I again welcome representatives of the Rail Procurement Agency to the committee to discuss the Luas project.
Railway Procurement Agency: Presentation.
The presentation I intended giving related to the metro project. With regard to the Luas project, we hope we have answered the questions put to us. We are in a position to respond to any further queries committee members may have.
I welcome the RPA representatives back to the committee. We are only now going through their document as we received it at the commencement of this meeting. The RPA might bear with us on some of the questions we may ask as they may be unnecessary bearing in mind what has been circulated to us.
In the previous evidence given by Mr. Frank Allen to the committee, when I suggested an estimate of €44 million for the Connolly station ramp, Mr. Allen stated that under no circumstances could it remotely come near my figure. I note that the figure now supplied to us puts the cost of the ramp in excess of €34.4 million. Will Mr. Allen take us through that figure?
At the last meeting a question was asked as to whether there were any elements of the light rail order that do not comply with the Luas as it is now running. On that issue and on the cost of the Connolly station ramp, will Mr. Allen elaborate on the evidence that was presented to the RPA board before a decision was made to proceed with the ramp?
Like everybody else I have not had time to read this document. I would have liked an opportunity to have done so properly.
In the past year two-thirds of the funding of €12 million went on professional fees. Will Mr. Allen give details of that incredible figure? I would have thought the professional expertise exists in the RPA. Why is it that the RPA has had to buy in so much professional expertise?
The expected Red Cow roundabout traffic disruption is an issue of concern to many people. The predictions of what will happen at the roundabout when Luas is running are frightening. Does the RPA believe that there is scope for any improvements there, as it is the busiest junction in the State? Has the RPA had any discussions with the Minister for Transport in recent months on any other arrangement or provision that could be made to avoid the likely traffic chaos that will result when the Luas is crossing that junction? It appears there will be endless delays in Harcourt Street and Abbey Street.
There also appears to be a complete lack of co-ordination of the preparatory works for Luas. The business community in both of these areas has been critical of the works. It is claimed that the RPA stated that it would take a certain number of weeks to complete the work but instead it has taken many months extra. I know from firsthand experience that the Abbey Street work would be a laughable were it not so expensive and damaging to so many businesses. One week the ESB dug up the road and moved the lines and the following week, the gas company moved in and went through a similar process. After that another utility carried out work on the street. How on earth did the RPA get it so wrong with those works? What level of supervision is there? There seems to be no supervision or co-ordination. Can the RPA account for the mess that has been created in the city centre because of these works?
What is the expected total cost of the Luas project? The RPA gave a figure of €692 million, exclusive of a risk provision of €83 million, making a total of €755 million. The document before us states that as experienced system operators, Connex have definite views on many aspects of light rail which relate to both ensuring the system operates at optional levels of service and in a manner that protects them against performance deductions. Connex signed a contract but in that statement it seems to be questioning some aspects of the system. Am I right in thinking that? If so, can Connex get out of the contract once the company has signed it?
At the outset I should like to state that we have provided the information on Monday and I presume the issue of confidentiality was what delayed its distribution to members.
I am not sure where the €34.4 million estimate came from. What I stated in the document was that the €20 million was inclusive of everything that went before it. I explained in the letters that the demolition itself was only €1.42 million, but there were also costs associated with property acquisition and so on. It is difficult at this stage to give a definite figure because discussions are continuing on property acquisition, extension time claims by the contractor and so on. In response to the question, what do we expect the outcome to be, that is where the €20 million came from. It is inclusive of everything that went before it.
I accept that point. However, Mr. Allen will accept that we only received this documentation today. In November 2001, the acting chief executive responding to a FOI request said he no longer considered this an option and recommended that the RPA should not go ahead with this. There is a provision whereby the Minister for Transport can amend this. Was any approach made to the Minister for Transport on the Connolly Station ramp?
The provision in the legislation for amendments refers to amendments of a minor nature. I will ask my colleague to go through some of the amendments we requested to the light rail order. They are referred to in the letter. Members will see one suggests moving the stop 20 feet outside the museum in Benburb Street; rather than having it outside one gate we have it outside another. It is a minor change and is not a matter of changing the entire location or providing the terminus in the footprint of the Connolly Station ramp. That is not the amendment we request, as that would require a new planning process, a public inquiry and all that goes with that.
On the decision referred to on the Connolly Station ramp and the location of the terminus at Connolly, the background is that the Government asked the light rail project office that the Tallaght line should terminate at Connolly Station - not in the general vicinity but at the station, so that there would be an interchange between Luas and the DART. A number of public inquiries were held about this which is genuinely the most complex part of the system to design with the alignment of Luas, along the city quays and through Beresford Place, as Connolly station is a block north of that. It was the most complex location to design in the light rail system.
On that point, is the argument that for the money allocated for work on the station you could have gone halfway down to the docklands? A couple of years ago you could have written to the Minister asking to do that and you probably would have received approval.
One would not get halfway down the docklands for that amount of money and a letter to the Minister would not have achieved that. That letter would have had to request relocating the terminus to a different spot, a location that had already been refused at a prior public inquiry. It would have required not a letter to the Minister but beginning the process again, a process we are now beginning in the context of seeking an extension from Connolly station to the Point Depot.
That is what I am saying. We are now doing it.
Prior to the board making a decision on the terminus at Connolly station, the RPA was actively considering a continuation of the service to the docklands and the Point Depot. Circumstances had changed dramatically at the stage when the board made the decision.
An extension through the docklands is certainly included in "Platform for Change" and it is part of the master plan for public transport in Dublin. There is no doubt about that. I know of few issues which have gained the attention of the board and the Department for as long and with so much detailed analysis as the location of the terminus in the vicinity of Connolly station. The reason is that this is a genuinely complex location. There were umpteen board meetings - I do not know how many - to assess the various options. This was examined upside down and inside out. As a result of the deliberation process, which went on over an extended period, the findings of the public inquiry were that the terminus for the Tallaght line should be placed where it was approved by the public inquiry, and had been the subject of a light rail order and about which a statutory instrument had been issued.
The only alternative proposal was one which had been suggested previously to the public inquiry and for which a light rail order was requested, though it was declined. I know few processes which were so detailed and lengthy. Location was one issue and the interchange with DART was another key issue. The location of a terminus, now being constructed, and having a good interchange with DART was the outcome of as detailed a planning and management process as could possibly have happened. As a result of those detailed processes the conclusion, the law of the land, is in the light rail order approved by the Minister.
Mr. Allens predecessor, Mr. Mangan, said this should not be considered, obviously on the recommendations of his staff, who furnished him with reports to that effect. That was obviously the recommendation to the board at this stage.
Perhaps I could comment on this because this was discussed in detail by the board and there is an important point of governance here for everyone concerned.
The terminus at Connolly Station was the subject of not one but two public hearings, and the second ended with a proposal from the CIE group to complete the terminus at the concourse of the entrance to Connolly Station. When the acting chief executive made the proposal that that be laid aside to the board we considered it in detail on quite a number of occasions. I am satisfied to stand over the quality of the decision-making process for a number of reasons.
First, the formal light rail order was the subject of two processes. Second, not completing the extension to Connolly Station on schedule would have resulted in passengers from Tallaght being decamped in the middle of Abbey Street. Third, we cannot presume on when or if the Minister in future will approve an extension to the docklands. The view of my board was that it would have been irresponsible to lay aside a properly constituted rail order and to leave passengers stranded in the middle of Abbey Street on the basis that at some time in the future there may or may not be an extension to the docklands.
Also, we were satisfied on two important counts that the completion of the terminus at Connolly Station was compatible with an extension to the docklands. We spent a great deal of time looking at this with the teams. In addition, in any future extension to the docklands, the Connolly Station ramp would make a lot of sense and be very convenient for passengers rather than letting them out somewhere else.
On that basis we gave this absolute consideration as a board. That is what boards are for, to listen to executives, take a view and to make a judgment. We made a considered judgment and formally informed the Department of our conclusion. That absolutely stands as a proper decision, so from a governance point of view it was dealt with in great detail.
Were any requests made to the Minister at the time to proceed to the docklands rather than stopping at Connolly Station?
No, because that process is only at the early stages as we speak. It would have been premature at that stage.
Iarnród Éireann earlier today was adamant in its statement that Spencer Dock would have been the ideal termination point for Luas for further development. That is why I asked the question.
Spencer Dock is halfway down the docklands. One must still give passengers a stop at Connolly station. If one thinks of the alternatives, we would have ended up with Luas in the middle of Abbey Street. Once my board was satisfied we could complete to Connolly station and satisfy two other criteria - that technically we could extend down to the docklands and financially that that investment in the ramp would remain valid as the connection would still be convenient to passengers - we signed off in absolute confidence that we had given this due process. For Deputy Naughten's benefit, the give-and-take between executives and boards is what this is all about. We discharged our responsibility very fully.
I was not going to say much more about Connolly station apart from answering Deputy Ellis. The notion of a Luas interchange at Spencer Dock being ideal would not appeal to me. The interchange is with the DART and there is no DART station at Spencer Dock. The location of the interchange must be in the vicinity of Connolly Station. Spencer Dock would not make sense.
To return to Deputy Naughten's questions, I would like to ask my colleague, Michael Sheedy, project director for Luas, to list the areas in the light rail order where we have requested the Minister to make amendments to that order to ensure there is full compliance.
Mr. Michael Sheedy
We have listed seven locations in the report. The first two substations are at Cookstown Industrial Estate, near Tallaght, and the other at Dundrum Station. Essentially, when we sized the buildings to house the electrical substations at the light rail order inquiry stage, we under-provided for the spatial requirements of the equipment. The system the contractors supplied under the design and build contract would not have fitted in the substations as envisaged. Therefore, it was incumbent on us to find alternative solutions. We needed bigger buildings. We were in a very tight site in Cookstown within the compulsory purchase of lands. We could not physically fit a bigger substation there so we moved it around the corner, about 150 metres, to a wider tract of land which had already been acquired for public transport. We discussed the issue in detail with the planning and roads authorities and all concerned.
The same issue arose in Dundrum substation. The original substation was to be incorporated in the Taney junction bridge structure. Again it would not fit in the new configuration and we moved it into the Dundrum stop, which is the old Harcourt Street-Dundrum railway station. As it is built underground, it will have no environmental impact as such.
On the Red Cow roundabout, at the public inquiry owners of several businesses on the south side of the Naas Road, in the proximity of the Red Cow Inn, explained to the inspector that they had grave reservations about their ability to exit from their business premises onto the Naas Road. Given the configuration as proposed at the time, traffic coming out of Sam Hire, Myles Balfe, the Red Cow Inn and Modern Plant would have been pushed on to Turnpike Road and would not have been able to directly access the Red Cow roundabout.
Shortly after the inquiry we were approached by consultants for the NRA who envisaged a fairly significant upgrade to the M50 Naas Road interchange. They asked if we could modify our plans to be compatible with their upgrade plans. We sat down with everyone concerned, including the Dublin Transportation Office, who had brokered the original agreement on the design of the Red Cow roundabout, South Dublin County Council, the NRA and the business interests who would be disaffected. We came up with a solution that involved retaining the tracks in the median of the Naas Road. Instead of crossing to the south side of the Naas Road, approximately in front of the Red Cow Inn, we will stay in the median right up to the roundabout. We will negotiate sharper curves and get across that way. Everyone was satisfied with that because it addressed the difficulties of the business holders and satisfied the requirements of the NRA. On that basis we have gone back to the Minister seeking an amendment.
Has the Minister said you may proceed on that basis?
Mr. Sheedy
Not yet. We have had discussions with the Department and we are about to lodge the formal documentation with the Minister in the next couple of days.
We had discussions on the Heuston station stop, particularly with the road traffic department of Dublin City Council and with Bus Átha Cliath. As members will be aware, Dublin Bus has a terminus immediately in front of the main building at Heuston station. The company was worried about access for its buses coming from Heuston station back into the flow of traffic, heading towards the city centre. In the approved scheme for the light rail order we had shown a siding across John's Road in the forecourt of St. Stephen's Hospital as a lay-over facility for holding a tram. We envisage what is called short running, that is, trams will shuttle between Heuston and Connolly stations as distinct from going all the way out to Tallaght. We have a higher capacity in that section of high demand.
Having discussed the various issues, we found that we could fit an additional third platform on the stop at Heuston station at which we would stable a tram. Therefore, the tram coming from town could go into a track beside the third platform, remain there, not interfere with trams coming and going to Tallaght, and go back into town as and when required. It also avoided unnecessary crossings of John's Road for trams that would have been going over to the siding facility. Again, it was a win-win situation. CIE, which owns some of the property, along with Dublin City Council, was agreeable to it. Dublin Bus is happier and the traffic department in Dublin Corporation is happier. It relieves us of the requirement to compulsorily acquire part of the lands at St. Stephen's Hospital.
OPW, which manages the buildings of the National Museum, approached us in relation to the museum stop. It asked if we would consider relocating the tram to stop on the tracks longitudinally about 20 metres to the west. That was to centre the stop in front of the centre of the buildings - that is the architectural eye coming through - and also to make the stop more immediately accessible from steps that currently exist, going from Benburb Street into the museum complex. Third parties were not affected by this and there were no implications for owners of private property.
At the Charlemont Street stop there was an issue at the public inquiry——
A Member
We do not need to go through all the aspects.
No member has mentioned Charlemont Street.
We were responding to Deputy Naughten's question about deviations from the library——
What was the main change in the final two?
Mr. Sheedy
In the final two, we moved the stairs from immediately outside what is now the Hilton Hotel into the bank of the canal. We moved the Sandyford stop to make it compatible with the extension to Cherrywood.
Any changes made were in response to requests from local authorities, local business and so on, with their full support and co-operation.
On Deputy Shortall's questions on whether we have the balance wrong between professional fees as opposed to doing things in-house, I anticipate that over time a great deal more of the work being done by consultants and professional advisers will be done in-house. However, the information given was for the first year in existence of the RPA. The light rail project office was set up as a temporary structure to develop projects that had not been developed previously in Ireland and which required retaining professional advice on a whole range of issues. In terms of major construction projects such as this, it is standard practice to retain professional advisers to benefit from best practice internationally. As time goes on and the RPA has established itself as a permanent agency, and taken on permanent responsibilities, we intend recruiting people to do things on a more permanent basis and to learn from the projects that have been implemented already.
Our main work is projects. Some years there will be many projects to work on and other years there will be less. In many instances there will be projects that have not been done in Ireland previously. For example, integrated ticketing requires specialist advice. There are very few places in the world where this has been done successfully. We felt it appropriate to find that advice and retain it so that it is implemented in the best manner possible in Ireland.
Another reason why it is important to retain professional advice in circumstances such as this is the nature of the project approval whereby we put forward a proposal. If the Government says "No" to it, that is the end of that, or it may tell us to continue with the next stage. It is entirely appropriate not to continue with things just because they have begun. As a result of that structure, however, it is important to have the flexibility to begin quickly, get things done, obtain professional advice and, if things do not move, if we find the economic viability of the project is not what was anticipated, we can stop the work just as quickly. The structure of the work we are doing will continue to require a great deal of professional advice. My intention, which I have indicated to staff, is that over time far more of the work will be done by our own full-time staff rather than retaining professional advisers. We can do that now because we are at the end of implementing the first phase of Luas. We will be able to do far more extensions ourselves, rather than depending on people who have developed light rail internationally.
On the Red Cow roundabout, by way of background the design of light rail passing by the roundabout was the subject of lengthy and detailed discussion before the public planning inquiry, with strong input from South Dublin County Council, the National Roads Authority and the Dublin Transportation Office. The current solution is the one that was approved by the planning inspector appointed by the Minister. The Minister, in turn, issued the light rail order, with the active support of the people who were most affected by that: NRA, South Dublin County Council, the DTO - in a more advisory role - and, of course, the light rail project office, at the time. What is there is the result of that consultation process. Reports of impending chaos are exaggerated.
At a previous attendance at this committee we showed a schematic outline of how the tram will bypass the Red Cow, and the issues about traffic lights. It is probably not necessary to repeat what was discussed at the time. The whole concept of light rail is that it merges with other traffic. There is no doubt there is massive traffic congestion at the Red Cow roundabout. It is operating pretty much at capacity. Once light rail is implemented it will take people out of cars, but not to the extent that it will relieve the congestion. It will relieve congestion to the extent that we have built a slip lane - for outbound traffic to get on to the M50 - and the tram will go on a new bridge we have built across the M50.
There will continue to be congestion at the Red Cow, however. There is a road problem there in terms of how to address the massive congestion. It is not just the Red Cow, but people getting on and off the M50 at various locations. We believe that light rail will contribute somewhat to taking people out of cars. However, there is a much bigger problem as to how access and egress from the M50 at the Red Cow roundabout and various other places, needs to be dealt with. Another agency is responsible for that, the National Roads Authority. On the design that is there at the moment, it is being built with the full support and co-operation of the National Roads Authority, which appeared before a detailed planning inquiry. We believe it is going to work.
I agree on that, but I do not think the message has been put across very well.
I agree with you, Chairman.
I do not think people realise how simple - when the Luas is actually running - that it is going to be. The message has not got across.
Indeed. People will believe it, when they see it. On whether there are alternatives at this stage: the one alternative that was considered at the time was a bridge or an overpass across the M50. This was not feasible or acceptable at the time because the National Roads Authority had plans for a major upgrade of the interchange at the N7/M50. It would not have accepted - and understandably so - the idea that we would put a bridge right across the M50, where it was going to put its own bridge for car traffic. The NRA's plans have been put on hold. It is looking at how the entire issue of access and egress from the M50 is to be managed. As to the solution that letter writers to the newspapers query - why we did not put a bridge across it - this was not feasible at the time because there were plans to put another bridge across the motorway at the very same location. At some future point there will be another major upgrade at Red Cow and what we have done has got to fit in with that.
Deputy Shortall asked whether the Minister had looked at it and whether we have had discussions with him in recent months. As members are aware, we have had discussions about various aspects of the whole area at Red Cow, including access to the "park and ride" and to the stop there. The Minister has looked at - and is looking at - the arrangements that have been put in place. We have explained to him and his Department officials exactly why we believe this works. The Minister listens to the concerns that have been expressed about it and we are doing our best to explain to him why we believe the current solution is one that will work.
On the degree of disruption in Harcourt and Abbey Streets and how businesses are upset by this: Deputy Shortall is right in saying it is creating major problems for businesses. A huge amount of the work we are doing hinges on our contractors getting on with the job as quickly as possible. it is a very complex project and there are various stages in terms of diverting utilities: there are sewers there, basements that neither we nor the residents knew anything about. There were utilities from companies long bankrupt. There were complications such as archaeological finds that had to be dealt with in a sensitive manner. It is a complex task. We are not satisfied with the speed that our contractors have proceeded with the work, and we continue to encourage them to expedite matters.
There seems to be a problem with the co-ordination and supervision of the contract.
I would not accept that. Our responsibility is to put in the infrastructure for the ducting - the Deputy has mentioned electricity and gas and various other services. Our responsibility is to put in the ducting, infrastructure, the enabling work for that. We do our best to ensure that the statutory undertakers respond as quickly as possible, because they have to run their own wire services through that. It may be that something that is of the highest priority for us to have done tomorrow may not have the same urgency for others, including the utility companies. They co-operate very well, however, so we are not blaming any of the other parities. It is our task——
They do not operate very well. The place is a mess and it has been dug up for months on end. There is no co-ordination there.
It takes months to develop that infrastructure. As to whether it has gone on for much longer than was thought, in fact it has happened later than was anticipated. For example, we had said that there would be a heavy construction phase over a two-year period in Harcourt Street. It will be done within a two-year period. It is a later two-year period than had been indicated earlier to the residents. The number of months that the project has taken, however, is what we had indicated. We are aware that it is inconvenient and creates major problems for residents and businesses. It is in line with the length of time indicated at the planning inquiry, when it was put to them. We are doing our best to ensure the contractors move as quickly as possible. We are on their case. We have our own supervisors there all the time.
I am meeting the Henry Street/Mary Street partnership for a session tomorrow afternoon. We are doing everything possible to try to alleviate some of the problems. We cannot deny it is hugely inconvenient for the businesses there. We are trying to ensure it gets done as quickly as possible and to the quality required. Some businesses have come to us, and some have gone public and said the position was not as bad as the newspaper reports indicated. Inner city businesses, particularly in the Henry Street/Mary Street area believe light rail is essential for their long-term survival. They realise that unless this is done people will continue to shop at Liffey Valley, Blanchardstown and the various other places centres.
How many businesses will survive the construction? Too many of them will go to the wall.
I think Mr. Allen is right, but I know people who welcomed it with open arms in Harcourt Street are now almost in tears with it. They just cannot wait to see the back of it, because it has completely destroyed their business. We could argue this all day. There is no doubt that at the end of the day it is going to bring benefits, but it will have done a huge amount of damage, in the meantime. I agree with Mr. Allen that Harcourt Street will be a great street when it is finished.
If I may move on to the Chairman's questions about the cost of the implementation of Luas. We have indicated that there is an approved amount at present of €692 million. We had indicated to the Government last November that the additional amount of €83 million which had been earmarked as a risk amount when the project was approved in 1998, would be called on to bring it to the full €775 million. We are now working to ensure that the costs are kept as much below that figure as is feasible and possible. That is our main task. The outcome will depend to a large extent on arbitration with contractors and property arbitration and that is standard for any major infrastructural project. A contract amount is agreed with somebody and they continue with it but in any major project in which I have been involved, there is an almighty row at the back end as to who was responsible.
Is Mr. Allen happy that it will not go over €775 million?
I am confident we are not going to go over that, yes.
It will not be over that amount?
I am confident we will not go over that, yes.
No matter what row happens afterwards?
The reason I hesitated slightly is because if something is decided by an arbitrator, there will be a legal obligation to pay. However, our assessment of how those property, contractual and other arbitrations go means we are confident it can be done within this €775 million.
I indicated at our first meeting with the committee that our view was that it would be completed within €770 to €775 million. That is our objective and we are going to fight tooth and nail to achieve that. The arbitration process throws up judgments and valuations that are totally unpredictable. I mentioned this to the committee on another occasion. It is an area of complete unpredictability.
Our commitment and our view is that we can contain it within €770 million to €775 million. We will need to defend various claims made by contractors and others. The RPA's commitment is to bring this within the overall financial limit of €775 million.
I know that and, of course, that is the job of the RPA. Mr. Allen seems to be more confident than Mr. White.
No. I said on the very first day that our view is it will be completed within these limits. I am happy to repeat that view now.
The Chairman asked about Connex and whether it has a contract. Clearly, it does and the contract has been signed. We intend holding Connex to the terms of that contract. What the Chairman referred to in the letter is that through the implementation phase of a project, there is much work to be done right to the end. To give an example, before we accept passengers for commercial operation next year, the safety case needs to be satisfied. There is a lot of work to be done in developing a safety case. The operator has responsibility for the safety case. We are commissioning trams. The point I made in my letter to the committee related to the RPA being an operator. An operator obviously wants to make life easier for itself. The RPA's objective is to get a superior quality service for the passengers of Dublin. There is no dispute of any substance but when we have discussions with Connex, we refer to the contract and there is no doubt about it. Connex is mobilising well and we are very satisfied with performance to date. We have no concerns on that front.
On the last occasion the RPA appeared before the committee, we were talking about what happened in England. It could be the use of language but they have definite views on many aspects of light rail which relate both to ensuring the system operates at optimum levels of service and in a manner which protects Connex against performance deductions.
We had not intended that.
If one reads it, one wonders if Connex is looking to change it?
It is not. We would not toleratethat.
I was asked by my colleagues to ask a question about the estimated completion date of the project and the start date of the service. That question may have been asked already in my absence. I am aware this issue was discussed at the last meeting. Has the RPA's estimate of the start date changed since the last meeting?
No. The completion of construction for the Sandyford to St. Stephen's Green line is in March. There is a three-month period for proving of the safety case and for detailed commissioning where trams will be running on the streets but it will not be available for commercial operations during that three-month period ending in June 2004. The completion of construction of the Tallaght to Connolly Station line will be in May 2004 with the beginning of commercial operations and the carrying of passengers in August 2004.
Does that mean I will see passengers using the Luas in Harcourt Street in ten month's time?
Is June 2004 in ten month's time?
Eleven months.
Yes.
I will see them?
Yes.
Not if I walk up that street at present. Everybody thinks that once the rail is laid, that is the end of it. They do not realise it will be months. Did it take more than a year in Croydon?
It took an additional six months in Croydon.
Once it was built?
Yes. They found a problem in Croydon.
Mr. Sheedy
There was a problem in East Croydon station. The light rail crosses over the heavy rail of British Rail and there were problems with stray currents leaking down and affecting the signalling on British Rail. The safety case was not cleared for the best part of 12 months.
Our safety case will take three months, is that correct?
Mr. Sheedy
It is not in our hands.
We are working on the safety case at present. The final decision as to when someone can——
Work will need to be completed in February.
Mr. Sheedy
We expect to finish the civil works on the streets in the city centre by Christmas. There will then be the fitting out of the overhead wires.
To answer the Chairman's question very seriously, we are working flat out and maintaining as much pressure as is humanly possible on all the contractors in order to achieve these deadlines. We are co-operating with the rail safety inspector and we try to anticipate anything that could possibly go wrong. To answer the question of when there will be passengers on the lines, our contractors have given a programme and we have challenged them on what allowance is being made for various items. There is very little room for slippage. We are maintaining the pressure on everybody concerned to ensure it is completed within that schedule.
The committee has been informed it will be another six months before the works are completed on Harcourt Street, Abbey Street and Mary Street. Mr. Allen said in his response that the completion of the on-street works, such as the diversion of utilities and the laying of lines and electric cables takes place over a two-year period. Has the Railway Procurement Agency learned anything from that process? How would it do things differently, in terms of the envisaged timescale, the contracting of the actual work or how the work was scheduled to be completed, if it had the opportunity to go through the process again? An underground metro station in Madrid, for example, can be built in a shorter period of time by physically digging up the road and putting an underground station in place. Has the RPA learned anything from its experiences?
The trams on the Sandyford line will be 40 metres long, whereas those on the Tallaght line will be 30 metres long. Mr. Allen said at a previous meeting of this committee that it is possible to increase the length of the trams by ten metres by adding an extra carriage. Has provision been made at the stops for this?
When I mentioned a two-year period, I was referring to disruptive civil works, such as street digging. The two-year period does not include the time needed to attach wires and electrical and mechanical systems. The earlier question referred to work that is genuinely disruptive for people who live and work on the streets where it is taking place.
Deputy Naughten also asked if the Railway Procurement Agency has learned anything. We have learned a tremendous amount from the installation of the first 25 kilometres. We had no idea of the complexity of the utility diversion process beneath the streets. We went through the process by co-operating with everybody else who was involved. We feel we will be far more knowledgeable about the complexity of some of these issues when we will be dealing with the Luas extensions. The Railway Procurement Agency is already looking at——
How will the RPA go about it in a different way?
We will probably dig up more streets to begin with, in a very limited place, rather than depending on the charts that the utility companies can provide. There is a certain amount one can achieve from desk research, but I think it would be better to proceed with a much more significant dig in a particular location to see what is under the ground. One is much better equipped, as a result, when one is planning for the entire street.
The RPA is already preparing for the Luas extensions, as the planning process is lengthy. We are examining the procurement methods. The committee is aware that public private partnership, which involves quite a different procurement mechanism, is being considered for the metro project. In a PPP project, one must ensure that those responsible for the design and construction in the first instance will maintain the integrity of the system for 25 years afterwards. As we pursue new initiatives, we are keen not only to examine how we have done things up to now, but also to see what we can learn from other systems. We have to assess the best practice in light rail schemes elsewhere.
I was asked why it takes longer to do something in Harcourt Street than it takes to install a cut and cover station in Madrid. There are some reasons for that. Professor Melis explained to the RPA that when he encountered difficulties in a particular location, he made a telephone call to the relevant Minister in Madrid. Within 24 hours, he had convinced the Minister that the underground station location should be moved by 100 metres. There was no need for planning permission, environmental impact statements, public consultation or compensation payments. It is a different regime. If we said, every time we encountered difficulties here, that we did not particularly like Harcourt Street and that Leeson Street might be an easier location——
May I interrupt Mr. Allen at this point? If and when the Luas is extended, as is the plan at present, would the RPA like to have the sort of power that Professor Melis appears to have? He is able to make changes as he goes along. I think I know the answer to the question.
Is the Pope a Catholic?
Does Mr. Allen genuinely think that we should swing the pendulum to that extent?
If the Deputy is asking me whether it would make life easier as chief executive of the RPA, perhaps it would. I have to answer, however, as somebody who lives in Dublin and who appreciates that it is important to get people on board. I like the fact that public agencies, such as the RPA, are obliged to conduct environmental impact statements. I wonder whether the process needs to be quite as extensive as it is at present. While there are times when I wish——
Mr. Allen has mentioned that it is nice to have people on board, but can we afford that luxury in an era of major multi-billion euro infrastructure?
Many people are inconvenienced when an important major project such as the metro is being built in a city. The metro will change the quality of life for people in Dublin. I agree with Professor Melis, who believes that all things have to be done at the same time. If Deputy Peter Power considers the amount of disruption that could be caused by a cut and cover portal on the road to the airport, he will appreciate that problems may arise if one does something like that in several parts of the city. It is important that those who will be discommoded are consulted and are involved in the process. It is good that we are obliged to sell our projects. There is a great story to sell in relation to the metro project, as it has the potential to change and revitalise the heart of the city. It makes sense that we should sell it.
The public consultation procedure to date has involved consultation on choice of alignment and further consultation on the details of the project after the designs have been drawn up. The RPA has suggested that although public consultation is necessary and important, one may not need to do it so often. The proposal we have made to the Government, which involves shortening the schedule, states that the first stage is not necessary. There are adequate provisions for public consultation at a later date.
I would like to ask a related question.
May I answer the Deputy's other question first?
Mr. Allen may answer that question in a moment. Given that the RPA envisages that it will try to avoid problems in the future, rather than encountering them on the first day, perhaps Mr. Allen can elaborate on the plans to extend the Luas network from Sandyford to Cherrywood. There seems to be difficulties with the proposed route being taken by the RPA, which is along the Ballyogan Road rather than along the old Harcourt Street railway line. These difficulties were highlighted in the McHugh report.
I will answer the question the Deputy has just asked before answering his question about the length of tram. The RPA held detailed discussions and negotiations last year with a consortium of private developers about the extension of the Sandyford line to Cherrywood. The heads of terms that were negotiated were presented to the board of the RPA at the beginning of December 2002. The board approved the heads and authorised us to enter into the heads of agreement setting out a path forward of how to proceed. Things have stalled in recent months because the board of the consortium of private developers did not approve the heads, although discussions have recently resumed. We are very keen to develop the extension, which is an excellent scheme. One of the lessons we have learnt is that public infrastructure should be developed in an area before houses are built there, as one is free to do what one wants, to some extent. That is the status at present.
The Deputy claimed that the McHugh report suggested that a wrong alignment had been chosen, but the report did not make such a suggestion. Advisers on urban planning were very supportive of the part of the alignment which deviates from the Harcourt Street line, which skirts Leopardstown Racecourse, by going along Ballyogan Road, because it serves areas of great potential that will be developed under the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown development plan. We decided on what we thought was a preferred alignment from an urban planning point of view and then examined the implications in terms of archaeology. McHugh retained an archaeologist on our behalf to carry out an assessment of the route. Areas of higher risk in terms of archaeological find were identified and skirted through the modification of our alignment. Our archaeological advice is that this is a good alignment and that the chances of encountering a major archaeological find are low. We have considered the way to approach anything that happens in that regard. We are very confident the preferred route of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown authority, the RPA, as advised by McHugh, and the developers is the one which should be presented to the public inquiry.
The stations are adequate in the context of the need for a 10 metre segment which is not quite a carriage length. We have designed the stops for a 40 metre tram. The trams on both lines can operate on either. We have considered that we might want to move the 30 metre trams to the other line or vice versa and designed the system to accommodate such a change.
On behalf of the committee, I thank the delegation for presenting its overview and for answering the questions we presented. We will ask people how they feel about matters and will probably return to the issue.
The joint committee adjourned at 5.05 p.m.sine die.