I welcome the Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey, to the meeting.
Transport Issues: Discussion with Minister for Transport.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to inform the committee as to the business that will be transacted at the Transport Council in Luxembourg next Monday, 7 April, and to hear members' views. I am happy to be able to provide members with a briefing on my public consultation exercise on 20/20 Vision —Sustainable Travel and Transport.
Monday's Council meeting has a very full agenda, dealing with issues across the transport agenda — road, rail, aviation and shipping. We will also be debating intermodal issues. I hope this short presentation will at least give members a flavour of the issues to be discussed.
The list of "A" items include approval for the Commission to open negotiations with Israel on a comprehensive air transport agreement and adoption of conclusions on a communication from the Commission's first report on the implementation of the European single sky legislation: achievements and the way forward.
Item 2 deals with road transport, that is a review of progress, and is to debate policy on three proposed regulations: first, access to the road haulage market; second, common rules on the occupation of road transport operator and; third, access to international coach and bus markets. This is an attempt to update and modernise existing EU law on this whole sector. Progress has not been as good as people might have hoped but the Presidency has been making major efforts to advance the dossier and it has made progress, particularly in the recent past.
Of particular interest to Ireland is a provision that all enforcement and licensing authorities in the EU will share information through electronic databases. That will enable unlicensed and illegal hauliers to be detected more easily as they travel throughout Europe. It will also increase their chance of being caught across the EU. It will also mean that monitoring and enforcement activities can be focused on operators who repeatedly break the law in terms of driving and rest times, vehicle standards, speeding and so on. That is important in terms of compliance throughout the EU.
We do not have any major difficulty with the proposals, which we welcome generally. There are specific issues in the text that we intend to raise. We will work with the Commission, the Presidency and so on to try to iron out those but there is no fundamental principle to which we are opposed.
Item 4 is a communication from the Commission, Towards a rail network giving priority to freight. The intention is to adopt the Council conclusions, which we will welcome. We have some unique characteristics in regard to rail. We have a small rail network. We are an island nation and the gauge is different, not only from that of Great Britain but also from the rest of Europe. The communication recognises individual differences. We will emphasise our uniqueness and the fact that that should be taken into account in developing the proposals further.
Item 5 is an amended proposal for a regulation on further implementation of the European satellite radio navigation systems. That is GALILEO, with which most members of the committee will be familiar. It is Europe's proposed solution to its dependency on satellite systems which are financed and controlled by military authorities in the United States and Russia. This is our own system. In recognition of its strategic value, Ireland has always adopted a positive approach towards GALILEO. GALILEO is a vital project to strengthen the competitiveness and effectiveness of the transport sector and will help to offset the adverse effects of increased traffic in Europe.
Items 6, 7 and 8 relate to the aviation sector. The directive on airport charges was published in January 2007. The Commission's proposals are aimed at ensuring greater transparency and consultation between airports and airport users.
Following the co-decision procedure with the European Parliament, the Slovenian Presidency is putting forward a proposed text for political agreement. Ireland's approach to this has been to ensure that the directive's objectives are realised in a balanced and practical way and with as much legal certainty as possible, taking into account the regulatory regimes in place in individual member states. We believe our views are reflected in the communication.
With regard to item 7 on a code of conduct for computerised reservation systems, CRS, we support that because the proposal aims to significantly simplify the code of conduct and to reinforce competition between the CRS providers while maintaining basic safeguards against potential competitive abuses and ensuring the provision of neutral information to consumers. Finally, on aviation, there is a communication from the Commission on "An Agenda for Sustainable Future in General and Business Aviation". Obviously that is an important discussion we must have and we propose to support the draft conclusions.
With regard to shipping, there is a proposal for a directive on compliance with flag state requirements. While Ireland supported the proposal, it is understood that it will not find sufficient support among a majority of member states which consider that a legislative text at Community level is not the appropriate instrument to regulate this area of maritime safety. The proposal is just one of seven legislative proposals which form the third maritime safety package. The Council has already reached political agreement on five of the proposals.
There is also a proposal for a directive on civil liability and financial guarantees of ship owners. I do not envisage this coming to a conclusion next week. More work must be done on it. However, our approach is that the directive will help to strengthen international conventions such as the Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, which Ireland proposes to implement as soon as possible. We also consider it advantageous that the proposal covers smaller cargo vessels and that, in its original form, it sought to deal effectively with the issue of abandoned seafarers, an issue that has been raised here on a number of occasions.
The Council will then conclude with any other business including negotiating directives for a treaty establishing a transport community with the western Balkans, preparation for the informal Council meeting in September under the French Presidency and a report from the Environment Council on transport related matters. That is a brief summary of what is on the agenda and our proposed approach to it.
I will now turn to the document, 20/20 Vision — Sustainable Travel and Transport. I welcome the fact that committee members have taken an interest in this document and recognise its importance. I will not rehearse the various important trends outlined in the document. Members are aware of the increased traffic and transport volumes, increased use of ports and so forth. However, the statistic that there has been an increase of 38% in the number of private cars per 1,000 adults, from 382 to 528, over the last ten years is significant. Even more significant is the fact that we are still below the EU-25 average of 558 and what that entails for transport. It will be necessary to deal with those issues. All the statistics point to a trend. There will be increased pressure on our environment, particularly in the context of climate change, greenhouse gas emissions and so forth. A reduction in emissions from transport will have to play a significant role in that regard.
As a result of increased congestion, emissions and noise, there will be a worsening of the quality of life in terms of mobility, health and damage to economic competitiveness, not only for this generation but also for future generations, if these trends are not tackled. In short, our travel and transport is on an unsustainable trajectory. If it continues, by 2020 there could be a decline in average speed in urban areas at morning peak times from 13 kilometres per hour in 2006 to 8 kilometres per hour and a 256% increase in transport greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels to 19 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. The document asks how we can respond and poses a series of questions to direct the consultation into relevant areas. They range from high level policy questions to intensely personal and practical ones. How can existing commuting patterns be tackled through spatial, regional and land use policy? How can existing bus and rail services be expanded and improved for customers? What are the key steps needed to encourage more people to walk or cycle? The concept of posing questions that will help people put forward answers as well as submissions that are broader in scope is extremely important.
In that context, the Department continues to work hard to deliver Transport 21. It will yield benefits which will contribute to a sustainable transport system but, as the committee is well aware, Transport 21 alone will not reverse the trends we have mentioned. I am acutely aware that to have a realistic chance of achieving everything we wish to achieve there must be significant changes in personal behaviour. I want the committee and all Members of the Oireachtas to express their views on this and to put forward ideas and proposals. I look forward to receiving them. If members want additional copies of the document for themselves or organisations, we will be delighted to provide them. The closing date for the consultation is 18 April so I look forward to receiving the views of Members and the committee as soon as possible.
I thank the Minister. I am happy with the agenda for the European Council meeting and I welcome the Minister's public consultation document, 20/20 Vision — Sustainable Travel and Transport. I wish to refer to two issues in chapters 3 and 4. The most glaring difficulty that exists in developing public transport is the lack of joined-up thinking between agencies, namely, Departments, local authorities, transport authorities, the Garda and so forth. It is the biggest obstacle to be overcome. In chapter 3 the Minister mentions the good practice model of the Cork area strategic plan, CASP. Is it possible to bring forward proper integrated spatial and transport plans in all city areas as a matter of urgency?
The Minister will be aware of the hearings being conducted by the committee with the intention of providing him with a report at the end of April on a bus strategy, initially for Dublin and later for the four cities of Cork, Limerick, Waterford and Galway. It is the committee's belief that while good progress is being made, for which we compliment the Minister, on the development of rail transport, both intercity and in the Dublin area, there is not the same urgent or radical approach to bus transport. For that reason, we will provide the Minister with a number of proposals for developing bus transport. We will be seeking immediate delivery from the Minister and the Department under three key headings.
In chapter 4, the Minister refers to 1,100 buses in Dublin and says an extra 350 buses will be provided in Dublin in the next two years. He further says that legislation should be changed to expedite the priority measures for buses due to the long delay that now takes place in consultation and negotiation on the provision of new bus lanes and park and ride facilities, which are bus related, in the Dublin city area and in surrounding counties.
He further says that traffic management arrangements should be introduced immediately to free Dublin city centre of cars. From our discussions with the local authority, the quality bus network office and others, we are aware that plans are being put in place. However, with the installation of two Bailey bridges, which will be the key to this traffic management arrangement, we feel there is no reason we should not be rid of cars in Dublin city centre before next Christmas. If this happens, we will get more buses running freely. As the Minister said, if we can change our mindset away from having to depend on our cars all the time — and that applies to this House more than it does anywhere else — we can make an immediate impact on traffic congestion in Dublin city centre.
I agree that there is a lack of joined-up thinking between agencies, although much of the time it is more on the implementation end than the thinking end. People have their plans and are all broadly in contact with one another but it is a question of implementing some of the measures. That is particularly acute in the greater Dublin area. That is why we are going ahead with the DTA Bill, which I hope to publish and present to this committee over the next couple of weeks. It has gone to the Government but there are a number of issues that need to be finalised.
As regards doing the same type of exercise outside the greater Dublin area, CASP is a good example of where all the relevant agencies came together. There is still a committee operating there. As the Chairman knows, I was in Galway on a couple of occasions and I emphasised the importance of getting all agencies around the table, including the corporation, the county council, the Garda Síochána, the bus company and the rail company. In the context of the light rail study, they should come up with a travel and transport plan for each of the major cities. That is a good way forward. At this stage, however, I want to get the DTA Bill out of the way before we go down the route of further legislation. A national transport regulator is adverted to in the programme for Government but the DTA is the fist priority, while the second one is reform of the 1932 Act. We will then examine the possibility of a national regulator.
As regards the bus strategy, I agree with the Deputy that the use of buses — not just in Dublin but elsewhere also — will be particularly important in ensuring that we have a sustainable transport system in cities and towns. I look forward to receiving the committee's proposals. The Chairman mentioned the introduction of extra buses over the next couple of years. The first stage in the process is to ensure that we are getting full value for the buses we have at the moment, although I am not sure that we are. I do not know but I remain to be convinced. We have initiated a study on the capacity and use of existing buses. If that shows we need an extra 350 buses then that is the direction in which we will go, but I am not yet convinced of that.
I will be interested to receive specific proposals on legislation concerning quality bus corridors. I agree with the committee that this process takes forever due to consultation and because people will not make decisions at various stages. In some cases they are public representatives and in others they are local authority officials. We have a few good examples around the country but we need to streamline the legislation. I will examine any proposals the committee may have in this regard. My own general view is that a process akin to what used to be the railway orders is probably the way to go, with just one route selected, an inquiry held, a decision made with whatever variations and then we go ahead.
Concerning the Dublin area generally, there have been extensive consultations among all agencies about traffic management, particularly in the city centre over the next five or six years, in the context of the metro, Luas and the interconnector. Dublin City Council is now finalising a traffic management plan to ensure that the city continues to be operational even with all the disruption these schemes will cause. I have taken a direct personal interest in this matter. Two or three weeks ago, I called all the agencies together so that everybody knows where everyone else is coming from and what their plans are. In particular, Dublin City Council outlined the traffic management plan. I intend to convene that group on a quarterly basis to ensure that communications continue. The group also meets monthly at official level. If the traffic management plan requires getting rid of cars from the city centre, I will be guided by the experts in that area.
We thank the Minister for those initiatives and will certainly be making proposals on clearing the city centre of cars. Before handing over to Deputy O'Dowd, I would make one comment on the Minister's examination of the existing bus fleet to see if it is being utilised to the full. It is not. As of today at 12 noon, the majority of the Dublin fleet of 1,100 buses is parked in garages and streets. The Luas has proved that if a high-frequency, reliable service is provided in off-peak times people will use it. The first thing that is required is to get those buses running. We do need extra buses according to our report. According to the proposals made to us by Dublin Bus, the company says that 350 extra buses are needed in five years. We will be telling the Minister that they are required in two years. The Tallaght to Blanchardstown route will be very successful if there are buses running frequently and reliably on it. That is the first priority that this committee will be putting to the Minister.
The committee has gone into this matter in great detail and I await the study. As regards the extra 350 buses, however, there is no point in having 1,450 buses parked in streets around the place instead of 1,100.
That is what I am saying — they should not be parked.
I agree.
All the buses should be running at off-peak times.
Yes.
If they are running, people will use them. At the moment, even on good bus lanes, there are very few buses running. They are parked during off-peak times, which does not make any sense.
This is an important document. I understand that it is consultative and this is the first time the Minister has come before the committee to discuss it. I wish to raise a few issues with him.
The Minister has given a commitment to introduce increased competition in the bus market but will he define exactly what the level of competition will be? Originally, it was pitched at around 25% by a previous Minister, and 15% by a subsequent Minister. How will the current Minister do it? I agree with the Chairman that we need to have more buses running in order to improve transport services. The problem, and this is a key point, relates to the national spatial strategy and the growth around Dublin, in particular, in Louth, Meath, Kildare and Wicklow. We need a new strategy to deal with the developments that have taken place there and that strategy must be agreed by bodies such as An Bord Pleanála. The Minister is probably familiar with a recent decision in east Meath where permission was given for 700 houses where there are inadequate roads and water and sewerage facilities. It is a nightmare for the officials who will have to deal with that planning application as matters stand. All of that new traffic will come onto already congested motorways and roads.
We need joined-up thinking between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Transport, and the Minister needs to involve An Bord Pleanála. I appreciate that An Bord Pleanála is an independent body but if the services do not exist and if the board is giving permission for large numbers of houses which will completely destroy an existing area, we need to deal with that. Otherwise the problem builds up given that the spatial strategy is not dealing with the "doughnutting" of communities. The major problem with transport and development is that we are not focused properly on a definitive plan for those areas. I am not stating that there should not be development, but we must control it. Where the local authority makes an argument that there are no services available if these houses are built, An Bord Pleanála must listen. I do not know whether that requires legislation, but it certainly requires new policy in that area.
The other issue that was raised by other members is the question of using a transport facility such as the port tunnel. The issue of charges was raised with the NRA, but the Department, the NRA and this committee ought to be able to look again at the volumes of traffic which could use that tunnel at times when the port is not necessarily busy in a particular direction. In other words, if the ships dock at 6 a.m., then one must leave the northbound tunnel free for that traffic only. If there is not a large number of HGVs using the southbound tunnel at certain times, however, as I believe is the case, then we should encourage its use at those times by reducing the price of access for cars. Obviously, the traffic has been monitored there for some considerable period of time and I would suggest that the dynamic should be that the NRA and the Department get involve and change the situation.
My other point concerns CO2 emissions and the commitment in the programme for Government which states:
[The Government] will introduce a minimum requirement for the use of bio-fuels in State-owned and public transport vehicles. Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann will move their existing fleet to a 5% bio-diesel blend and will achieve a 30% bio-diesel blend in their new buses.
What progress has the Minister made on that?
I wish the Minister success if he decides to throw his hat in the ring for the leadership of Fianna Fáil. I was trying to work it out. It is 1,020 years since we had a Taoiseach from Meath.
What about John Bruton?
That is about as much as Deputy Broughan thought of his coalition partners.
I mean a real Taoiseach.
Deputy Broughan meant an elected Taoiseach.
Okay, an elected Taoiseach. I warmly welcome the Minister and the public consultation document. It is timely and, hopefully, will stimulate a significant amount of submissions and interest. I will be making a submission on behalf of the Labour Party.
The climate change strategy has projected that emissions from the transport sector will grow to 15.12 megatonnes in 2015 and then up to 16.48 megatonnes in 2020. I note in the document that the Minister does not refer to targets or facts and figures in terms of carbon emissions. Has he got outline proposals for how we can stabilise the emission levels and perhaps reduce them, which must be a national objective in the climate change strategy, particularly beyond 2015, 2025, etc.? I note that countries such as New Zealand, for example, are speaking of zero carbon emissions and, in particular, of tackling emissions from transport. Has the Minister looked at ways in which this could be done?
Before the Minister published the consultation, I looked at data on the emissions from transport. It is the only major sectoral area of emissions which is still growing. A breakdown of the initiatives that we have taken in terms of biofuels, the changes in car tax and VRT, shows they all seem to yield very small reductions of 0.02 megatonnes or 0.03 megatonnes. It is stated that the Dublin traffic measures will reduce the carbon emissions by 0.27 megatonnes. In hard facts, how will the Minister stabilise transport emissions? Is he thinking of any significant measures which will first stabilise, and then perhaps reduce, carbon emissions?
I presume the Minister will publish the DTA Bill shortly and that it was approved by the Cabinet. I agree strongly with my colleague from Fine Gael on the planning area. I understand that the DTA Bill was delayed in the Minister's period in office because we were working on issues to do with planning, particularly on new districts in my own region of north Dublin where there is effectively a completely new city under way. I presume that will be part of DTA.
We could all cite examples to illustrate Deputy O'Dowd's point. For example, there is a development just below the north fringe at the northside which will be bigger than Ballymun, and yet there is no proposal for a fixed-line transport in it. It seems that it is an incongruous situation that one would have this kind of development. Can we expect fully integrated public transport and physical infrastructural planning taking place in general planning terms?
The Minister states that even if we develop Transport 21 it will be no good in terms of reducing our overall transport carbon footprint. Is he still concerned about the slippage in so many projects in Transport 21, particularly, for example, metro north slipping a year or maybe two, the Cork to Midleton commuter route slipping and projects for Limerick slipping? Around the country and in Dublin, there is serious slippage on some of the big ticket items of public transport. Would the Minister make it an objective of his period in the Department that the public transport side of Transport 21 will be delivered?
We need a significant expansion of the bus fleet. The Chairman and the Minister underestimate the difficulty of running a public bus service given the situation with rush hours. One cannot have peak-time traffic all the way through the day. Part of the problem is that people commute in and out of Dublin to work. I welcome the Minister's study on capacity for Dublin Bus but there is significant evidence that additional capacity is necessary. Many of the new routes which are being promised by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann seem to indicate that enhanced fleets will deliver. Does the Minister accept the case we made to the electorate last summer — it did not result in our being voted into power — to the effect that, up to 2015 or 2016 at least, the use of buses represents the only way forward?
Some of the documents the Minister circulated to members indicate that freight, shipping and aviation are to a large extent being ignored in the context of the provision of sustainable transport. For example, no one appears to know the level of carbon emissions from ships. All we know is that the figure is quite big. The Minister put in place the Irish Maritime Development Office, which has a growing register of vessels. Are increasing numbers of "dirty" ships being included on that register and will this give rise to problems? Is aviation going to be part of any carbon trading system? Are we facing a situation where the full costs will have to be borne?
Representatives of Iarnród Éireann, including Mr. Richard Fearn, appeared before the committee recently. The case was again made that there is not much scope for rail freight in Ireland. Surely the Government must inform Mr. Fearn and Iarnród Éireann that there is a need to consider enhancing the role of rail freight. The latter must be a way forward.
Deputies Broughan and O'Dowd referred to the need for joined-up thinking and the fact that new cities and towns are being built in various parts of the country and asked how we are going to deal with this development. Deputy O'Dowd referred to a case in east Meath in which permission was granted by An Bord Pleanála and the difficulties that will be created as a result. We propose to address this matter in the DTA Bill. One of the areas in which I took a particular interest, in light of my previous experience as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, is the bringing together of land use and planning.
Both Deputies are correct in respect of this matter. It must no longer be the case that someone can obtain planning permission, either from a council or on appeal from An Bord Pleanála, to build 700, 1,000 or 2,000 houses without questions first being asked regarding the provision of public transport, etc. People will be obliged to have development plans. I believe in the primacy of local and regional authorities in matters of planning and development. However, the latter cannot be totally divorced from transport needs, etc. In the future, mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that development plans and transport plans will be compatible and will be tied together at all stages of development, consultation and so on. It will no longer be possible to grant planning permission in respect of developments where provision has not been made for transport.
That is a welcome development.
Regional planning guidelines are sometimes more honoured in the breach. It can be difficult to explain some of the decisions made at local level or by An Bord Pleanála.
The second general point raised by the Deputies relates to the use of buses. I agree that buses must form a major part of the solution, particularly during the period when we are trying to deliver the infrastructure. If additional capacity is needed, we will try to provide it. However, there must also be increased flexibility on the part of those who operate the system. Deputy Broughan is correct: I do not underestimate the difficulties that arise where there are two peak transport periods between 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. In order to cope with these, there will be a need for a flexibility in respect of work practices which does not exist at present. Such flexibility will be required when the additional buses are provided and when we try to resolve the type of issues to which the Deputies refer.
With goodwill on all sides, we can progress this matter and address the various issues that exist. In addition, we can ensure that where quality bus corridors exist, buses run on a regular basis and are available at all times during the day. It was stated earlier that Luas proves that if a good quality, regular public transport system, it will be used. However, there is nothing that annoys people more than sitting in traffic in their cars while the bus lanes beside them are empty.
Gardaí often stop cars that use bus lanes illegally.
Exactly. I have no ideological hang-ups about this matter. I am a great believer in public transport but we cannot have a system that is as inflexible as that which is currently in place. Flexibility is required and we need to move forward. This is a great opportunity for public transport companies, and private operators, if they so wish, to move forward and consolidate the role of buses in the transport system.
If I recall the figures correctly, there was a 40% increase in patronage on some of the better QBCs at a time when there had been an overall reduction of 2% in the number of bus passengers. This proves the point. Flexibility must be forthcoming because buses must cater to people's needs. Reference was made to the services in Tallaght, Blanchardstown, etc., in this regard. The normal reaction of people in Bus Átha Cliath and perhaps Bus Éireann to the announcement that a Luas line is to be put in place is to try to do everything possible to ensure that this does not happen because they believe they will lose their jobs. To be honest, such reactions are nonsensical. People at management level in Bus Átha Cliath must decide that there is no point in the company running bus routes parallel to Luas lines but that it should provide bus routes that link to such lines. A complete change in mindset will be required.
Deputy O'Dowd referred to the use of the Dublin Port tunnel. I agree with his comments in this regard. The tunnel is a massive item of public infrastructure and it should be used to its maximum capacity. However, we should not lose sight of the purpose for which it was built. Our priority with the tunnel is ensuring that trucks are removed from city centre streets. I have made my views on this matter known to the NRA.
Deputies O'Dowd and Broughan also referred to emissions. The document lays out, in clear and stark terms, the direction in which we are moving in respect of transport. Deputy Broughan was correct to state that I have not included any specific targets. The document must be seen in the context of the Government's commitment to a reduction of 3% in overall emissions on an annual basis. Transport will be obliged to play its part in that regard. When the consultation process has concluded, the final document will contain the targets to which the Deputy refers and will also indicate what we will need to do to achieve them. If we continue to do what we are doing at present, there will be a 265% increase in transport CO2 emissions. That is just not sustainable and it is the principal reason behind bringing forward the plan.
On the position regarding shipping, airlines and rail freight, I agree with Deputy Broughan that we must do everything possible to encourage the use of rail for the carriage of freight. Everybody heard the evidence given by Irish Rail before the committee at the time. As the price of oil increases and the cost of emissions is built in further to the cost of road transport, rail freight will become a much more viable option. We are seeking views on this in the consultation document for the sustainable transport and travel action plan.
With regard to aviation, my view before I even took up the job is we are an island nation, which needs good air connectivity and introducing an emissions levy would put us at a serious disadvantage. However, while I might not like it, I am coming around to the view this something we may not be able to avoid. Currently, such levies are outside the Kyoto Protocol. Ireland will not take a lead on this and it will be decided at international level. Whether it is shipping or aviation, we would like more sustainable travel but it is a constant struggle to make sure we do not put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage.
With regard to Transport 21, it is the job of Opposition to raise issues but the Deputy was not making a political point because he can do that whenever he wants to. There has been slippage on a number of projects under Transport 21 but huge progress is being made. The successor to Transport 21 must be planned now to ensure a long lead in time. We do not build these projects and we must depend on the experts but part of the difficulty with timetables for Transport 21 is guesstimates rather than estimates were provided initially and now there is slippage. Good progress is being made and I intend to make sure as projects reach construction stage, they are delivered within the timescale promised.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. His submission is very welcome and enlightening. I am a north side Dublin Deputy and a recent report indicates the population of the greater Dublin region will increase to 1.5 million over the next ten to 15 years. I monitor the M50-M1 situation every day and unless a good public transportation system is put in place, the Minister will not get cars off the road. The reality for those living in counties Louth and Meath, west Dublin or north Dublin is they will use their car unless they have a reliable public transport alternative. Peak time service is the major issue. We all would like a reasonable service during the day but the greatest problems occur early in the morning and after work. People will drive into the city in the morning because they do not have access to a bus or train service. Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann, as a short-term solution, should take on private contractors who are available. This should be analysed in conjunction with the study being conducted by the Minister. I agree about the need to analyse the usage of their current fleets by Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann. That is necessary and we all look forward to the study's publication. Will the Minister indicate the date of publication? In the short term, additional buses must be provided to transport people from Counties Louth and Meath, west Dublin or north Dublin to remove cars from the road. That would prevent congestion.
I am glad I have converted Deputy O'Dowd to my thinking on the port tunnel. From the moment it opened, I said it should be open to cars. It was built to remove HGVs from the city centre and that has been achieved. However, this wonderful infrastructure is badly underutilised. I drive through it when travelling to Leinster House most of the time and very few cars use it. HGV traffic is also light most of the time. All the traffic in the morning is channelled through Whitehall, Fairview, Dorset Street and Gardiner Street where it grinds to a halt. If the tunnel was used, much of that traffic would disperse and it would not converge on the Custom House Quay, causing the congestion it does. When the National Roads Authority delegation appeared before the committee, I proposed that the tunnel should be opened up and a €3 charge should be imposed 24-7. That would dilute the congestion we experience on a daily basis.
I welcome the Minister's confirmation of the reform of the 1932 Act. I bend his ear regularly about the 41X from Swords and access to the tunnel. A resolution on the usage of our roads is needed and a balance must be achieved between private and public sector operators. This is a major issue. Constituents of mine in north west and south west Swords ask why their journey with Dublin Bus takes 30 or 45 minutes longer every morning, while a private operator can use the tunnel and commuters reach the city centre in half the time. We must come to grips with that issue.
Transport 21 is a great programme backed with €34 billion in funding. When the committee met the RPA, I pointed out that when the contract for the metro is awarded, the contractors should work 24-7. It is ridiculous to confine contractors to a seven-hour day. The delivery of the metro is urgently needed not only for Dublin North but also for counties Meath and Louth because it will have a major benefit. The contractors must be mandated to work 24-7 similar to what happens in other European cities. We cannot risk it being delayed, similar to the M50 upgrade.
Park and ride facilities should be fast-tracked. If a good park and ride facility was in place north of Swords, it would take thousands of cars on the road. The proposed facility in Lucan was turned down by An Bord Pleanála. Myriad park and ride sites in the greater Dublin region would resolve our congestion problems. The Chairman has outlined the broad thrust of where the committee wants to go in achieving joined up thinking, which is welcome. However, short-term resolutions are available to a number of problems and I ask the Minister to take them on board.
I refer to integrated ticketing. I should be able to board a train in Thurles and travel to Dalkey using rail, bus and the DART with one ticket. With the advent of metro, an integrated ticket would be an advantage to travellers from all over the country and it would increase usage. The thought of having to queue again for tickets and make further arrangements is off-putting. This proposal will certainly enhance the service. I would like to raise the matter of a rail link between our second and third largest cities, a direct Cork to Belfast route. Are there any thoughts on that as a result of greater integration and cross-Border co-operation?
What proposals are being brought forward at European level in connection with the positive steps being taken to promote the use of biofuels? I am aware that a new biofuel plant is being developed in my county. It is great that farmers have two outlets for their produce, food and energy. However, there is something we did not foresee, which has created a serious situation. As a result of the increase in demand for food from India and China and of the drought in Australia and the transfer of productive land to biofuels, particularly in America, the price of basic foodstuffs, for example, rice and wheat, has increased significantly. There is now a real threat to the security of food supply in many areas. Thailand and Vietnam have indicated that they will no longer allow rice exports and there have been riots in Cairo over the production of bread. As a country that could significantly increase its food and biofuel production, perhaps the Minister will consider an integrated approach within Europe to ensure the precarious balance that exists in the world with regard to the supply and demand of many basic commodities is not affected when we attempt to achieve the laudable aim of reducing carbon emissions.
We dealt with the tunnel issue. I acknowledge that almost on the day I was appointed, Deputy Kennedy raised the matter of the tunnel and of the 41X bus. I hope the Deputy accepts my view on the use of the tunnel.
I agree we need a strong commitment to public transport. International experience shows that we must also discourage the use of private cars. However, we must have the public transport system in place before we decide how to discourage the use of private cars in areas. I mentioned the sustainable travel and transport plan and getting people to change their behaviour and walk or cycle more. These activities could have a significant effect on sustainable travel and transport.
With regard to the long-running 41X bus saga, the Deputy has provided some useful extra information in this regard which I will examine. As matters stand, if Bus Átha Cliath applies under section 25 of the 1958 Act, its application will be dealt with quickly. Bus Átha Cliath seems not to want to accept that there may be competition on some routes, a philosophical difficulty.
I agree with the Deputy with regard to metro and the working day and that the work should be carried out 24/7, subject to safety regulations. However, on the M50 route An Bord Pleanála restricted the hours of work. I do not understand the reasoning for that as suffering a little discomfort for a shorter period of time is preferable.
I agree, but we need to get that message to An Bord Pleanála.
I have been disappointed with the response to park and ride proposals. I agree park and ride is something we need to promote. Perhaps I should not be critical of an independent body, but somebody must speak out. I have seen councils overrule development plans in different areas to refuse or grant planning permission. I understand — I will accept public correction if I am wrong — that the major reason the council refused planning permission for park and ride in south County Dublin was that the development did not conform with the development plan.
The zoning was not there for it.
It made decisions overturning development plans before. As far as the Government is concerned, the wider policy was that park and ride facilities should be put in place. I am somewhat mystified by the type of decision made, but hopefully the situation will be rectified.
I agree with Senator Hanafin on the issue of integrated ticketing. Hopefully, this will be rolled out in full by 2010 and will allow passengers to do exactly as proposed by the Senator. Integrated ticketing will enhance the service and increase usage. There are no plans for the Cork-Belfast route, but we have improved the Cork-Dublin and Dublin-Belfast routes.
A vote has been called and I want to give the remaining members a chance to put their questions because we will not resume after the vote.
The Minister indicated recently that the construction of some of the Luas lines would be delayed until the metro is complete. Will the Minister clarify what this means and what effect this will have on the Grangegorman Luas line? Many of the important moves we need to make on public transport will be implemented during the period when the DTO is being set up as opposed to being operational. How will the Minister ensure the ball will not be dropped during that period?
The point has been made here with regard to 24-hour construction on major infrastructure projects. It will take five years to construct metro north, which will run right through my constituency. We must take account of legitimate issues raised by people in that regard in terms of working hours.
Discussions take place next Monday at the Council of Ministers meeting. The Commission approves opening negotiations with Israel on the comprehensive air transport agreement and I ask the Minister to raise the case of what is happening in Gaza, where 150 men, women and children were slaughtered by the Israelis. I accept nine Israelis were also killed. This is an opportunity for the Minister to speak out. Every time an opportunity is presented, we must hammer the issue home. The Israelis are hammering Gaza. We should put forward a pre-condition in that regard whenever we enter negotiations such as the forthcoming negotiations.
I do not wish to avoid the question, but I will not know the specifics of any delays on the extension of the Luas lines until I receive the final tender documents for metro north. Dublin City Council and all the other agencies are of the view that we cannot undertake the metro, the interconnector and the Luas lines all at the one time in the central Dublin area. This will therefore affect the position. However, the BX part of the BX/D Luas lines in the city centre will be dealt with during the course of the metro works. Once the Bill is published we will put in place an implementation group to ensure that as soon as the Bill is passed, we will be able to move forward.
I take note of Senator Leyden's comments on the forthcoming negotiations with Israel.
The joint committee adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until 3.15 p.m on Wednesday, 23 April 2008.