experienced it because most of them have cars and are using motorways. It is a diminishing return. Students will use it for college if it is on their doorstep but additional benefits to rail travel could be promoted. If a promotion was run to attract younger people to use the railway, we would see the benefits of that. There is a future in rail travel and I am certainly supportive of it. I would support Iarnród Éireann in any way to try to promote rail travel.

Chairman

On behalf of the joint committee I thank all the witnesses who attended. The committee recommends that a working group be convened and we will be in touch with each of the representatives on this group to get an update and progress report with a view to having a further meeting, if needed, in six months in order that the group can present a solution to the long-standing problem with the flooding at Ballycar.

The joint committee went into private session at 12.40 p.m. and adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 20 June 2018.

Joint Committee on Rural and Community Development debate - Wednesday, 23 May 2018

Flooding at Ballycar on the Galway-Limerick Railway and Investment in Heavy Rail: Discussion

Mr. Koen Verbruggen

Dr. Owen Naughton

Dr. Ted McCormack

Mr. John Fitzgerald

Mr. John Sydenham

Mr. John Sydenham

Mr. Tom Tiernan

Mr. Tom Tiernan

Mr. Jim Meade

Mr. Jim Meade

Mr. John Fitzgerald

Mr. John Sydenham

Mr. Jim Meade

Mr. John Fitzgerald

Mr. John Fitzgerald

Mr. John Fitzgerald

Mr. John Fitzgerald

Mr. John Fitzgerald

Mr. John Fitzgerald

Mr. John Sydenham

Mr. Jim Meade

Mr. Jim Meade

Mr. Jim Meade

Mr. Jim Meade

Mr. Jim Meade

Mr. Jim Meade

Mr. John Sydenham

Mr. Tom Tiernan

Mr. Jim Meade

Joint Committee on Rural and Community Development debate -
Wednesday, 23 May 2018