Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT debate -
Wednesday, 7 Mar 2007

Dublin Port Tunnel and M50: Discussion with NRA.

Our discussion today centres on the operation of the Dublin Port tunnel and the M50. I welcome Mr. Fred Barry, chief executive officer, Mr. Michael Egan, head of corporate affairs, Mr. Gerry Murphy, head of PPP and tolling, and Mr. Hugh Creegan, head of programme management.

I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege, but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I propose that we hear a short presentation from Mr. Barry and that it be followed by a question and answer session. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Fred Barry

I thank the Chairman and the committee for the opportunity to provide an update on the Dublin Port tunnel and the M50. The principal functions of the Dublin Port tunnel are two-fold. First, it is to provide efficient access to and from Dublin Port for commercial traffic. Second, it is intended to provide relief from non-essential commercial traffic within Dublin city. We are pleased to be able to confirm that it is succeeding on both counts. In excess of 11,000 vehicles each work day already use the tunnel. Meanwhile, traffic flows have improved in the city and the reduction in HGV numbers is a notable benefit to pedestrians and cyclists. We are confident the Dublin Port tunnel will be able to cater for all likely growth in commercial traffic to and from the port indefinitely.

Committee members may recall that at previous appearances before this committee we pointed out what needs to be done to improve the M50. Specifically, the junctions are overloaded and require improvements, traffic lanes need to be added to the main carriageway to increase its capacity and the toll plaza, with its barriers, needs to be removed. All of these problems are being addressed.

The entire M50, between the M1 interchange and the Sandyford interchange is undergoing a major upgrade to provide three lanes in each direction, with an additional fourth lane linking junctions. Ten junctions are being upgraded and the toll plaza is being removed and replaced with a free flow electronic system that allows vehicles to travel at full speed without any delay or obstruction.

Construction of the improvements is under way and the work will be completed on a phased basis between 2008 and 2010. For example, by next year the existing toll plaza will be removed, the road immediately north and south of the plaza will be widened and the N4, Galway-Sligo road, and N7, Cork-Limerick road, junctions will be completed. The effect of these changes will be to greatly increase traffic capacity on the M50, with a corresponding improvement in congestion. The entire upgrade will be completed by 2010.

I wish to put one or two questions. What is the envisaged capacity of the M50 per hour when the works are completed in 2010?

Mr. Barry

I am not sure of the per hour capacity, but capacity will be double the current capacity, approximately 18,000 vehicles per hour.

The question was previously asked as to what would happen when the barriers were eliminated. What is the capacity per hour now with the barriers in operation? We all accept the barrier problem exists.

Mr. Barry

The barrier problem, the junction problem and other problems exist. On average approximately 85,000 vehicles pass through per day and this is typically divided by ten to get maximum capacity going through, which is approximately 8,500.

Is Mr. Barry suggesting that the capacity of the M50 will double once barrier-free tolling and the junction improvements go ahead?

Mr. Barry

When those and the carriage widening are implemented, yes.

Arising from the doubling of capacity, how long will this keep us out of trouble given the growth in vehicle numbers? Do we still need an outer orbital route to take more HGVs off that route?

Mr. Barry

Traffic growth will catch up with the improvements very quickly. This is very dependent on what happens with the public transport investment and the plans of Fingal and South Dublin County Councils to improve their local road networks. If their improvements and the public transport improvements are all introduced as planned, it will be some time before we need demand management on the M50. If there are delays in those other plans, then demand management will be needed earlier.

On the question of an outer orbital route, much would depend on its location. If an outer orbital route is built close to the city it would give significant relief to the M50. If it is built further out, perhaps directly connecting towns like Naas, Navan, etc., it would give greater relief and benefit to those outer towns but would have limited impact on the M50. As the committee members will know we have initiated a study on alternative locations for the outer orbital route and we expect to make a recommendation to the Minister by the end of the month.

Does Mr. Barry expect different outcomes if it is located close to the city rather than close to the N52?

Mr. Barry

If it is very close to the city it will give more relief to the city but will perform fewer of the strategic functions of connecting the towns to promote the growth of gateway and hub towns. As we move further out it does more for the strategic traffic patterns but does less for the M50. We are working through the various alternatives in detail at the moment and will give a firm recommendation to the Minister later this month.

I thank Mr. Barry for his presentation. Is there any prospect that the barriers on the M50 could be lifted now that we have concluded a deal with NTR even though no money has yet changed hands? While we are being asked to believe that the barriers help to reduce congestion, most people do not believe it. At certain times of the day it is clear that the barrier represents a significant part of the problem. Have we not bought enough leverage, given the huge sums we will give to NTR, to get a commitment at least to lift the barrier when congestion is at its worst and it is clear that it would make a contribution to clearing that congestion?

Why did the brief for barrier-free tolling not include provision to toll those whose cars are not registered in Ireland? While I know it is considerably simpler not to do it, it will create a great deal of bad will among the rest of us who will pay every day and see others get away scot free. It is not beyond human ingenuity — as Mr. Barry knows, the technology exists. Some people have reported to me that they have paid the London congestion charge when they got home. Information about their driving licence is made available to the London authorities. Today somebody informed me of a speeding fine received for driving in Austria. It is possible to pursue the matter. We are paying an enormous sum to introduce the system. It involves such bureaucracy including the need for new legislation. While Mr. Barry did not mention the figure, we will pay a considerable amount each year for the privilege of having the system in place. We should get the biggest bang for our buck when we do it.

On the impact of the port tunnel, I recently spoke to representatives of NTR who advised that the number of large trucks using the M50 has increased by approximately 15,000 since this time last year. Simultaneously the number of cars on the M50 crossing the toll point has dropped by 30,000. While part of that may be attributable to the upgrade works, it is also because of the additional trucks coming from the tunnel. Against the background of the gridlock incident in recent days, my heart is broken thinking up ways to manage the traffic in coming years — I issued a ten-point plan for early action.

Does the NRA have any plans because the Minister seems to have renounced responsibility for everything? He is in charge of nothing all of a sudden. According to the Minister the NRA is supposed to be responsible for all these matters. Does it have an action plan between now and 2010 to manage the traffic and prevent the increase in incidences of gridlock that we are seeing more frequently? It can only get worse unless something happens. Where have the 30,000 cars gone? Is anyone tracking where they are now causing congestion? As clearly they have not disappeared, either they are on local roads or they are being driven through the city as opposed to around the city. Is anyone trying to determine what is happening and to manage that traffic?

The national newspapers recently reported the possibility of building flood barriers around the port. I am sure Mr. Barry will be aware that some consideration is being given to these flood barriers being built into an eastern bypass. Does that plan have any status or is it simply engineers talking among themselves? Is any feasibility study being carried out or does NTR have any plans in that regard?

Mr. Barry

It is up to the Minister to give direction on barrier-free tolling. We have advised that at peak traffic during the worst times on the M50 even if the barriers were lifted it would simply exacerbate the situation at the junctions and at the other pinch points on the road.

Mr. Barry is again telling me the barriers are helping the traffic. I do not believe it — nobody believes it.

Mr. Barry

With respect, I am not saying they are helping, I am saying that—

If they were not there, it would be worse. Therefore they must be helping.

I ask the Deputy to allow Mr. Barry to reply.

Mr. Barry

Until we get the other works completed, lifting the barriers at the rush-hour peak time will not make any significant difference. If the barriers were more efficient at non-peak times we would not have the queuing at the barriers that exists at the moment. While I certainly agree with that, I also consider what is happening at the junctions and the road works etc. at peak times.

With the system we will introduce, we will have the capacity to record non-Irish registered vehicles. To the extent that we can access home addresses we will be able to do so. The introduction of measures to allow enforcement in other countries goes considerably beyond the remit of the NRA. The EU has issued a directive on the matter, which is being worked through the system. However, it is much broader than simply car tolling — it deals with fines, penalties etc. When that legislation is in place we would be very happy to avail of it. As I have said we will have the systems in place to allow us to do that when the time comes.

Mr. Barry is wrong. I appreciate that implementing the penalty points system across countries is hugely problematic. However, Britain, for instance, has introduced legislation to stop cars, through the use of its extensive speed camera system, whose drivers have not paid tolls and congestion charges. On-the-spot fines will be applied and cars may be confiscated for non-payment. I do not suggest it will be possible to put penalty points on the licences of Germans coming over here.

Mr. Barry

Where we can get addresses we will invoice them but we cannot make people in another country pay.

They can be stopped here and made to pay.

Mr. Barry

We can stop them but we are not going to stop all cars as they go through the M50 if they have not paid the toll.

I am not suggesting that.

Mr. Barry

Motorists will be given time to pay. If people are given time to pay, conversely, we cannot stop a car that has not paid with its electronic tag at the time. There could be a hypothetical situation if somebody who stayed in the country was a repeat offender. In that case we would give the number to the Garda.

Does Mr. Barry have any idea how many cars will be in that situation?

The Deputy should let Mr. Barry answer.

Mr. Barry

This issue is much bigger than the M50. It is a Europe-wide issue. In countries with contiguous borders where drivers travel between countries, cross-charging is a major issue. Most of the cars using the M50 without paying would be tourists. In some cases it would be hauliers who are not registered in Ireland. Irish hauliers probably receive a similar benefit in other countries.

Mr. Barry

Some repeat offence will occur but I do not envisage it to be a significant proportion of the total revenue.

In Germany, Irish hauliers pay per mile. They cannot leave the country until they have paid.

Deputy Olivia Mitchell should allow Mr. Barry answer. Deputy Shortall will be next to ask questions. Supplementary questions can be asked when members have asked their first round of questions.

What Mr. Barry said is incorrect.

Mr. Barry

It will be an offence under the legislation for these people who do not pay but the question of enforcement of penalties against offences, especially outside of the jurisdiction, is an issue, but it is not for the NRA to deal with it.

I accept it is not the NRA's problem.

Mr. Barry

I am not sure about the figures Deputy Olivia Mitchell has given for the tunnel. The number of trucks are up 1,500 a day rather than 15,000 according to our traffic counts. The number of cars is down but it is down by 5,000 rather than 30,000. I accept the Deputy was supplied with the figures she quoted but they are different to our own.

I am sorry, it was 1,500 trucks.

Mr. Barry

As the Deputy is aware, Dublin city has chosen the cordon policy of traffic management. The NRA has no control over it. We had an input, as had other people, but it is not our policy and it is not for us to comment beyond that.

On the flood barriers and the eastern bypass, we are currently studying alternatives on the eastern bypass. Most of the various alternatives involve either going underground or in viaducts. We will look at the flood barrier issue but I am not aware of any advanced proposals from any quarter on flood barriers. Conversations are taking place over coffee but I have not heard of anything beyond that. I would expect that if an eastern bypass were being put on an embankment, it would be co-ordinated with any flood prevention measures.

I thank Mr. Barry.

I thank Mr. Barry for his presentation. I was interested in the figure he used of 1,500 additional trucks per day. That is substantially less than was predicted under the EIS. Is that 1,500 on the West Link?

Mr. Barry

Yes.

The EIS predicted there would be 2,200 additional trucks per day. How recent is that figure? Is it from the last week?

Mr. Barry

The figure is very recent.

Mr. Barry

I am not sure about the 2,200 figure and how many axles were included. The figure is for the West Link and it is consistent with the projections we gave to this committee in earlier discussions on this matter, even in my time in recent years.

Has Mr. Barry got figures for the number of additional trucks using the M50 east of the West Link bridge?

Mr. Barry

I do not think so. We have figures for the numbers using the tunnel itself and we are counting over it to the West Link but we do not have a series of counterpoints along the M50.

The N2 would—

Mr. Barry

We have one or two points but we do not have information in that regard with us. We would be happy to send it to the committee if Deputy Shortall is interested?

Presumably, there would be a sizeable number coming off the N2 leading to the kind of congestion we are seeing now on that stretch from the M1 and right over to the tunnel.

Mr. Barry

Yes. I would imagine some trucks go up the M1 and others come over and go up the N2, etc.

As a resident in the Whitehall area, initially there was a significant improvement for the residential areas on the north side of Dublin when the port tunnel opened. It is great the trucks are off the roads but since the full ban was introduced there has been an appreciable disimprovement in traffic conditions in the northern suburbs because the M50 is so congested, especially at the West Link bridge. Many commuters are now transferring to the likes of Collins Avenue and Glasnevin Avenue. All of those areas along the northern fringe of the city have become extremely congested in recent weeks.

This gives rise to the question of why the NRA and the Department of Transport were so ill-prepared for the opening of the Dublin Port tunnel. It is not as if it happened overnight. We have known for the past ten years that the port tunnel would spill out all of these trucks onto the M50. Why was no preparation done for that and why was barrier-free tolling not in place on the M50 by the time the port tunnel opened? Why were the upgrade works not carried out? Can Mr. Barry throw some light on that?

A person might be forgiven for coming to the conclusion the NRA has been completely incompetent in regard to forward planning when it comes to our major road networks, or was there a problem with funding? We have known for a very long time that this major problem would arise as a result of the opening of the port tunnel, yet no preparation was done. I am interested in hearing an explanation from Mr. Barry.

I would also like to hear about the studies being done on the outer orbital route. Again, I do not blame Mr. Barry for the fact his remit is purely in respect of the roads network. However, it raises the issue of the problem of governance in regard to transport and the fact we do not have a Dublin transport authority — even though one has been promised for several years — and because nobody is taking an overview in respect of transport. The NRA is in charge of roads. Some other body is looking at trains and a further body is looking at buses. Nobody is taking an overview and planning for transport in the round.

Mr. Barry referred to studies that have been carried out on the outer orbital route. Has he factored in the likely impact on the proposed metro west because, presumably, if and when that goes ahead — we have been told it will be 2015 at best — it would have a significant impact on the numbers using the M50. Equally, in respect of all of the other Transport 21 projects — if they materialise — has Mr. Barry factored in the impact and to what extent they would influence a recommendation in respect of having an outer orbital route?

Many hauliers and other commuters have raised with me the absence of any rest or service areas on the motorway system. It has come to a head recently due to the ban on the use of mobile telephones. If somebody is travelling on the motorway system and needs to make or receive a call and does not have a hands-free set, there are very few places one can pull in. This is a major issue for truck drivers who need to take rests and who are legally obliged to take rests but there appears to be very few facilities.

What is Mr. Barry's policy on providing service areas where people can get petrol. I am not just referring to lay-bys. One can travel now from the north inner city to Newry and not pass a petrol station. That is incredible. There appears to be very little forward planning. Apart from the need for services, the whole question of rest areas is particularly important. I would like Mr. Barry to outline his policy in that respect.

Mr. Barry

Deputy Shortall asked why the M50 was not done before the tunnel opened. The growth in HGV traffic is taking place mid-morning and outside peak hours. It is not contributing to the phenomenon.

The peak hour at the West Link is all day long.

Mr. Barry

The Deputy may find the trend hard to credit. The question goes beyond the M50. The country as a whole could use all the planned road projects right away and they would be welcomed in their respective communities. There is only so much we can do in any particular year. It is a question of funding and industry capacity. We have plans for the development of road infrastructure.

Barrier-free tolling is not a major project.

The Deputy should allow Mr. Barry to continue. I will allow supplementary questions later.

Mr. Barry

It is a major project and it is very complex and difficult. When it is delivered next year, we will have delivered the first free-flow barrier system in Europe and we will have done so in record time, that is, more than a year before the implementation date recommended by the task force.

Why was it not in place when the Dublin Port tunnel opened?

Mr. Barry

I am being hit with comments to the effect that some of these matters are simple.

Deputy Shortall should allow Mr. Barry to answer. If she wants to ask supplementary questions, she can do so afterwards. Mr. Barry is trying to answer the questions and is being interrupted.

I was clarifying my question. Why was barrier-free tolling not in place by the time the Dublin Port tunnel opened?

The Deputy can ask supplementary questions afterwards and we will have no problem with that.

The National Roads Authority had ten years' notice.

Mr. Barry

Barrier-free tolling is scheduled to be in place at the same time as the junction and the roads in its neighbourhood are upgraded. Removing the barriers without dealing with the junctions and the carriageway will not solve the problem. All three need to be addressed together and they will all be delivered at the one time.

On the outer orbital route, we are assuming in the study that all the Transport 21 measures will be implemented and that the rail line to Navan will be in place. We are not doing any modelling that excludes any of those measures, nor are we are not proceeding with an either-or approach in respect of the development of the metro. Everything is predicated on it and the other Transport 21 measures being in place.

We have published policy on rest and service areas, which I will circulate to committee members. In essence, we are to put service and rest areas in place on the dual carriageway network around the country. We have identified locations and will be publishing the first tender notice in early May. We will then proceed with the tendering process to design, build and operate the projects.

Why is the NRA only doing that now? It stands to reason that if motorists are to use motorways, they will need rest areas.

Mr. Barry

It does, but the network we are putting in place will be in place before the interurban routes are finished in 2010. They become critically important when people are taking journeys that last for more than an hour or two on the dual-carriageway network. People can reasonably survive for half an hour without using their telephones.

It takes more than half an hour to get from the inner city to Newry.

Mr. Barry

It now takes less than an hour to get from Dundalk to Dublin. That is from one end of the motorway to the other. I am not speaking against putting service areas—

Services and rest areas surely should comprise an integral part of the motorway system.

Mr. Barry

They will.

Why are they only being provided retrospectively?

The Deputy should let Mr. Barry answer.

Mr. Barry

They will be in place as an integral part of the system when we have a system. We are short of having a system at present. We have a number of long stretches of road but they do not take more than an hour to travel. The journey between Mullingar and Dublin only takes an hour.

I thank Mr. Barry for his presentation. Some of the other visitors we have could take a leaf or two from his book. He referred to the daily throughput of vehicles through the Dublin Port tunnel. As a twice daily beneficiary of the tunnel, I congratulate the NRA on the great improvement enjoyed by those driving from outside the city on the old M1 to Whitehall and into the city centre. It has cut approximately ten minutes from the journey time between the tunnel entrance and the Custom House, which is the route I take daily. How does the figure of 11,000 vehicles each working day stand in respect of the NRA's projections for the use of the tunnel.

Can Mr. Barry be more specific on when the free-flow electronic system will be in place? I am delighted to hear he is ahead of schedule on the project in general. Having seen the system in Australia in operation at first hand, I have no doubt it will make a phenomenal difference here.

I look forward very much to a decision being made on whether the outer orbital route will veer towards the M50 or outwards towards the proposed Navan-Naas route. There were problems with the M50 in respect of the amount of land reserved for the carriageway in that, understandably, the traffic volume was not foreseen. Will this experience be taken into account in deciding on the amount of land for a carriageway and its possible extension in the future?

Were an 80,000-seater stadium suddenly to be built in Abbotstown, would it throw the NRA's projections out the window? What effect would it have on current planning for traffic on the M50, especially given the lack of public transport infrastructure in that area and the probability of evening rush hour usage in the order of 35,000 to 50,000 vehicles?

Mr. Barry

On the traffic volumes in the tunnel, the traffic volume of HGVs is a little higher than we had forecast and the volumes for cars and lighter goods vehicles are a little lower. Overall, given the accuracy of the forecasts, the volume is pretty much as expected.

We are quite a way off making firm decisions on land take for a carriageway. Growth in volume, particularly on the M1, will be built into our considerations. As we look forward, we will be considering ranges of growth rather than fixed figures calculated in the belief that we can tell exactly the requirements in 25 or 35 years. We will certainly build from current experience.

Any venture that would add 50,000 vehicles to the M50 at that time of the day would be a problem. Any plans for a stadium would certainly have to take all the transportation issues into account. I would expect public transport to be a major part of any major stadium development. It would have to be because we certainly would not have the capacity to deal with the volume otherwise.

Mr. Gerry Murphy

Mr. Barry said there is a very aggressive programme to deliver free-flow tolling by August 2008. Built into this will be a three-month trial period during which, without collecting tolls, we will be checking stability and the accuracy of the system in identifying vehicles. There will be a registration period in which our website and contact centre will be live. Motorists will be able to register in advance for the opening day. There will be some flexibility to deal with any unusual occurrences. The technology involved is complex in that a number of features must be built from the start. We must link the roadside system to a back office system that will handle customers. A major contact centre will have to be equipped with customer relations software which will be interlinked with the main accounting system. It is a complex project but we have a detailed programme, week by week until August 2008.

As I am not a member of the committee, I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair in letting me ask a question.

When we are finished with our own, we take everybody's.

I am in attendance to ask just one question but, as inevitably happens, I now have two. My first question concerns signposting. If I was travelling north on the M50 and did not have a reasonable knowledge of the geography of the country but wanted to go to Cork, I would have to know enough to take the turn-off for Limerick. Similarly, if I wanted to go to Galway, I would have know enough to take the turn-off for Sligo. Can something be done with regard to signs on our national roads which will tell people where they are going with some degree of accuracy? It is one of the problems we have. One of the causes contributing to congestion on the roads is that drivers are wandering about, not so much on national roads but in the city. If one does not know where all the N and M routes are leading, one could be wandering about like a lost soul trying to find the right direction.

My main question relates to gridlock. An incident took place before Christmas involving a burst water main outside Bray. As a result, there was a build-up of traffic on the M50 which lasted for close to seven hours, which was well documented on various radio stations. People who needed to find a convenience and nursing mothers were among those stuck in their cars for seven hours — it was a horror. How did it happen? Why should a burst water main in Bray cause traffic on the entire southern part of the M50 and much of the southern suburbs to grind to a halt? Even if something did go wrong, why was there no game plan in place to relieve it and get traffic off the M50 or redirect it? I do not understand why something as simple as cones being put in the wrong place and traffic being slowed down more than it should have been led to the kind of traffic chaos caused on that day.

Mr. Barry

To deal with the issue of signposting, there is a long-standing convention-cum-regulation that when roads are signposted, one names the last destination and does not name all the other towns along the way. This leads to some ridiculous situations throughout the country. The NRA has a re-signing programme underway which will include the M50, where the upgrade is taking place. In that process, we intend to signpost towns and cities such as Cork, even though the road is theoretically going to Limerick in the first instance. We will signpost both cities, and we will do the same for Sligo and various other towns around the country. I agree with the Deputy but we are doing something about the problem.

On the gridlock resulting from the burst water main, I am aware of the incident but the control of traffic is outside the remit of the NRA. While I might share some of the Deputy's views, we have no authority or responsibility in this area. It is Dublin City Council which manages the traffic for the general city area out to the M50, and beyond that it is the responsibility of the local authorities. The incident took place on the border between the Dublin City Council and Wicklow County Council areas.

I raised this issue previously at the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government, of which I am a member. It was decided that as the NRA was coming to this meeting, it was the place for me to raise the matter.

The Deputy was right.

Once bitten, Chairman. To whom should this be addressed?

Mr. Barry

It should be addressed to Wicklow County Council or Dublin City Council. Excuse me, that should be Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council.

Is Mr. Barry suggesting the management of traffic on the M50 is the responsibility of Wicklow County Council, Bray Town Council, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, South Dublin County Council, Fingal County Council and Dublin City Council? Are six local authorities and the Garda responsible for—

Mr. Barry

By agreement with those local authorities, Dublin City Council provides a traffic management centre. The NRA does not speak for the local authorities. By statute, which is the hands of the Oireachtas, we have no traffic management role.

The issue of gridlock on the M50 needs to be addressed. The incident to which I referred involved a single road. One local authority was fixing a water pipe. The other local authority did not get to know about this. Nobody took responsibility for shifting the traffic off the road. It is no wonder there is traffic chaos. Does the NRA have a view on this? Has it ever made recommendations in this regard? Does it simply take the view that it builds the roads and it is somebody else's problem after that?

Mr. Barry

With respect, the legislation comes from the Oireachtas rather than the NRA. It is not for us to comment on the policy decisions Oireachtas Members have made in arriving at a policy decision.

If it would be any help to the Deputy, on behalf of the committee, I would be happy to write to the relevant local authority to ask for an explanation, although he has probably already done this.

I have, but this is where the problem arises. Everybody is passing the buck. Nobody has taken responsibility. There was a mess. People were stuck in traffic for seven hours. We will have to nail down exactly where the buck stopped on that day. There must be some accountability. Somebody screwed up on that day — let us be blunt about it. I want to find out where the screw-up happened. The people who were stuck in traffic for six or seven hours have a right to know how the problem was caused and who was responsible for not taking the appropriate action that was needed to get them out of the traffic jam.

As I said, I have no problem, on behalf of the committee, writing to the relevant local authority to ask it for a full explanation. It might not be much help now but it might prevent something similar happening in the future.

I appreciate that.

Before I call Deputy Shortall, Mr. Barry might be able to answer some questions for me. With regard to the land take for the outer route, is there hope that the NRA would identify the route rather than proposing three or four routes and taking ten or 12 years before a final route is decided. In another part of the country, as Mr. Egan will be aware, a particular route that was to have been ready three years ago has still not been decided, which is causing major problems for local people.

My next question will probably be dealt with by Mr. Murphy. With regard to the cost of the buy-out of NTR, what does he envisage as the income per annum of the NRA from the tolls it will raise on the M50? I tried to tot up the figures earlier. Approximately 85,000 vehicles a day at €1.80 per vehicle makes for a take of approximately €130,000 per day, or close to €1 million per week. What does the NRA envisage with regard to the overall cost package? Many people seem to think NTR is being paid off and that there will be no income to the State as a result of the buy-out of NTR's rights and the installation of barrier-free tolling.

Mr. Barry

On the first question, in the first report we give to the Minister we will identify a corridor for our recommended path for the outer orbital. Whether we move on to the next stage, which would involve narrowing that down to a specific route, will depend on the view the Government takes of the report and whether it wants us to advance it. If it tells us to go ahead right away, the project will move ahead right away and over the next time period.

If the NRA is not told to move ahead, will the suggested routes be sterilised with regard to development?

Mr. Barry

This route is different from many others in that it is not part of Transport 21. Consequently, the decision whether there is to be an outer orbital route is for the Government in the first instance. Were it to decide against such a route, there would be no reason to preserve a corridor and were it to decide in favour, I hope the NRA would be instructed to move ahead expeditiously. That is how this matter will be decided.

Mr. Murphy

In broad order figures, approximately €80 million per annum is collected at the West Link, of which, even now, NTR is in receipt of approximately €50 million, with the State getting the remainder. The buy-out will simply maintain the proportionality in the future, in that NTR will continue to receive €50 million and the remainder will come to the State. As the figure of €80 million is based on current traffic levels, as they grow, the resultant additional income will accrue directly to the State.

Hence, with the buy-out, the State will be getting back approximately €30 million of the €50 million per annum.

Mr. Barry

It will be €30 million of the €80 million.

At present, the State receives €30 million of the €80 million and pays out €50 million. However, of the €50 million paid out, the State receives €30 million on the other side. Consequently, the actual cost to the State of the buy-out is approximately €20 million per annum.

Mr. Barry

As for the cost to the State, the payment to NTR will be approximately €50 million. NTR will receive that sum, plus inflation, to the end of its concession period. At present, the State takes in approximately €30 million. As revenues grow in future, the increase that accrues from that will go in its entirety to the State. Had NTR not been bought out, it would have been shared between NTR and the State.

On the same proportion?

Mr. Barry

On varying proportions, as traffic levels rise.

I am trying to point out that this does not simply constitute a pay-out by the State in that a certain amount of revenue, which always went to the State, will continue to so do.

Mr. Barry

Such revenue will still revert to the State.

Moreover, it will probably increase.

Mr. Barry

It will increase. The difference is that in future, the entire increase, apart from the inflation aspect regarding the €50 million—

It will go to the State.

Mr. Barry

— will go to the State rather than to NTR.

While no one wishes to see toll increase, if the NRA is able to take traffic volumes to the levels it has suggested are likely, approximately how much additional revenue will the State receive?

Mr. Barry

On today's figures, were the volume to double, the sum of €80 million would also come close to doubling and all of it would be extra revenue to the State.

However, NTR's take will come to €50 million, plus annual inflation.

Mr. Barry

Yes.

In other words, the State will probably end up getting close to what it is paying in additional revenue, having bought out NTR.

Mr. Barry

Yes, it will.

It is not as bad or as frightening as it appears.

Mr. Barry

No, the figures are—

Given the growth in traffic volume, the State would have received such additional revenue anyway.

No, the State would only have got the €30 million.

No, that is the way—

It would still have been divided 50-30.

Mr. Barry

It would have been shared between NTR and the State.

Now however, NTR will receive no increase in its take, other than the rate of inflation.

Mr. Barry

That is correct.

A strong argument existed for buying out NTR had the State been able to gain early control of the West Link, thereby managing better the traffic gridlock that has been seen there since the opening of the port tunnel and beforehand. From the taxpayers' point of view, the tolls will continue and the tolling period will be extended under this deal. Moreover, we will be obliged to wait almost 18 months for barrier-free tolling. In this context, can the witnesses specify the main benefits to the motoring public of the State buying out this concession?

I refer to the approach taken by the Government in respect of building motorways by public private partnership, PPP. Regardless of the cost of the initial procurement of the motorway, the costs associated with the obligation on drivers to pay tolls for 30 years are not always factored into such sums. Can the NRA provide information to members on the cost per kilometre of motorway building in recent years? While I do not ask the witnesses to provide such information immediately, can they undertake to so do within the next two weeks?

Recent media reports have suggested there is little difference in cost between motorway sections procured through traditional methods and those procured through PPPs. However, as the use of a PPP will result in the imposition of tolls for 30 years, the cost to the driving public is substantially greater. I would be interested to see the NRA's information on the cost per kilometre of the recent motorways, as well as those that are under way at present, in the context of whether their procurement was traditional or by PPP. Although the private sector gets a very good deal when a small section of motorway is built, the taxpayer will be paying for it for many years. I would welcome information in this regard.

As for the outer orbital route issue, can Mr. Barry give an undertaking that on making his report to the Government, he will come to the joint committee to give a presentation on the studies and modelling carried out by the NRA?

The Deputy is an optimist.

I am always an optimist. I hope all members will be here in six months' time, or whatever is the NRA's timescale. Perhaps Mr. Barry can clarify that. Once he has presented the report to the Government, he should return before the joint committee to discuss it.

Mr. Barry

As for the first point regarding the extended toll period, while I may be missing something, I am unaware of any decision to extend the toll period by virtue of the NTR buy-out beyond 2020. While that is obviously a matter for the Government rather than the NRA, I am unaware that any decision has been made.

I understand the Government has stated it will extend it.

Mr. Barry

If it has, I have missed it. I am unaware of it.

Mr. Barry

Perhaps it has. As for the question on the benefits of doing the deal with NTR now rather than waiting to the end, I believe I have mentioned in previous presentations that the contract between the State and NTR is deficient in many respects. While it provides for zero tolling on the NTR's plaza, it does not provide for many other matters. As part of the negotiations, we have been able to achieve closure and agreement on how to handle such issues, which include our ability to widen the West Link section of the road. The Deputy may recall that an issue arose in this regard. Other issues included access to the area around the plaza, where we need to work in co-operation with West Link's operations, as well as the removal of the plaza itself. There is no provision in the contract for its removal and while we could have imposed zero tolling, in the absence of agreement, the plaza would sit there with its barriers raised and so on.

There are a number of practical issues like that to be dealt with. For example, there was a threat of litigation on whether we had the power to zero toll and on the levels of traffic to be used for the trailing 12 months, given that NTR was of the view that current road upgrading efforts on our part were interfering with traffic patterns there. This view was not completely without foundation. All of these issue were resolved with NTR and fundamentally, as was mentioned by the Chairman earlier, in future, the revenue growth will accrue to the State. That is a very strong reason.

Minus €50 million per annum.

Mr. Barry

Yes. However, a revenue growth will accrue to the State that would otherwise have been shared between the State and NTR.

I have stated previously that neither the NRA nor I are here to defend the original contract. It was not our contract and we have sought to make the best of it with what we have. Undoubtedly, our course of action in respect of NTR is in the public interest. While I would prefer to do it for less money, the company has its contractual rights.

On the Deputy's request for figures on the comparative costs per kilometre, we will forward some information in this respect to her through the joint committee. The NRA is happy to do so. As for the outer orbital route, in principle I would like to answer in the affirmative. I expect I will be obliged to receive direction from the Minister as to the Government's intentions and I do not know whether the Government will make a decision before the general election or whether it will be left to the incoming Government to so do. However, as for the principle of having a discussion with members on the various matters considered, the reasons for them and so on, I am all in favour of it.

To what timescale is the NRA working in respect of the studies at present?

Mr. Barry

We plan to send our recommendation to the Government by the end of this month.

If there are no questions, I will take the opportunity to thank Mr. Barry, Mr. Egan, Mr. Murphy and Mr. Creegan for their contribution today. They have clarified some issues for us with regard to the M50 and its future. As one who, like Deputy Glennon, saw barrier-free tolling last year, I believe it is definitely a major improvement, given that traffic flows. We are much luckier than our Australian colleagues because we have one toll point. They had toll points approximately every 15 kilometres. It ensures that traffic can move freely. On behalf of the committee, I thank the delegation for being so forthright.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.10 p.m. sine die.
Top
Share