I welcome from the National Roads Authorithy Mr. Fred Barry, chief executive, and Mr. Hugh Creegan, head of PPP commercial operations and strategic planning. Before I request Mr. Barry to make a short presentation, I wish to clarify that there is no problem about the time available to him. He will remain here for as long as we need him. There is, however, a problem in that another committee is to take over this room at 11.30 a.m. Having said that, I am sure there will be no problem with Mr. Barry coming back on another occasion, if necessary.
Road Network: Discussion with National Roads Authority.
Does the Chairman intend to take questions on the Dublin Port tunnel first and then on other issues related to national roads?
I will leave it to members largely to decide.
Safety concerns in the Dublin Port tunnel are key. We were told that Mr. Barry had a problem with time. I appreciate that we were given incorrect information. I was concerned that with a one and a half hour time slot, which has nothing to do with the NRA, everything was being pushed into a corner. I am happy that is not the case and that if issues remain unresolved or are not discussed today — I hope all issues will be discussed — Mr. Barry will be available to return at the earliest time at which we can provide a meeting room for that purpose.
I call Mr. Barry.
Mr. Fred Barry
I thank the Chairman and committee members for the invitation to brief them on recent media coverage related to a safety report on Dublin Port tunnel, the current position on the M50 barrier-free tolling project and quality bus corridors on national roads. I propose to address each of these items in turn.
In our last appearance before the committee on 26 March this year we informed it of then status of the Dublin Port tunnel, its performance in terms of truck removal from Dublin city centre, the rigorous approach adopted to safety and the challenges faced in resolving the various technical issues that had arisen on the project.
On a point of order — I apologise for interrupting Mr. Barry — I would prefer if we dealt with the safety issue first and then the other issues to be addressed. We need to concentrate on the agenda in that order. The items are different and it is entirely appropriate that we deal with them separately.
I agree with Deputy O'Dowd. In addition to the safety issue, we have been inundated with e-mails and calls about tolling on the M50. Some people have received three or four illegal toll charges.
That is not fair. We should allow Mr. Barry to make his presentation.
I want to concentrate on all of these issues, as do my colleagues.
The Deputy can decide the issues on which he wants to concentrate.
My point is that if we ask questions on unit A, we must also be able to ask questions on units B and C.
There is no problem about that.
Is there a copy of Mr. Barry's presentation available?
It has been circulated.
Mr. Fred Barry
We have additional copies available, should anybody want one.
I am pleased to report that the tunnel continues to perform its vital role in the city's transport infrastructure with traffic levels continuing to grow.
RTE referred recently to a report by Egis Tunnels on one of its programmes. Egis Tunnels was commissioned by the tunnel operator, Transroute Tunnel Operations, TTO, in agreement with the NRA, to compile a report on the automatic control systems in the port tunnel. It carried out its work in 2007 and early 2008 and identified significant deficiencies in the system. TTO and the NRA were already aware of most of these deficiencies and had put improvement works in place. These corrective actions continued into 2008.
It was usually possible to continue to operate the tunnel safely before all of the ultimate corrections were made by taking appropriate and effective mitigation measures such as using the manual back-up systems. The well publicised event when the SCADA system lost communication with 15 of the tunnel fans, even though they were still working, is a case in point. The fans were operated through the backup control panels, with individuals physically confirming that the fans were working. If occasionally a circumstance arose that could not be worked around, the tunnel was closed. In fact, the NRA was accused in some quarters of being too quick to allow tunnel closure. At no time was it operated in an unsafe manner. To quote the director of EgisTunnels, Mr. Bernard Falconnat, the author of this report:
Following the performance issues with the SCADA system earlier this year, TTO and the NRA undertook to address the issues.
As part of this commitment TTO commissioned Egis Tunnels to undertake a critical report. During the investigation stage and following the report, TTO implemented mitigation measures which allowed the tunnel to operate safely. In parallel, improvements to the system have been conducted. During this period, the tunnel has not experienced closures linked to system performance issues such as those reported earlier in the year. Egis Tunnels is satisfied that TTO have taken appropriate and sufficient steps then and now to allow the tunnel to operate safely.
The findings of the report were openly discussed and acted on by dozens, if not hundreds, of individuals from the seven or eight companies and agencies involved and, as the authors of the report said, the tunnel has not been operated in an unsafe manner, either then or since.
As regards allegations that we misled the joint committee on our last appearance on 26 March, I would like to refer to the transcript of proceedings. I stated:
There have been technical difficulties with some aspects of the tunnel systems. This is not unusual for a new, complex and unique project. These issues are being dealt with. Where technical difficulties have required us to implement tunnel closures, we have done so and will continue to do so.
This statement was true at the time and still is. Happily, there have been no closures of the tunnel due to system problems since we last met. I also stated:
It is among the first in Europe to be built and operated in full compliance with the EU safety directive ... This is one of the first tunnels in Europe to be designed, built and operated under the latest EU safety directive. It is ahead of most tunnels in Europe.
Those statements were and are still correct. None of the critics has identified non-compliance with the directive. I further stated:
The SCAD A system is unsatisfactory in some respects, in the view of the NRA, and I am not suggesting otherwise ... In some cases, following lengthy negotiations and discussions, the contractor has accepted responsibility and is replacing certain items at its own direct expense.
The contractor has since done so. I went on to state:
We have engaged independent expertise to cure and improve these defects because we are not going to allow the fact that there is a dispute going on with the contractor to get in the way of putting the corrective measures in place. We wanted these measures put in place to improve durability and reliability. It is not that the other methods being used from time to time to manage the tunnel are unsafe and that is not the situation, but it is not satisfactory to pay for and have a SCADA system which requires frequent manual intervention. It is inefficient and we must deal with that.
I am happy to reiterate that statement and note that Egis Tunnels has confirmed its accuracy and correctness. I stated:
We have already secured outside help on the SCADA system. A full and thorough review is being carried out to ensure the right things are done to get it fixed.
This includes the assistance of Egis Tunnels.
Far from misleading the joint committee, we have been very open in acknowledging the problems and letting members know what is being done about them. Independently of the NRA, since our last meeting Dublin City Council has commissioned its own independent review of fire safety issues in the tunnel. The review was positive and supported the chief fire officer in recommending to us that it was no longer necessary to escort hazardous vehicles in the tunnel. We were pleased to receive this positive endorsement from a competent source.
We will continue to ensure TTO operates the tunnel to the highest standards. This will mean some closures — for example, on Monday a turbo blew on a HGV, giving rise to a smoke problem. The automatic control systems worked, the fire service responded, the safety procedures worked and the tunnel was reopened in less than one hour.
I would like to finish my statement on this topic with a quote from the independent tunnel safety officer, legally appointed, under EU Tunnel Safety Directive 2004/54/EC: "Actions were undertaken before the report and after the report to ensure that the Dublin Port Tunnel remains safe at all times." That concludes my statement on the tunnel.
I will now deal with the M50 barrier free tolling. As the joint committee will be aware, we set ourselves the ambitious task of converting the West Link toll plaza arrangements to a new barrier-free tolling system by August this year. The timeframe for system development and implementation was up to two years shorter than had been achieved elsewhere in the world with other barrier-free tolling systems. I am pleased to report that we achieved this challenging target and that the new tolling system commenced operation on 30 August, just six weeks ago. The biggest change that will have been perceived by M50 users is the removal of the delays and congestion associated with the West Link toll plaza. Within about 30 hours of the commencement of the barrier-free system, the extremities of the toll plaza had been dismantled and removed and four lanes of traffic were opened up in each direction, unimpeded by any toll plaza restriction. Users of the M50 have experienced significant time savings in their journeys since the introduction of the new barrier-free system, with reports of a reduction of 30 minutes or more during peak hours.
On the system side of the new barrier-free tolling arrangements, very good progress has also been made. Over 200,000 vehicles have set up registered payment accounts with eFlow, the name given to the authority's tolling operation. Together with the other tag issuers, it is estimated that approximately 400,000 vehicles are registered with either tag or number plate accounts. More than 4 million journeys have taken place through the toll location since the introduction of the new system. The vast majority of these transactions have been processed without any problems or difficulties. However, every large-scale tolling or road charging project introduced anywhere in the world has had start-up difficulties to contend with — we are no different. It would be unrealistic to expect a major system affecting approximately 100,000 users per day could be introduced without experiencing some initial difficulties. However, these issues have been and continue to be addressed. Already we are seeing that people are becoming familiar with, and accustomed to, the tolling arrangements and, through that familiarisation, patterns are becoming established and settled. Calls to our customer call centre which peaked at over 12,000 calls per day have settled back to between one third and one quarter of that figure — in the region of 3,000 to 4,000 calls per day. Delays in getting through to the call centre and dealing with any issues people may have have been virtually eliminated.
Two of the problems which have received most coverage in recent weeks are the issuing of payment notices to persons who already had electronic tags for their vehicles and the issuing of payment notices to incorrect vehicles. I wish to deal with each of these in turn.
In regard to notices received by people who already have electronic tags for their vehicles, the cause of the problem is usually that the electronic tags have not been mounted correctly in the vehicles. To be read successfully in the higher speed environment of the barrier-free tolling system, tags must be mounted in the top centre of the windscreen for cars and the bottom centre of the windscreen for trucks. We have seen a substantial portion of people hand-holding the tags against the windscreen. While this will work for low speed conventional toll plazas, it will not be successful in the higher speed system. In addition, we have seen tags mounted in the wrong position on windscreens; many have not been mounted on the windscreen at all.
The various tag companies have done a substantial amount of work contacting customers to inform them of the correct mounting position and providing free tag holders to allow motorists to fix the tags to windscreens. Exacerbating the problem was the fact that many motorists did not have their tag account details up to date — I refer not to eFlow from the NRA but to the other tag providers — meaning that a cross-check against the vehicle number plate on the account was frequently not possible. As more and more correctly position their tags and update their tag account information, this problem is diminishing.
The second issue mentioned is the issuing of payment notices to incorrect vehicles. While the number of incorrect notices being issued is very low — approximately 0.2% of all journeys made on the M50 — it is worth explaining how this can occur and these occurrences are dealt with. Typical causes of number plate misreads include: broken number plates; dirty number plates; non-standard number plates; specific character issues, for example, a mounting bolt in a zero causing it to be read as an 8; and poor weather conditions. Invariably these are issues associated with the number plate of the actual vehicle, not the vehicle, the owner of which received the payment notice.
Where a person receives a payment notice and is certain his or her vehicle was not on the M50 at the relevant time, he or she does not need to do anything. If the notice has not been paid by the end of the due period, each outstanding notice is then subject to a manual human review of the photographed number plate details. When it is identified that the notice was issued in error, it is cancelled and the payment request is transferred to the correct owner. Alternatively, the person receiving the notice can cancel it using the eFlow website or by contacting the call centre. There are still and will continue to be issues affecting individual customers which must be dealt with. That is a feature of commercial life. It cannot be expected that in dealing with 3 million transactions per month issues will not arise. We are committed to achieving a high level of customer service and will work to ensuring this objective is met in the days, weeks and months ahead.
The core objective of eliminating the congesting barriers on the M50 has been achieved. We had to negotiate the West Link buy-out, introduce interoperability between eight operators with dozens of differing tag configurations, and commission and put in place all of the business and engineering systems to support the barrier-free arrangements. We decided to allow the participation of multiple tag operators in the interests of competition. We decided to allow multiple payment options in the interests of consumer choice. These decisions complicate the introduction of the new system but are in the long-term public interest. As familiarity with the system grows, customer problems are diminishing. We will shortly have one of the most sophisticated systems of its type in the world working well and delivered in record time.
The Transport 21 programme includes the provision of quality bus corridors in Dublin, Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford. The development of these bus corridors is led by the local authorities and, in the Dublin area, the Dublin Transportation Office. Funding for their implementation is provided by the Government through the public transport rather than the roads Vote; therefore, it does not flow to or through the NRA. Road authorities have, in relation to national roads, concentrated on the provision of bus corridors, particularly within urban and speed restricted areas, in situations where traffic congestion may be a problem and there is road space to accommodate a dedicated bus lane. The road space is usually gained either from a hard shoulder or an existing traffic lane. Extensive lengths of bus lanes have been provided inside the M50 in the Dublin area on national routes N1, N2, N3, N4, N7, N11, N31 and N32 and outside the M50 on the N3, N4 and N7. Very limited lengths have been provided on national routes in Cork, Galway and Limerick.
We are open to the appropriate use of hard shoulders for conversion to quality bus corridors, but each proposal needs to be assessed on its merits. Issues to be considered include general speed of traffic, junction layout and design of merges with mainstream traffic. Specifically, grade separated junctions give rise to most difficulties. Interaction of bus lanes with ramp merges and diverges at major junctions creates a significant problem of efficient and safe integration of bus traffic into fast moving main line traffic. It should be noted that because hard shoulders on older roads particularly were not designed to carry traffic on a regular basis, they were not constructed to the same standard as the main carriageway sections. Where it is proposed to use a hard shoulder as a bus lane, it will be necessary to carry out improvements to that section of the carriageway at significant cost. However, we are willing to consider proposals for further bus lane provision on national routes that local authorities might want to bring forward. For example, the Chairman has asked that we consider a bus corridor from Tuam to Galway city. We are entirely open to Galway County Council's proposals in this regard, with the sole caution that quality bus corridors are not funded through the NRA. Similarly, we are open to the local authority's proposals with regard to the use of the hard shoulder on the N6 between Oranmore and Galway city.
I have a couple of other written queries that I received.
I will ask Mr. Barry to hold those and allow the two spokesmen to come in, if Deputies Brady and Connaughton do not object. Mr. Barry said there was an allegation that we had misled the committee the last time it met. Who made that allegation? The Egis Tunnels report on which a recent "Prime Time" television programme on RTE was based gave the impression there were serious problems. Will Mr. Barry confirm that Egis Tunnels now accepts that many of the problems raised on that programme either were not problems or have been corrected?
Mr. Fred Barry
I read the Egis Tunnels statement and will refer to it again. What happened is that the report was taken in isolation. It was intended to give us and the operator a full and comprehensive list of all the issues to be dealt with. It did not deal with what was being done about these problems. That was dealt with separately. Egis Tunnels was aware and has acknowledged that measures had been taken to deal with these problems. In some cases the long-term corrections were in place. In other cases temporary measures were taken to allow the tunnel to operate safely. Egis Tunnels, the author of the report and the sole source of more recent criticism, states specifically that it is satisfied TTO, the statutory tunnel operator under the EU legislation, has taken appropriate and sufficient steps to allow the tunnel to operate safely.
On the allegations.
Mr. Fred Barry
Deputy O'Dowd made allegations. I acknowledge that he may not have had all the facts in front of him at the time. He may have had only the Egis Tunnels report without perhaps having the further statement from it. Nonetheless, the allegation was made. That is why I was so concerned to refer specifically to the transcript of what I said the last time.
Let me quote from the transcript. Mr. Barry was asked a specific question on 26 March when he came before the Oireachtas committee. The following question was asked by the Chairman:
Is Mr. Barry satisfied all precautions have been taken in the tunnel? Is he absolutely satisfied about safety in the tunnel and that the procedures applying to the tunnel are no different from those applied in similar tunnels throughout Europe?
Mr. Barry replies as follows:
I would go further than that. This is one of the first tunnels in Europe to be designed, built and operated under the latest EU safety directive. It is ahead of most tunnels in Europe.
Mr. Barry was asked a specific question about safety in the tunnel and his reply makes it clear he had no difficulty with the safety of the tunnel. The facts show differently. On 1 January 2008 an early warning was transmitted to the National Roads Authority by Egis Tunnels. On 23 January Egis Tunnels met the NRA to discuss safety concerns. On 23 March, three days before Mr. Barry came here, Egis Tunnels started performing rigorous tests on the SCADA system. Mr. Barry disclosed none of these facts to us at that meeting. Is that true?
Mr. Fred Barry
That is not true.
Will Mr. Barry show me where in the record he told us about these issues.
Mr. Fred Barry
Certainly. I have already done so.
Specifically in regard to safety warnings.
Mr. Fred Barry
The Deputy should complete the question. He has questioned my statement that the tunnel was one of the first in Europe——
I have not questioned it. I have read it.
Mr. Fred Barry
There has been questioning of my statement that the tunnel complies with the EU safety directive and was one of the first in Europe to do so. Perhaps the Deputy would identify which tunnels complied before the port tunnel.
Is Mr. Barry absolutely satisfied regarding the safety of the tunnel? That was the big question. Clearly, there were safety issues which were brought to his attention and about which he did not tell us.
Mr. Fred Barry
Certainly, there are safety issues.
When Mr. Barry says I made allegations——
Mr. Fred Barry
Please, Deputy——
I am entitled to make this point. The facts are that Mr. Barry was told that there were serious safety issues in relation to the tunnel months before he came here and that he did not tell us about them. That is why I question the credibility of the evidence we were given: we were not told the truth.
Mr. Fred Barry
I refer to my opening statement. I said there were difficulties and that they were being dealt with — this is correct. Where technical difficulties have required us to implement tunnel closures, we have done so and will continue to do so. I have said the supervisory control and data acquisition, SCADA, system is unsatisfactory in some respects and did not suggest otherwise. I have said we have engaged independent expertise to cure the defects. I have also said "it is not that other methods being used form time to time to manage the tunnel are unsafe." This is true: it is not that the other methods are unsafe but it is not satisfactory to have a SCADA system that requires intervention. I said there were problems with it.
This is just waffle. The facts are——
Mr. Fred Barry
Please allow me to complete my response.
Please allow Mr. Barry to complete his response. The Deputy can then contribute.
Mr. Barry is only waffling. He was given safety warnings but did not——
Please allow Mr. Barry to respond. The Deputy can then contribute.
Mr. Fred Barry
I told the committee there were troubles with the SCADA system. I also told it that from time to time the tunnel had to be closed due to these problems and that from time to time there were manual interventions to allow work rounds. All of these statements were true and correct. I have said improvements need to be made. I did not refer to Egis Tunnels by name but did refer to the fact that we had received its outside assistance in compiling the report and bringing it forward. I also point to unequivocal statements by it that at no time was the tunnel operated in an unsafe manner. The statutorily appointed tunnel safety officer who is independent of the NRA has unequivocally stated that at no time was the tunnel operated in an unsafe manner. I do not know how any reasonable person can say I misled the committee.
Mr. Barry did not tell us that on 15 January 2008 they received an early warning about safety issues; that on 23 January they met the NRA about safety concerns, and that on 23 March, three days before the meeting, rigorous safety tests were started by Egis Tunnels. That is the truth.
My other question relates to the Egis Tunnels report. As I understand it, Egis Tunnels is the parent company of the tunnel operators; therefore, it is not independent. Is that a fair comment?
Mr. Fred Barry
I cannot understand why great credit is being given to part of what Egis Tunnels stated; yet the clear unequivocal statements by the same company that the tunnel was not operated in an unsafe manner, due to manual interventions and other measures, are being discounted. That is beyond me.
We are dealing with the timeline relating to the report.
Can we move on to the three dates in question?
Mr. Fred Barry
Certainly; I will take it further. Hundreds of tests have been done on the tunnel and I will be happy to come before the committee to discuss every test since it opened. It is strange to pick specific tests and then complain that we did not inform the committee about them. We have done hundreds of tests since the tunnel opened.
I have made the point clearly to Mr. Barry and do not believe he has responded properly to it. I am talking about the timeline of the report and the fact that we were not informed of issues. I am talking about the Egis Tunnels report. The key point is that the test of the SCADA system has confirmed that it is unable to ensure the required level of safety due to its inadequate design, operating deficiencies, lack of reliability and an unsuitable man-machine interface. Will Mr. Barry comment on this? The other conclusion, in the executive summary, is that the system is unsuitable to ensure the tunnel's safe operation.
Mr. Fred Barry
I will take the last point first, that it, that the system is unsuitable to ensure safe operation. That is why we have backup systems in the tunnel, which we showed to the Deputy during his visit. On the other issues raised, after the report was issued, corrections to the SCADA system were agreed in meetings with Egis Tunnels and implemented to ensure there would be no problems. I accept that I am now repeating myself, but this allowed Egis Tunnels to state the tunnel was not operated in an unsafe manner.
What of the connection between Egis Tunnels and the tunnel operator?
Mr. Fred Barry
There is a connection between them.
My point was that this gives great credibility——
Mr. Fred Barry
I no more suggested the Egis Tunnels report did not have credibility than I suggested the MacDonald report, the chief fire officer's report, the Indra report and the tunnel safety officer's statement did not have credibility.
The Egis Tunnels report stated the system was unsuitable to ensure the tunnel's safe operation and Mr. Barry cannot contradict this. Regarding his second point and the facility for the system to be improved, the conclusion of the Egis Tunnels report is:
Due to its design, we concluded the system will be very difficult to improve and will not be able to accommodate certain improvements listed. Most parts of the SCADA will need to be replaced and the main point of concern is the use of components inadequate for real time monitoring.
The report concludes that most, if not all, of the system had to be replaced. Clearly, we are not talking about fire safety measures; we are talking about the SCADA operating system — the heart of the tunnel. The report found that the €30 million SCADA system was unsuitable.
Mr. Fred Barry
This is becoming repetitive. We had further meetings with Egis Tunnels and agreed the measures to be taken, which included replacing some parts of the SCADA system. New servers were provided to strengthen the system and so on. All of these measures were taken and when necessary the tunnel was operated through manual intervention.
Is Mr. Barry confident that Egis Tunnels is now absolutely satisfied with the safety of the tunnel.
Mr. Fred Barry
I am because I read the statement by Egis Tunnels. I did not write the statement for it; it made the statement on its own.
I suggest we invite Egis Tunnels to come before the committee.
I have not finished yet. The Egis Tunnels report makes reference to a Martin Kelly report, of which I have not had sight. Will Mr. Barry tell us what the summary of that report on the architecture of the SCADA system suggested?
Mr. Fred Barry
No.
Why not?
Mr. Fred Barry
I am not in a position to give details of it.
Why not?
Mr. Fred Barry
I do not know the report.
That does not make sense to me. Mr. Barry's answer is not satisfactory. Would he be prepared to give us a copy of the report?
Mr. Fred Barry
I do not know. Maybe yes, maybe no. I am not saying I will not but I need to find out whether confidentiality applies to it and whose report it is.
I am deeply unhappy with that response. The key issue is the safety of the tunnel. If there is a report——
Mr. Fred Barry
If the issue is the safety of the tunnel, which of Egis Tunnels, the fire officer and Mott MacDonald is wrong? From where is the Deputy coming? Every expert dealing with the issue has given statements which I have read to the committee. I did not write them, they came from the companies.
I pointed out to the Chairman that it would take some time to get through these issues; that is why I was unhappy with the time limit, over which the Chairman has no control. It is very important that we go through all aspects of this document. On my timeline I have reached a reference to a Martin Kelly report on the architecture of the system. I am not a technical expert but can we get a commitment from the NRA that we can see this report? That would be helpful.
My second point relates to the architecture of the system. I stand to be corrected by the experts opposite and their obvious knowledge because I do not have any. A reference is made to the architecture of the system being of an industrial type not suited to the operation of a tunnel.
We will ask Mr. Barry to respond to that issue. He can come back to us with the details of the contents of the report and can respond to the issues raised by Deputy O'Dowd. On four occasions the Deputy has questioned the safety of the tunnel. It is a very significant allegation to make.
I would ask the Chairman——
May I make my point?
On a point of fact, I am talking about what is in the report. They are talking about safety. I am repeating what they say. The word "allegation" is pejorative in that context and I object to what you say, Chairman.
I am simply saying the Deputy is making serious allegations.
No, I am asking serious questions to which I need to get answers.
Those questions have been answered.
They have not been answered.
May I try to be helpful?
Mr. Fred Barry
I apologise if I have not answered them to Deputy O'Dowd's satisfaction, but I have no more to say on the subject.
I have further questions to ask Mr. Barry.
We can come back to him.
I do not accept that.
I call Deputy Broughan.
On a point of order. We are an Oireachtas committee. Some €800 million of taxpayers' money has gone into this tunnel. We are entitled to ask questions here. Whether Mr. Barry likes it or not he is obliged to answer them.
That is correct.
For him to say he will not answer further is not acceptable.
To be fair to Mr. Barry, he has given a comprehensive answer.
No, he has not.
He has dealt very fairly in my view——
I am asking about the architecture of the system.
Mr. Barry is going to respond on that question at a further point.
Mr. Fred Barry
The question of the architecture of the system is a new question and I would be delighted to submit a response on it to the committee.
One of the problems we have this morning is that most of the queries I have received in recent weeks have related to the M50 and tolling. Many people are hopping mad about it. They would like to ask Mr. Barry personally why they have received six or more illegal charges. I would like to return to that matter shortly.
I support my colleague. The safety of the port tunnel is critical owing to its length. After the "Prime Time" programme, some people said they would stop using it. They were occasional users who were worried about it. People are deeply concerned. My Fine Gael colleague and I have both been calling for a fully independent review outside of Egis, the National Roads Authority and Dublin City Council. Who wrote the independent safety review that was produced by Dublin City Council and how independent was it?
Mr. Fred Barry
The review was commissioned by Dublin City Council from Mott MacDonald, which is a well-known international engineering firm. It was carried out completely independently of ourselves.
Given Dublin City Council's connection with the tunnel — it built it, etc., — would Mr. Barry support a completely independent review to reassure the thousands of people who are using the tunnel?
Mr. Fred Barry
That is really a matter for the committee. I would question how many independent reports the committee wants.
Obviously Egis and Transroute Tunnel Operations cannot be independent. The National Roads Authority and Dublin City Council cannot be independent. We have asked the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, for a totally independent review. I take it that Mr. Barry would not be opposed to that in principle.
Mr. Fred Barry
I draw Deputy Broughan's attention to the different positions of people. We are not actually the tunnel operator. The statutory tunnel operator is Transroute Tunnel Operations.
I know that.
Mr. Fred Barry
There is a tunnel safety officer, quite independent from a normal occupational health and safety officer. There is an individual appointed as tunnel safety officer. He is there with his views and his oversight, etc. Dublin City Council engaged Mott MacDonald because of concerns, perhaps, that the chief fire officer had. As a result of all of that, the chief fire officer, who is pretty independent of the NRA — he is even independent of Dublin City Council sometimes — came out with his positive views as well. It is up to the committee if it wants——
What was the response of the Mott MacDonald report?
Mr. Fred Barry
The result of the Mott MacDonald report was that the chief fire officer wrote to us stating that he was satisfied with the fire regime in the tunnel and that in his view it was no longer necessary to escort vehicles containing hazardous goods. It was quite a positive statement about the fire regime, which is one more.
In principle, would Mr. Barry be opposed to the Minister for Transport, perhaps, having a totally independent review to try to put this matter to bed and reassure drivers and their passengers about this matter?
Mr. Fred Barry
It is not for me to say what the Minister for Transport should or should not do. I do not believe that is my place, I am sorry.
I accept that.
Mr. Fred Barry
On the other point the Deputy raised about the public, I am glad that despite the recent furore the public seem to have voted with their cars because the numbers using the tunnel continue to increase.
Since it opened, how many fire events or other closures have taken place? How many unscheduled closures have taken place? The last time Mr. Barry appeared before the committee he told us that for the hours when it is not being repaired, the tunnel is 98% available. What is the figure for its availability? How many accidents or unscheduled closures have taken place?
Mr. Fred Barry
I will get Deputy Broughan an exact number on the closures and we will send information to the committee on the percentage availability. I will find out the exact figure. I know it has improved because there have been very few unscheduled closures.
Mr. Barry told us about a truck that was on fire yesterday or was it the day before.
Mr. Fred Barry
A turbo went. It was smoke rather than fire.
Since the last time Mr. Barry appeared before the committee, how many incidents have happened?
Mr. Fred Barry
As I have said, I will get the Deputy exact numbers on that.
It is really important for us to have that information. The Evening Herald has been following this issue with great interest for Dubliners and those in surrounding counties. Is Mr. Barry familiar with the report by the barrister, Shay Fleming, covered in the 25 June edition of that newspaper? That report emphasised that at that time it was not safe for petrol tankers to be transported through the tunnel without significant safety improvements.
What report is this? Was it a newspaper report?
It was a newspaper report by Fiachra Ó Cionnaith. It stated:
This week, the Herald revealed that a confidential report by Ireland’s only qualified expert on the subject has warned that a series of “glaring” tunnel petrol-transportation safety concerns are risking an explosion that could be “catastrophic” for anyone in the site.
The report, by barrister Shay Fleming, has emphasised that it is simply not safe for petrol tanks to be transported through the tunnel without significant safety improvements.
And it has warned that "the severity of an adverse consequence relating to the ignition of any tanker could be catastrophic" for anyone inside the site at the time.
I understand some of the ordinary fire fighters in Dublin city and county endorse that statement.
Mr. Fred Barry
I cannot help the Deputy with that. I can, of course, refer him to what the chief fire officer has said.
Is Mr. Barry not familiar with this report?
Mr. Fred Barry
For whom was that report done?
It states it was barrister, Shay Fleming. It may well have been carried out for the section of the trade union movement representing fire fighters and other workers in Transroute Tunnel Operations.
We might ask Mr. Barry to acquaint himself with the report and give a response to it.
Mr. Fred Barry
I may not have access to that report if it was carried out for other people.
Perhaps the Deputy can get a copy.
Dublin City Council's traffic and transport committee, the equivalent of our committee in the city council, has carried out an invigilation of the tunnel, the biggest project in its remit. My colleague and former Member of this House, Councillor Seán Kenny, has called on the NRA to dismiss Transroute Tunnel Operations given the failures that have occurred since the start-up. Is that a position to which Mr. Barry would be sympathetic?
Mr. Fred Barry
No.
I have a few comments.
Have we finished dealing with the tunnel? I have a few questions on the tunnel.
No, we are still dealing with the tunnel.
While I agree with Deputy Broughan that we must allay public fears about the tunnel, we must have a realistic approach rather than an alarmist one. That is all I have to say on the tunnel. I will return to other issues.
I am a very regular user of the tunnel. The public are voting with their cars by driving through it. It is a fantastic piece of infrastructure. That is not to dismiss people's concerns about safety. I was surprised the NRA did not seem to rebut the alleged issues reported in the recent RTE "Prime Time" programme. I find that hard to understand. I am not saying that Mr. Barry should appear on television every time. However, I would have expected a public statement after the programme stating that it was factually incorrect. Mr. Barry has clearly said this morning that there are no safety issues. Given the content of the programme, I would have thought the NRA should have issued a statement. It would help the public who use it and make our lives as public representatives a little easier.
On the question of escorting hazardous vehicles, I accept the chief fire officer has said there is no need to do so. In respect of tunnels in other countries, is it the norm to escort oil tankers, chemicals and so on? That is an issue for me. If I find myself driving behind a tanker I get in front of it as soon as I can. I would do the same on a public road, never mind a tunnel. In respect of our European counterparts, do tunnel operators escort vehicles?
Mr. Fred Barry
Some tunnel operators do and some do not. To generalise a little, in older tunnels escorting is more likely than in modern tunnels that have better fire safety systems.
I will call Deputy Feighan. I will then allow Deputies Connaughton and Áine Brady to ask their questions and then I will come back to Deputy O'Dowd.
I have two questions. First, the chief fire officer has recommended that it is no longer necessary to escort hazardous vehicles through the tunnel. Prior to that, how many vehicles a day were escorted?
Mr. Fred Barry
Approximately 300.
Mr. Barry has clarified many points. However, one name has been mentioned which seems to have caused irritation to everyone, namely, Mr. Martin Kelly, who compiled a report. Do we know who he is? Does the report contain his own views or does he represent an organisation? Was he commissioned by any authority? Is he a recognised consultant? There seems to be a difficulty here. I do not know who Mr. Martin Kelly is. Can Mr. Barry clarify the issue?
Mr. Fred Barry
I will clarify it when I submit comment on the report and the report itself if I am in a position to offer it to the committee.
How familiar with the report are you, Mr. Barry?
Mr. Fred Barry
I know the name of it. I am not an expert on the architecture of the SCADA system which is a field of its own.
Do you know whether such a report exists?
Mr. Fred Barry
Yes, it does.
Does Mr. Barry have any idea who this person is? Is he somebody off the street who has decided to submit his own views?
Does he work for RTE?
Mr. Hugh Creegan
He is an independent consultant with particular tunnel expertise in SCADA and tunnel network type systems who has been working with us for approximately 18 months in dealing with the various issues in the tunnel.
Will you respond to Deputy O'Dowd?
I suggest that the report, if it is commissioned, should be made available to this committee.
We will await the response to the questions asked.
I welcome the NRA delegation to the meeting. I have a number of questions for Mr. Barry that I have already forwarded to his office. First, could he give us an indication, particularly in light of yesterday's budget, as to the future of the N6 which I presume will go ahead on schedule? Where does the NRA stand in regard to the Claregalway bypass? If the Chairman does not mind me muscling in on his query, I noticed a touch of Pontius Pilate about Mr. Barry's response on the proposed bus corridor from Tuam to Galway — the NRA would like to see it but is not willing to pay for it.
Mr. Fred Barry
That is correct.
Where does Mr. Barry think Galway County Council would get such funding, given that it has never had a bigger overdraft than it now has?
Mr. Fred Barry
On the issue of who pays for bus corridors, many bus corridors are paid for by the Government by direct grant. That money goes through the public transport Vote, not the roads Vote. It is not our money. It is not as though it comes to us and we do not give it to Galway but give it somewhere else. It never comes to us in the first place. If there is a grant from the Government, I assume it would have to come from the public transport Vote.
It is highly unlikely we will get it at this stage, but that is a question for another day.
Mr. Fred Barry
On the budget situation generally, as everybody here knows, our own budgets for next year were cut quite significantly below what had been planned, perhaps inevitably, given the financial situation. The Minister made a statement last night as to what the impact might be. We must internally digest that cut and decide specifically what happens in regard to different projects. When we have done it we will bring forward a comprehensive plan for next year as to what is and is not going to happen. Until then I do not want to speculate as to the timing of individual projects.
How soon can we expect Mr. Barry's press statement on that?
Mr. Fred Barry
An NRA board meeting will take place in the first half of November at which this will be one of the main topics for discussion. If we reach agreement at that meeting we will announce what we are doing very shortly afterwards. In particular we want to let the local authorities and the contractors know what the situation is so they can plan for next year as early as possible. If we do not reach agreement at that meeting, and it may well be that we will have to go through a further iteration of the plan, it will be the following month.
Can Mr. Barry tell the committee in global terms how much of a cutback there has been in the NRA's budget?
Mr. Fred Barry
The budget is approximately €150 million or €160 million less than the 2008 budget, or approximately €216 million less than the previous plan for 2009 under Transport 21.
Does it involve delays in delivering projects?
Mr. Fred Barry
It would be unfair to try to second guess on individual projects. What will happen is that projects that were to start later this year or next year will not start until the following year. If I may speak generally, it is our intention to ensure that, in so far as it is possible, work that is in construction and under contract continues and to ensure that we pick up the usual safety projects that we pick up every year where we do many small safety remedial actions around the country. Even where they are not yet under contract we would still want to keep those going, and we will want to keep sufficient planning going to allow the programme to continue, notwithstanding that it may extend for somewhat longer than originally planned.
I took it from what the Minister for Finance said yesterday, that the interurban projects would continue as planned. Does Mr. Barry envisage a pause in any of those projects?
Mr. Fred Barry
I was not present for the Minister's statement but I understand what he said was that the interurban projects would still be completed by the end of 2010. I think that will turn out to be the case. We have been finishing some projects earlier than scheduled. Some of that work may have to be slowed down a bit or deferred.
The famous term "paused" is coming back into the vocabulary.
On the Galway-Tuam bus corridor, the big issue is Claregalway. Our proposal is that the existing proposals for the bus corridor will be extended to the junction of the Roscommon Road so that there is a bus lane through Loughgeorge. The NRA has already allocated €350,000 for a traffic calming measure in that village. Given the impact of the new fixed speed cameras, I genuinely believe that is a waste of money. I concur with Deputy Connaughton that it would be far better to examine the possibility of extending the bus lane. I am convinced, and I believe we are both of the same mind, that a high frequency good quality bus service from Tuam in north Galway would solve the peak time problems in Claregalway. I support Deputy Connaughton on that issue.
For many years I have argued for the extension of the bus corridor northwards, although everybody gave me a thousand reasons it should not happen. I will not delay the meeting any longer because this is a local issue but it has been extremely successful and it baffles me that it cannot be extended northwards. All of the infrastructure needed seems to be in place. The powers that be should take this seriously.
Mr. Barry responded to my question on how the eFlow barrier-free system was performing. There are 3,000 to 4,000 telephone calls every day in respect of a system that, according to the delegates, is bedding down well.
Regarding the figure for incorrect notices of 0.2% of all journeys, I seem to have met 50% of the people concerned. I am one of them because I received such a notice. Apart from the poor weather conditions, I do not fit any of the other criteria. There are many telephone calls being made and it was chaotic at the start, which I can understand because it takes time. However, the figure seems high.
The question on quality bus corridors has been answered. There should be some liaison between the NRA, the Department of Transport and the local authorities. We could make further progress if there was some liaison between the NRA and the Department of Transport on public transport issues such as bus corridors.
Mr. Fred Barry
I agree with the Deputy that 3,000 to 4,000 telephone calls is still a high number. I do not suggest we have the problem solved but referred to the figure in the context of the reduction from 12,000. As we sort out more problems, the number will reduce.
Why are so many calling, if Mr. Barry says there are only 200 cases per day? Is he not misleading us in respect of the numbers? Are people calling the NRA to say "Hello"? Colleagues in the media reported that 20,000 people had received incorrect notices, while other said 10,000. While Mr. Barry suggested the number could be between 4,000 and 12,000, he now says there are only 200. We do not have the chance to discuss this issue because of time constraints but it seems that many are being left in limbo. Some of my new constituents in Portmarnock have received six notices, three for one family's vehicle that was never in the toll area and three for another owned by the family. Is this not unacceptable, even in the early days?
Mr. Fred Barry
I agree that we need to get the numbers down and stop this happening to a great extent. The figure of 20,000 was due to a misunderstanding. There were 20,000 unregistered users of the tunnel, which does not mean there are 20,000 false notices. A misunderstanding led to that article.
How many drive foreign vehicles who will never have to pay the toll? Is there significant inequality between those who can escape and those who must log on or have a tag? On top of this, they receive fines that are completely incorrect. One gentleman was at home in bed at 6.30 a.m., yet his car was travelling on the M50 many miles away. Is that not totally unacceptable and unprofessional?
Mr. Fred Barry
Too many people will not escape, even those in foreign registered vehicles. We have measures that allow us to pursue foreign registered drivers such as those in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Does that not amount to 5,000 per day? There are 4,000 telephone calls, a significant percentage.
Will the Deputy allow Mr. Barry to respond?
The figure is not 0.2%.
Mr. Fred Barry
The figure of 0.2% refers to the misreading of number plates. There are other issues, to some of which I have referred, that have not yet been sorted out. The position is getting better and the numbers are reducing. We should not be sending multiple incorrect notices to households. I agree with that criticism. In respect of all of these issues, we have done much and will continue to make things better.
Mr. Barry was responding to Deputy Brady.
Mr. Fred Barry
Deputy Brady also submitted a written question on when the Lucan interchange would be completed. It is scheduled for completion in the third quarter of next year. The contractor is making good progress and, while it is not an absolute commitment, I hope it will be open some months before that date.
Work on the interchange at Newlands Cross is out to tender but my earlier comments on all projects in terms of the budgetary position also apply to it. Tenders are due to be received.
The projected completion date of the upgrade of the M50 is 2010, as it has been from the beginning. By the end of this year, all of the junction connections will have been made. There will be some landscaping work that will continue after that date but the Luas switchover has taken place successfully and the new bridge has been put in place to connect with Kylemore Road.
Deputy Brady asked a question on bus lanes. It took me some time to obtain the information because I had to go outside the NRA. I have the answer with me and will give it to the Deputy after the meeting rather than reading it out.
In order to be helpful, I suggest we invite the director of Egis Tunnels, Mr. Bernard Falconnat, to appear before the committee. I appreciate Deputy Broughan's concerns but it is important that we do not become repetitive.
I am dealing with the issue. I asked these gentlemen to appear today and wish to ask questions that arise from the report.
May I ask Mr. Barry about the toll——
No, I have called Deputy O'Dowd.
Regarding motor traders with trade plates——
Deputy Kennedy cannot interrupt.
The key issue is safety. I am satisfied that the questions I am asking are in the public interest. I am pleased and privileged to be elected to the House to ask such questions and have total faith in the system to provide answers. If we do not receive them today, we will get them the next day.
I want to concentrate on the architecture and design of the system. I am not a technical expert but will quote from the report which refers to parameter-based SCADA:
This system is based on the concept of parameter settings designed to manage all types of industrial applications. Such a concept is not suitable to a tunnel application as safety concepts for instance are specific to the specifications of each tunnel ... As a result, the specific improvements required, as highlighted in various EGIS reports, will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement.
Mr. Martin Kelly is mentioned in the report with regard to the ability of the system to be improved upon. What is the truth about the system? Is it the wrong one?
Mr. Fred Barry
I have already offered to approach Mr. Kelly to obtain his report. Provided that it is possible to do so, we will submit it.
I am not happy with that response. I am asking a direct question. The critical issue is that the system cannot be improved upon. Mr. Creegan indicated some knowledge of this gentleman. The report provides the only information I have. My freedom of information request was turned down by the NRA on each of these issues on the basis that it may be involved in a legal action. The freedom of information process is the only way by which I can have these questions answered. I cannot accept that the delegation is not prepared to answer them.
I want Deputy O'Dowd to get the information.
I ask the delegation to answer the question now. The delegation knows all about it and should be able to clear the air.
Obviously, Mr. Barry has undertaken to revert to us with a response.
He said he may but did not say that he would.
Mr. Fred Barry
I will be very clear. I will come back to the committee. If possible, I will include the Martin Kelly report. Whether I can get the report, I will come back to the committee on the specific issue.
Why would it not be possible to include the Martin Kelly report?
Mr. Fred Barry
I would like to speak to Mr. Kelly before I offer his report to anyone else.
That is not good enough. If Mr. Kelly works for the NRA and Mr. Barry is responsible for taxpayers' money and the safety of the tunnel, we are entitled to see the report in the taxpayers' interest. Another sentence reads: "The issues related to the network architecture as well as the choice of equipment as used in the tunnel command control system have also been mentioned in Martin Kelly's report". It is a serious reference.
Rather than get bogged down in the time that remains——
The point is that we must see this report, it is not a question that we might or might not. Mr. Barry should have every confidence in the report because he has every confidence in the whole system. On the basis of this report we are challenging what he said before.
I wish to ask a question on the procedures within the NRA. I come from the north west and I am annoyed that the motorways are from Dublin to Galway and Dublin to Belfast. A whole tranche of the north west has been left out of the dual carriageway network. What does the NRA propose to do with regard to the N4 and N5? Is a dual carriageway promised from Mullingar to Sligo? We have been left out. The dual carriageways and motorways that have been provided are great.
We have many national primary and secondary routes. The policy of the NRA is not to invest in these routes. Between local authorities and the NRA, nobody is responsible. Can there be a change of policy so that these routes are addressed? I see just one route, the N61 and the N63, but there are many around the country. It would not require a sizeable amount of finance but the NRA needs to consider these and has neglected them for far too long.
Motor traders, who use trade plates, have no facilities to have a tagging system. If they are collecting or delivering a customer's car, they are charged individual fares many times in the day. One trader has contacted me to say that they are charged individual fares. There must be a system for such business people to be accommodated by the tagging system. It is ridiculous that they must pay €3 upfront.
I congratulate the NRA on the substantial progress made on the airport section of the M50 upgrade. Large sections of the road seem to be finished. Regarding the two carriageways that exist, is it possible to open some sections of the completed road in the interest of driver safety?
Mr. Fred Barry
Deputy Feighan asked about the possibility of a dual carriageway to Sligo. There is dual carriageway as far as Mullingar. Engineering studies are being carried out for the section from Mullingar to Longford and on to the Dromod to Rooskey dual carriageway. From those studies we will make a decision on whether it will be dual carriageway based on criteria of cost and effectiveness. That is in play at the moment.
We have invested money in the national secondary routes but the money has mainly gone into pavement rehabilitation and such work. The Transport 21 programme, which underpins the capital spend at the moment, places its main emphasis on the national primary routes from the point of view of upgrades. It provides that some work will be done on the national secondaries. The timing set out by Transport 21 is that this will come after the interurban routes. These are the primary focus up to 2010. After that the focus switches to other primaries and some national secondaries. A study is under way on all national secondaries in the country. This will give a comprehensive status report and help us prioritise which should be done first in that period. The focus of Transport 21 is on the national primary routes.
Mr. Hugh Creegan
We understand the issue with motor traders and have been liaising with them over the past few weeks, particularly through the SIMI, with a view to the best solution that we can mutually agree to make this as efficient as possible. We are aware of the issue and are trying to resolve it.
The second question referred to the upgrade of the M50.
Mr. Fred Barry
Excuse me. Progress is quite good and the contractor is targeting opening some sections before 2009 and 2010. We will encourage the contractor in that but the sections will be ready when they are ready.
There are two very narrow carriageways at the moment and many sections of the road are finished.
Mr. Fred Barry
In order to demonstrate that we mean what we say, the earlier phases of the M50 were opened before full sections were complete. We will do so where possible. We would like to get as much as possible open as quickly as possible.
Regarding the toll plaza, is it the case that over 30% of the €80 million raised per year will go on the cumbersome costs of administration? It has been stated that the guts of €25 million will be the cost. It was a political decision to buy this out and spend €50 million per year on operators who built it for €38 million. It represents a huge amount of money in administration.
Regarding the hassle people are getting, the figures do not seem to add up. From the NRA figures on calls since the M50 freeflow started, it seems some 5% to 10% of the 100,000 vehicles per day are getting hassle from the NRA afterwards. This may include sending toll fines to people who are miles away from the toll in the west or the south west. Even allowing for the fact that the system is in operation for six or seven weeks, is it not unacceptable that so many people are being fined illegally?
Does Mr. Barry accept the suggestion of my colleague in the Seanad, Senator Dominic Hannigan, the Labour Party spokesperson on transport, that the NRA be fined €50 each time it gets it wrong? The NRA could also send €50 to the person who has been severely inconvenienced. People are irate and upset about this because they like to pay their bills. It is very irritating. Unless all of these people are living in Dublin North-East it seems the NRA is getting it quite wrong and we need a much more accurate system.
Mr. Fred Barry
As has been said, between 3,000 to 4,000 people call the call centre, the majority of whom are calling to make a toll payment. They are not calling because there is a problem, they are calling because in the normal course of business many users are not registered. They choose not to do so, as they are quite entitled to, and one way of paying is to phone in. This constitutes the majority of those calls. It does not mean that between 3,000 and 4,000 people call us to complain.
What is the number?
Mr. Fred Barry
I accept criticism of the fact that incorrect penalty notices have been sent and that there are other aspects which need to be improved. However, we have made improvements and will continue to do so.
A report which, I think, emanated from England on the national driver file showed that the data were only accurate for approximately 30% of drivers, meaning information on the remaining 70% was not up to date. Does that impact on the fact that people are receiving incorrect penalty notices?
Mr. Hugh Creegan
We have not found that to be the case. We said the national driver file was fit for purpose and that has been proved to be the case. There may be issues with licences but they are for 12-year periods.
Therefore, it is accurate.
Mr. Hugh Creegan
In those cases we use vehicle registration details and holders receive a renewal notice every year.
I thank Mr. Barry and Mr. Creegan. While there have been inevitable teething problems with the M50 toll, it has been great to see the barriers removed. I welcome the fact that questions have been asked but we must be patient and allow the NRA to fine-tune the system. While I endorse Deputy O'Dowd's insistence on safety, I do not know how often he uses the tunnel.
Very often.
I never feel anything but very safe when I use it.
The problem arises when there are issues with the SCADA system.
Having heard the assurances we have been given by Mr. Barry, I am reinforced in my view. I have concerns about the image of the tunnel portrayed on "Prime Time" and hope the makers of the programme reflect on the absolute assurances we have received. To ensure we are absolutely clear about the position, we will invite Mr. Bernard Falconnat before the committee to hear his views.
I would like the committee to ask Mr. Barry to return because I am not satisfied that I have received answers to all my questions.
He has said he will respond in writing. If it is necessary, I have no problem with inviting him back before the committee.
I am not satisfied that I have received the answers I expected today. I want to return to the issue in the interests of public safety.
I also ask Mr. Barry to provide information on all the incidents which have occurred in the history of the tunnel.
Mr. Fred Barry
I will do so.
I remind members not to forget we have an important meeting, in private, this evening at 5.30 p.m.
The joint committee adjourned at 11.35 a.m. until 3.45 p.m. on Wednesday, 22 October 2008.