Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT debate -
Wednesday, 5 May 2010

Galway Luas Proposal: Discussion

I thank the delegates for facilitating the meeting today by appearing earlier than scheduled. I draw their attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but that privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the parliamentary practice that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or any official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I welcome Mr. Brendan Holland, chairman of Gluas, Mr. Colm Grogan and Professor Padraic O'Donoghue. I welcome those who have come from Galway and from the UK to be with us in the Visitors Gallery. I also welcome Mr. Tom Manning who is here representing the RPA and thank him for taking the time to be here to listen to this presentation.

Before I ask the group to make its presentation, coming from Galway, I am sure Senator Ó Brolcháin and Deputy Connaughton will join me in thanking this group for the wonderful work it has done over the years. It is a massive amount of work put in by a voluntary group in taking a proposal from nothing to where it is now. We in this committee very much appreciate any group, community, business or otherwise, which puts in significant effort to provide facilities, services and so on. In that context, we thank them for all their efforts to date. We look forward to their presentation and we will have a question and answer session afterwards.

Mr. Brendan Holland

Tá áthas mór orm, agus ar mo chomhleachaí, Mr. Colm Grogan and Professor Padraic O'Donoghue, deis a bheith againn labhairt ar an ábhar seo inniú. As the committee will be aware, Galway is a city of tremendous international renown as a centre of culture, the arts and tourism. It is also an important regional capital and economic hub, and is home to many major multinational corporations, most notably in the biomedical and ICT sectors. However, when it comes to transport, Galway suffers from an enormous infrastructure deficit. I am sure the members have all had difficulty at one time or another trying to navigate through our narrow medieval streets. With this in mind, a cross section of people consisting of academics, business people, engineers, architects, construction professionals and civic-minded Galwegians came together at a light rail workshop in 2007 which was hosted by the university, NUI Galway. It was agreed at that workshop that if ever a light rail was to come to Galway, it could only be good. Given that the city has a population of 80,000 and a hinterland population of 350,000, the challenge was always going to be to start thinking outside the box.

Even with city council partnership and the generous assistance of the department of engineering in NUIG, local architects, engineers, construction companies, with major Galway employers and multinationals such as Boston Scientific and Medtronic supporting us financially and physically, and with the encouragement of numerous organisations such as the Galway City Business Association and chambers of commerce, both local and American Irish, we cannot under estimate the significant contribution local Galwegians have given of their expertise to realise a better Galway.

Professor Lewis Lesley, a much respected expert in urban transport who spent many years at John Moores University in Liverpool and now of Trampower limited, carried out a series of studies over many months on Galway, its transport requirements and population movements and concluded to use an innovative LR55 track and light rail trams which Trampower has developed.

Research concluded that it was possible to have 21 km track travelling over a two route system: Route 1 from Briarhill in the east via the city centre to Bushypark in the north; and Route 2 from Cappagh Road in the west over the Quincentennial Bridge to the Dublin Road in the south. Provision for an integrated park and ride facility would also operate at the four terminal points. There would be seven minutes frequency at peak time and it would employ 75 persons and carry a minimum of 12,000 passengers per day. The RPA consider these figures as conservative. An affordable €2.50 average fare per journey would be charged. Being electrically powered by hydro and wind turbine would reduce the carbon output, help finance a sustainable business plan and reduce fossil fuel imports.

We are encouraged by the Government's stated policy that innovation is the route on which the country will depend to make a recovery from the dark clouds of recession coupled with the Department of Transport's smarter travel stated wish, that Europe looks to Ireland to learn how we solve our traffic problems. For these reasons, we have put most of our energies behind the Trampower proposition.

However, a second recognised tram supplier, Translohr, a French company with a tried and proven rail rubber wheel tram system that already operates in Clermont-Ferrand and Paris North in France, in Padua in Italy, and in Shanghai in China, has been to Galway and reviewed our strategy. Attracted by the cities linear shape and the information we have given it, Translohr also concluded a light rail was possible at a cost of €250 million.

Trampower is priced at circa €200 million due to its innovative nature. A very small section of this LR55 track has been operating maintenance free in Sheffield for more than 16 years. While it has many British certificates, the fact that a full system is not in situ has always been an argument given by doubters not to choose such a system. This cost also includes the infrastructure of sustainable energy, including wind and hydro stations.

We must still establish whether the Translohr system, priced at €250 million, will be viable for us or whether it will be too expensive. However, as construction costs and land prices continue to drop, along with further studies of our city, the Translohr or some other similar system of which there are numerous continue to be a possibility. It is clear both estimates still cost much less then the €700 million as suggested in a recent study conducted by MVA for Galway City Council.

Questions might be asked as to how we pay for this. In that context, we considered the three options. The first of these is the total public funding option. The Luas in Dublin received 100% funding from the Government. We accept that, without a shadow of a doubt, this is not the best time to seek such a funding. However, we are not proud and if it is provided, we will accept it. The second option we considered relates to public and private funding made up of a long-term loan from an institution such as the European Investment Bank, a Government grant and share capital from a major utility company. I suspect that the drawbacks I outlined in respect of the first option would again apply in this case. The third option relates to raising private funding through the provision of tax incentives.

In order not to waste a good recession, our preferred option would be to obtain a loan made up of funding provided from sources such as the European Investment Bank, business expansion schemes, tax allowances, VAT refunds and capital expenditure tax incentives for light rail which would be similar to those currently in place in respect of nursing homes, private hospitals and research and development opportunities. My colleague, Colm Grogan, who is a chartered accountant, will expand on these incentives during the question and answer session.

The proposal for a light rail tram system for Galway immediately brings to mind an image of the Dublin Luas system. The Galway Gluas light rail trams will look and will function on the street like Dublin Luas trams. However, and most importantly, the similarities with the Dublin Luas system will end with appearance and functionality. The Gluas for Galway differs radically from Luas in a number of ways: it will be an innovative rail system for Galway; there will be practically no need to make land purchases — CPO or otherwise — in Galway because the Gluas will share public carriageways; it will be financed through a private funding option; it will utilise the hydro and wind green power supplies in Galway; and there will be an assertive traffic management plan which will give trams priority over cars on the streets of the city.

Our analysis, which was compiled by Professor Lesley — by reference to population, locations and travel patterns — identified the two intersecting lines to which I have already referred. The MVA report has confirmed one of these lines — almost identical to that which we suggested — as meriting rapid transport corridor status and to be served by a dedicated rapid transport utility. We propose that the tram form the basis of such a utility. With the benefit of park and ride facilities, local green power supplies and the enormous penetration that interconnecting two lines provides, the case for the second intersecting line remains compelling.

The MVA feasibility study opted for the €122 million bendy bus option over a heavy duty Dublin-style Luas system. This was an option that we at Gluas never ever envisaged. We are informed that the bendy bus option is short-sighted because the vehicles used have a short lifespan of approximately five to six years and we want to pay for the solution once; it is noisy and creates pollution and does not, therefore, offer a sustainable green solution; it has a limited transport capacity, which could be potentially frustrating for passengers at peak times; and the limited turning potential of articulated buses make them unsuitable for Galway city centre.

While Galway City Council accepted the MVA report on rapid transit at its meeting in March, it also stated that light rail was the preferred means of transport. As a result of this endorsement, we have formed a partnership with Galway City Council's transport unit. Through this partnership we are currently exploring the exact impact the presence of underground utilities would have in the context of installing a light rail transit, LRT, system. The transport unit is also investigating LRT systems in other countries which might fit the profile and price relating to Galway.

In order to succeed, we cannot depend solely on the generosity of good-minded people. We come to seek the committee's help. Our preference is a system that incorporates some science, that will be innovative and in respect of which some research is needed. The proposal put forward by Trampower Limited would be one option in this regard. If we are to achieve what we are setting out to do, we will provide a model urban public transport system which will encourage a large number of car users to abandon their cars and use a carbon-negative mode of transport. We are seeking assistance in encouraging the Minister for Transport to instruct the RPA or any other relevant agency to work in partnership with us to bring a light rail system to Galway. I accept that this is a big ask. If we are correct, however, the RPA will be able to use Galway as a showcase and highlight its system as the Holy Grail of light rail for small cities. There is a major gap in the market in respect of such systems.

The mind boggles when one considers how many cities all over the world might require such a proven system. If the relevant trams, tracks and accessories were to be manufactured in Ireland, the level of good-quality, sustainable jobs that would be created could be measured in the hundreds if not the thousands. As members are aware, never before in the history of this State has there been a need for people to stand up and be counted. If others put together resources in the same way Galway City Council and Gluas have done, the rewards for everyone could be immense.

We are convinced that the growth of our region will depend on the step-change enhancement of our infrastructure. We have a great maritime tradition. In that context, the Volvo Ocean Race will return to Ireland in 2012. The exciting developments that are planned for Galway's port will not achieve their full potential in the absence of a quality transport system on land. I ask the members to combine their resources with ours and support our quest for tax incentives for light rail investment that can be ring-fenced. If they do as we are requesting, this will show what we can do together.

It is said that a picture tells a thousand words. Let me, therefore, show members our vision.

The joint committee viewed an audio-visual presentation.

I thank Mr. Holland for his extremely interesting presentation. If neither of his colleagues wish to comment, I will take questions from members. Before doing so, I reiterate what I said with regard to being glad our guests have come before us today. I am sure members will be unanimous in agreeing that we should suggest to the Minister for Transport that the RPA become involved and provide assistance in progressing this proposal to the next stage. We discussed this matter and others with representatives of the RPA on a previous occasion. While I am supportive of the concept and want to be of assistance in every way, one of the major issues that came up in our discussion with the RPA was the cost estimate and the need to move many services as part of the development of the rail line. At that stage, Gluas had a proposal for an ultra light rail system that would not involve much movement of services. Has that been developed? Have the representatives a clear idea in their mind about the system? Mr. Holland mentioned it operates in a number of cities in Europe and China and so on.

With regard to the provision of services on the streets of Galway, has agreement been reached on the corporation and city council plans for the bus rapid transit, BRT, system whereby Gluas would complement or replace it? We welcome the fact that the city council has ventured into a partnership with the group and is prepared to take the proposal forward.

If Gluas is to proceed, it must be funded by the public sector rather than private sector. Has the group moved its ideas in that respect forward from complete funding by the private sector, which will be difficult to achieve in the short term given the economic climate?

Mr. Brendan Holland

On the question of utilities, 40% of the cost of building the Luas related to moving everything underground. We knew in Galway that if we were to move everything underground, there would be no way we would have a sustainable, feasible transport system. Hence we had to look for something that would give us that. That is why both companies, Trampower and Translohr, attracted us. The Translohr system, which is in place, has a depth of 30 cm and most of the utilities are not moved. That is a tried and tested system. We have put our energies behind the Trampower system because it is even less than that. An 8 inch deep track is all that is needed and it is innovative. In the current climate that is what we are selling so that at least not only will we have a system that other cities from all over the world will look at, we can create other jobs as well.

With regard to the private sector, "Give us the money". We are not proud but, in the meantime, we are also putting our energies into private funding.

Mr. Holland quoted a cost of €700 million. What is that based on? My understanding is that is more expensive that the Luas in Dublin and I find that hard to believe. He quoted in his own studies a figure of €250 million but there is a huge gap between those figures. The Dublin Luas is the model we understand, even though lighter systems are being built, especially in smaller cities in Europe. There seems to be a huge disparity in the cost. Has the group examined the profitability of Luas? Profitability is also a key issue, especially if there is private sector involvement.

There are questions about whether Galway can sustain such a transport system. Have the systems in other European cities been examined? Is this feasible for a city the size of Galway?

Renewable energy is another innovative element of the presentation. Mr. Holland suggested generation would be part of the project. What are the costings for that?

I do not know whether the studies on this project analysed the percentage of traffic, which is a major problem in the city. What proportion of traffic would be alleviated by the project? If studies have not been done, does this need to be looked into by the RPA, the NRA or another body?

I welcome the Chairman's comments on the RPA. This project is worth exploring further and it is extraordinary it took so many years to put the Luas light rail system in place in Dublin. There was enormous huffing and puffing and people said it would not work. However, now that is in place, people cannot imagine the city without it. The same applied to the DART. There were also appalling projections for passenger numbers on the western rail corridor with commentators saying it would not be used and it would be a white elephant. However, it is anything but and numbers have greatly exceeded expectations with more than 1,000 people a day availing of the service.

A new town is proposed in Ardawn on the edge of Galway city. Have there been discussions with the city council on the planning of the town and whether the light rail system would extend that far?

Mr. Colm Grogan

We have examined the financing of Luas in the context of our own proposal and we have been very much influenced by the excellent service that it provides. Light rail in Dublin has been extremely profitable. Luas published accounts last year indicated a profit of €8.9 million. The operating company, Veolia Transport Dublin Light Rail Limited, made a profit of €2.2 million. That is part of a large group. That means a profit of €11 million. I do not know the turnover for the Luas because it was not disclosed and, under the Freedom of Information Act 1997, I have been refused that information. However, 27 million passengers used the Luas in 2008. If one assumes a fare of €1.50, the means turnover was €40 million and a profit of €11 million was generated.

The RPA is well funded by the Government and we could not easily seek such funding. Government funding to the RPA was close to €900 million in 2008. I do not have the figure for 2009 yet but funding is approaching €1 billion. We have had to think in a more novel way. There are 70,000 passengers a day in Dublin whereas we are talking about between 12,000 and 14,000 and a higher ticket price of €2.50. However, the economics work. There has been a great deal of radical thinking on various aspects of the project, as Mr. Holland pointed out, but in the financing area it is proposed to take the best of what is intended from tax incentivisation and matters of tax policy. On the books at the moment, there is tax incentivisation for research and development projects. If a company engages in research and development, it receives favourable tax treatment. We propose that the benefit that derives from sections 766 and 766A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 should extend to the Galway project as a model city and be totally confined as a model to the city. We know what happened to tax incentives when they got frayed at the edges so we want to confine this to Galway. That measure, combined with the tax capital allowances which existed some years ago for park-and-ride facilities under Part 10, Chapter 8 of the Tax Consolidation Act, and which we would like to be brought back to apply to Galway, would allow for funding to be achieved through the private sector.

The cost we have estimated is €210 million excluding VAT. We hope there will be an extension of VAT exemption and recovery as it applies for the transport of passengers outside the State, under section 12(1)(b) of the Value Added Tax Act 1972. Those are all the tax incentives we are seeking; they are extensions of what is already there.

We are seeking €200 million, of which €100 million would come from the European Investment Bank. We have spoken to the bank and it has asked us to advance the project further before it takes it on. It has confirmed, however, that it backs projects of this nature. It recently spent €300 million funding the train sets for Madrid. It funds 50% of a viable project. The remaining €100 million would come from private sector investment. That is the division for the moment.

That €100 million, with the profitable utility company or other company, and with the tax incentivisation, would cost €21 million. That would be the net cost, and what would attract a profitable company to this model of project. We have done the arithmetic. The contribution of 10 mw of wind power from four wind power points at four park and ride sites and 4 mw of hydro power adds considerably to the financing. We did this when wind power was being financed at 5.9 cent per kilowatt hour, and that has since moved to nine cent. There is a lot going in favour of these calculations.

The project that was envisaged has two intersecting lines. The MVA report that was commissioned by Galway County Council confirmed one of those lines as a rapid transport corridor. The demand for such a corridor has been established by us and MVA. We believe, however, there is reason for two corridors.

Professor Pádraic O’Donoghue

There were questions about moving services. Some of these issues are yet to be resolved but we hope our work with the city council in coming months will help to resolve that. We welcome the initial statement about asking the RPA to engage with us. If the RPA was on board it would be able to address some of the issues about the services. Some services, no matter what system is used, must be moved; there is no question about that. We have factored some of that into the equation. Some of the work is ongoing. We are primarily a voluntary group and are just trying to raise our profile.

Senator Ó Brolcháin asked about the €700 million. That figure came from the MVA report. We were not involved in it. It seemed extremely high to us and our conversations with some of the railway groups around Europe have confirmed that the figure seems very high. There is a major gap and we hope that by working with the city council and the RPA we could get a better refinement of the costs and close that gap.

I welcome the delegation. It is important this issue is aired at the committee. At our party conference there was a fine presentation on the matter and the Labour Party is very supportive of the project.

I second the Chairman's proposal that we have a full feasibility approach. In the run up to the 2007 election, some people in the Green Party in particular were talking about feasibility studies for Cork, Limerick and Galway for light rail systems but nothing has happened. The RPA has expressed its interest on a number of occasions in supporting the work of the Galway team and looking at similar ideas for Cork, Limerick and Waterford. Galway, however, was first out and the project deserves to be considered.

A number of project supporters have contacted me to query the MVA consultancy. In a number of studies for other cities, it has gone for the bendy bus solution as cheapest but in many respects it is a limited solution. Has the other work by MVA been examined? I was informed of a number of places where the bendy bus approach was recommended, including cities that would be both bigger and smaller than Galway.

Most major capital projects up to Transport 21 have seen expenditure escalate. The group has made a reasonable case for the type of light rail it wants to establish to be in and around that figure. We said earlier in the Dáil when discussing the interconnector and the metro that there was never a better time to start doing work of this type. Are we going to wait until construction costs start to rise again?

The Chairman made a point about the private sector and we could organise affairs in such a way that the private sector would get involved. There are PPPs in several other major projects, including the metro north and the interconnector. Future discounting could be taken into account as the economy develops. I do not see why that could not be done for Galway. The point about land costs is valid. That was what caused the ballooning of costs on the inter-urban network and the Luas.

I congratulate the delegation on the outstanding work it has done so far. It deserves support. This is an issue where one might quote Robert Kennedy, to dream of things that never were and make them happen. The DART and the Luas have changed Dublin, as has the M50. We had a similar discussion about the M50 and how it became an amazing development corridor. Mr. Holland has made this point with regard to one of the corridors for the Gluas. There is no question but that it would change the city.

The Chairman is aware of my views about decentralisation. I believe in real decentralisation. In other words, I believe in letting the people of the west and other areas run their regions, do their own thing and elect their own governments. Galway has made wonderful progress in recent decades and I am sure the Chairman has been involved in some of that. We want to see that continue. The Gluas project would incrementally change and develop our western capital in such a way as to ensure the cost benefit would be very positive. I welcome the group here. My colleague, Deputy Michael D. Higgins is tied up with another committee, but we are ad idem, as are our councillors and local organisation in Galway, in supporting the group on what it has done. I support our Chairman with regard to moving the project forward at RPA level.

We discussed Dublin earlier. It is depressing to think that one must think of doing something in eight years time because one just wants to keep things moving. I will make the point in discussions leading up to the next general election that there was never a better time for these projects and for keeping the economy moving. Transport is central to a good life for citizens. The Gluas would definitely transform the lives of Galwegians and of the region. I congratulate the group. It will have the full support of this committee.

Mr. Brendan Holland

I thank the Deputy for his kind remarks. He is talking to the converted and we believe in everything he said. He mentioned the bendy bus and asked whether we had looked at the MVA report. It is not for us to criticise the MVA report or its reasoning, but we had to question much about how it came to its reasons. It seemed the MVA was somewhat blinkered towards a Luas, heavy-duty, expensive type system, which is something we never envisaged.

We heard this debate before with regard to Luas when eminent economists and a president of a university asked why we could not just have a dedicated bus way up to Tallaght. I do not think anyone would agree now that would have been the right choice. The Luas and everything a light rail system provides is clearly a quantum change in transport provision.

Mr. Brendan Holland

I attended the workshop in Galway where Colman Ó Raghallaigh from the West on Track group spoke. He spoke about how things were for them at the time. Various reports were made on the group's proposals and they were told not to go ahead because it was not viable and could not or would not be done. They were told it was a waste of money. He is five years further down the road than us and what we have been told and gone through is a carbon copy of what he was told and went through. The MVA report came and said it cannot be done or could only be done for an exorbitant price and so on. The basis of our argument on price is that technology has moved on even further than where it was when the Luas was built.

To bring home the point on how technology has progressed, I would like to report the minutes of a special meeting of the finance and standing committee in NUIG — UCG then — on 8 May 1967. The minutes report that the university was buying an IBM 1800 computer which could punch holes and provide some information. The cost of that computer then was a staggering £25,043 net. That equivalent computer or one ten times better is probably sitting in a Deputy's pocket now, having been bought for €100. The point is that we are looking at newer technology. I agree, I cannot put my hand on my heart and say our proposal will definitely work, but we must think outside the box and look at new technology.

We must consider we are in an advanced era. We are trying to do that. We are trying to show Galway, not only as a transport hub, but as an area where people can come and see how things are done. Galway has been a leading light in many areas, through the university, innovation, industry, economy and so on. We are trying to keep up with that and raise the platform. We believe that, as has been said, the Gluas could bring a significant increase to the quality of life for Galway. We are madly jealous when we get off the train in Heuston and hop on to the Luas and sail up into the city centre instead of having to find a bus, which is not sexy. It may be snobbish, but one does not see too many well-heeled people sitting on a bus. On the Luas, however, one sees all sorts.

It is the group's thinking outside the box that encourages us to support it.

I welcome the presentation from the group from a neighbouring county and am delighted to see the efforts they are making to create an integrated public transport network within the city of Galway. What they are trying to do ties in exceptionally well with the, hopefully, continued incremental development of the western rail corridor. I wish to be associated with what the Chairman and Deputy Broughan and others have said with regard to moving this on to the RPA or to ensuring the group engages with the RPA or whoever can further its feasibility and provide assistance in developing it.

It was mentioned that the technology is new and untested. Will the delegates give us some further information on that and the issues that arise in that regard? There has been some discussion on the bendy bus. The first time I heard of bus rapid transit, BRT, I was, like others, less than impressed by the concept, because a bus does not provide the same image as a shiny, new tram. However, having visited other cities in Europe, I am aware that older trams are not sexy either. If we put the older tram systems associated with central and eastern Europe beside the Luas, we would see they are a horse of a completely different colour. The same could be said with regard to bendy buses or bus rapid transit.

Members of this committee visited Nantes some time ago to see its BRT system. I did not make that trip, but when on holiday in France two years ago, I went to Nantes and met people associated with the system. I was interested to see a system Bus Éireann had talked about introducing in the regions, between places such as Limerick and Shannon Airport. I was hugely impressed by what I saw in Nantes in terms of the quality of the technology. While the BRT system was on wheels, for all intents and purposes it was a tram. The costs were encouraging and it had capacity. The people I met in Nantes indicated the BRT system was a good way to move and grow. Because it was on designated routes along existing roadways, it had the capacity, once junctions were aligned and lighting was configured, to be upgraded at relatively low cost when required. The approach in Nantes was that if they had to wait to convince others to get them where they needed to install light rail, they would never get there. They started with the BRT system and have a very good system. If over time the city grows and increases in population, the addition of a light rail along the designated route will be just another incremental piece of the infrastructure. One did not rule out the other.

I put this idea into the mix, not to discourage the delegation from the route it is taking, but as an option it could consider. Perhaps it has already considered it and moved away from it. It seemed an interesting approach to me and would be worth considering.

I have another meeting at 5 p.m. Deputy Broughan and I had questions to the Minister and we had to wait for Taoiseach's questions, so I apologise. My colleagues have been making representations to me as Fine Gael spokesperson on transport about this issue. The project is very attractive but cost is the key issue as is funding. Like Deputy Dooley, I looked at Nantes as an example of an integrated transport system consisting of light rail, bus and bus rapid transit, BRT. Continental cities have been transformed by Luas-type systems and by BRT and I agree completely with the Deputy. I have looked at the systems of integrated public transport in both Paris and Nice and it is a different world. I have also looked at the needs of Galway. The point has been made to me that those of us who live on the east coast need to be very careful to acknowledge properly the needs of the west and consider them. I agree in principle with the Chairman's proposal that the Railway Procurement Agency be asked to examine the project and that we should have an open mind on the issue. I am very interested in the presentation and I would like to look at the costs, the amount needed from the taxpayer and from private enterprise. The key issue is summarised in the presentation. There is no land acquisition required. This is an innovative project. The power sources are green energy. I agree completely with public transport having priority over private transport. The motorway to Galway is a good idea but there is a problem once one gets there as one can be stuck in traffic for hours. It is difficult to work out the directions with so many different intersections.

Professor Padraic O’Donoghue

In response to Deputy Dooley, he described the system in Nantes. We certainly think that light rail is the better option. From what we can see, the patronage percentages for light rail would be higher than bus rapid transit. The worry is if we got bus rapid transit, we would never get to the next stage. I would be very concerned at pitching that low. We have to go for what we think is the best.

We support the delegation in its endeavours.

Mr. Brendan Holland

During race week in 2006 a bendy bus was brought to Galway to show us what it looked like. However, it could not get around the street corners.

There is no doubt that is a problem. The use of the bendy bus without the designated pathway is a disaster. If this were to be the compromise, it would be better to stick with what is there now, which is nothing.

Mr. Brendan Holland

We also went to Cambridge and York with the Chairman. We travelled on a BRT in York and my impression was that it was wonderful except when I asked the driver what happens when it is stuck in traffic. Those buses have priority in York. The driver said he had to follow a timetable and be at every bus stop at a designated time but if he was falling behind, he could swing around the corner and cut a little piece off the line and make up time, regardless of where people were dropped off.

We regard the tram as being a reliable, ambitious, 21st century mode of transport. I will not apologise to anybody for being ambitious for my city. We believe people will use the tram far quicker than they will get on a bus because the tram is far more reliable; it does what it says on the can, so to speak.

I welcome the Gluas delegation. I compliment the delegates on their commitment over time and for sticking with this vision for Galway. I welcome this vision which I think will transform Galway in how we live, move and work in the city. We must not forget that if one wishes to travel from the east to the west of the city on some afternoons in order to transact business, one is likely to be late and likely to be very frustrated and very stressed. It is really difficult. I have seen tram systems that were considered either sexy or not sexy. Zagreb in the north of Croatia has a really old tram system but it works very well. People use it to get to work. I do not regard the bus as an attractive means of transport for getting to work, even a bus rapid transit system.

I congratulate the delegation for its recent advances in forming a working partnership with Galway City Council. How much State money is needed up front? I understand this project would initially be funded privately and that the delegation was looking for tax incentives. I apologise that I had to leave the meeting a few times for votes in the House and to attend another committee. Did the delegation address how will the maintenance of underground services be dealt with in the event of a breakdown? I know this is a significant concern. There is a significant discrepancy in the costings between €200 million, €250 million and €700 million. What is the costing mechanism? Mr. Grogan made a very cogent financial case——

There is a vote in the Dáil. I suggest that Senator Ó Brolcháin takes the Chair so the discussion can continue. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin took the Chair.

Based on the financial figures presented to the committee, when is a return envisaged, based on current demographics in Galway? I am delighted to hear there is general agreement around the table that this project will be advanced with the RPA. What role is envisaged for the RPA in a privately-funded Gluas system? Would it be a different role in a public-private project? I look forward to hearing the replies.

Mr. Colm Grogan

The Senator referred to the question of State funding. I do not think we have actually thought about needing money from the State just now, although, of course, it would be useful. What is more needed is the expertise and the interaction. The State agencies would appear to be well positioned for this. The RPA had €86 million on deposit as at 31 December 2008 and €40 million the previous year but I do not know the current deposit total. It would have the resources and the direction. It received a State grant of €184 million in 2008 for its capital expenditure. In the context of our project, I do not think what we require in funding from the State would over-burden any sector.

Senator Healy Eames asked about the return for Galway. In the first full year it is projected we will have 14,000 passengers. There is a novel and useful contribution from the green power generation. We have spoken with people who are expert in this area. There is often a cost and problematic factor with regard to wind power as it requires a lot of infrastructural invasion and road construction. None of this would apply. Of course, planning provisions and public assent would be required but we are of the view that people who might have sight of a single wind vane on a park-and-ride site might find it acceptable, given that they would have a light rail within walking distance. So there are four of those. They contribute significantly and even more than my figures suggest because the price for wind energy has escalated considerably. In the first year the return would be €1.5 million after interest costs to the European bank for €100 million and after depreciation. I am quite strong about that. At the outset I spoke about the RPA and the Dublin light rail. It is terribly important to us because it is a very profitable activity. That is a 25% return on sales, one might say, which is very high.

The type of investors who would, according to Mr. Grogan's figures, invest €200 million——

Mr. Colm Grogan

It is €100 million. They would borrow the other €100 million.

Yes, I recall that. How many years will it take for them to get their return? I suppose I could work it out. It must involve an escalating figure for usage also. There must be a sliding scale.

Mr. Colm Grogan

There is. One can predict anything. We presume growth in the following years. Our grounding is based on population analysis and so on, based on much of the expertise of Professor Lewis Lesley, who has a reputable history in this regard. We examined the population statistics in the Galway city atlas and other sources and identified the capacity for 12,000 to 14,000 a day. When the park and ride in included it is definitely 14,000. We met representatives of the RPA to discuss it. They told us that our estimates were probably conservative and that the uptake is always stronger for a rail-based system. The return would come quickly for the investors because of the tax incentives. The €100 million of their money they would need to invest would have the benefit of tax incentives of €75 million or €76 million. It would cost them approximately €22 million. It is the same principle that functioned to bring on the St. Vincent's Private Hospital scheme and other worthwhile projects. I am at pains to point out that we would like it to be focused on this one project because we do not want——

Yes, I heard Mr. Grogan there. Are the investors still in place?

Mr. Colm Grogan

We have not spoken to particular investors. However, This is a very attractive return and it would need to be a very large company with considerable profitability to gain the benefit quickly — possibly utility companies or other profitable companies.

In terms of funding, would Mr. Grogan present this as a proposition? How will he go about that?

Mr. Colm Grogan

I could predict confidently that as soon as the tax incentives were announced we would have plenty of candidates proposing to us. The European Investment Bank has requested us to come back when we have more in place regarding tax incentives and research on the innovation.

It is very wise that Mr. Grogan proposes this as a pilot model in terms of the tax incentives because we want to make decisions that will be sustainable in the future and not to replicate some of the errors of our past.

I also asked about the role of the RPA.

Professor Padraic O’Donoghue

The Senator asked about services. Many questions remain to be answered on that. We need to work with Galway City Council on that and I hope the RPA will also be able to get involved. We see a role for the RPA on some of these issues.

That is my greatest concern. I cannot see anything that would prevent me from strongly recommending this project. However, I want to be really straight about this. We need to be clear as to how a Gluas system could run on a line where there are underground services. If the whole city were to come to a stop we do not want to just blame Gluas. How will we fix that one?

Professor Padraic O’Donoghue

We do not want to be blamed either, obviously. I have no doubt that some services will be moved based on the nature of Galway. We need to see what is there. The city council and others involved in making decisions allowing this to proceed, including the RPA, would not allow it unless they were happy. These are the issues. We are part of the way down a road to solving a problem here. We will need to work through that. We know that nothing will go in until all parties — any utility company involved and Galway City Council — are happy.

Is there openness in solving that?

Professor Padraic O’Donoghue

We have made progress with the city council, which is now with us in the partnership. We will need to expand that further. We are looking to the RPA to expand that further. Time and effort need to be put into this in the coming months and possibly for longer before we can answer all these questions.

Mr. Brendan Holland

On the question of utilities, which is always thrown up, even along the Luas line, I believe there are 47 manholes along the city centre line in Dublin, right beside the Luas. It is not that we are trying to reinvent the wheel or do anything new. It is not possible to predict everything but we can do our best to try to avoid being haphazard. We will certainly not sign up to something that will go through the front door of Brown Thomas and up on the cosmetic counter. We would also like to be happy that this thing can work. That is why we have sought the assistance of the RPA and the city council. By all working together we can prove this thing.

As someone from the west, I get a bit tired of hearing about the great metro north and Luas systems and then hearing people say that we can put up with a few bendy buses. I am sure others from the west will back me up in that. In a recessionary period it is important to consider innovative projects and not just accept second best. We need to build our economy for the future and decide on the next step. If projects such as this are not ready to go at the appropriate time and we wait until we come out of recession and then decide to build a light rail system, it will take another five years through the planning process to get to the stage at which we should be as soon as we come out of recession and can find funding.

If the Government decided in its wisdom to fully fund the project, how quickly could it be put in place? Is there any evidence of investors in bendy buses vis-à-vis investors in light rail? From my investigations there does not appear to be a great demand for private funding for bendy buses. It appears that no private investors invest in bendy buses systems, whereas there seems to be great demand for private investment in light rail systems. I do not know whether the delegates have investigated that matter. It would be worth doing so if they have not.

Professor Padraic O’Donoghue

If the go-ahead was given tomorrow to build a light rail system in Galway, it would still take a number of years to complete the project. We would have to decide what system would be best to use in Galway. Service issues may arise, for example. We have spoken previously about the use of the LR55 system which has been developed by Trampower Limited. Some matters would have to be resolved in that respect. It is probable that a period would have to be devoted to assessing some of the technologies available. We would have to decide, in advance of construction stage, what would be the best technology to use in Galway. I estimate that the construction stage would take a number of years to complete. One could probably build it in two years or so, in advance of which there would be a run-in period.

I will explain why I asked that question. Like Senator Healy Eames and other Members of the Oireachtas, I recently attended a meeting with officials of Galway City Council. One of the points made was that planning was based on Galway city having a population of 90,000 in 2016 or 2017, which would represent a slight increase. If one examines what is being done in European cities, one will find that it is becoming extremely viable to develop light rail systems in cities with slightly increased populations. When we do things in this country, we seem to wait until all the ducks are in a row before we start. I suggest we plan for the future on the basis of predictions of this nature. Professor O'Donoghue said it would take two years from the start of the project.

Professor Padraic O’Donoghue

It would take two years from the start of construction.

The Acting Chairman has the ear of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

I wish I had. He happens to be a member of my party. I am delighted to welcome the Chairman of the committee back to the meeting.

The Acting Chairman can change how things work.

I am glad I have such power. It is wonderful to hear it. It is marvellous to learn that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is all powerful.

Deputy Frank Fahey took the Chair.

It is always a pleasure to share the Chair, even unofficially, with Senator Ó Brolcháin. Deputies Connaughton and Higgins wish to contribute to the debate.

I welcome the Gluas delegates. As most of them are aware, I represent east Galway and have more than a passing interest in what they are doing. During the years I heard many proposals that looked good at the time but never got anywhere. I am interested in three aspects of the Gluas proposal which I hope will come to pass in the not-too-distant future. I do not want to go back over ground that has already been covered, but since I started to follow this debate in the local press, in particular, I have thought that the amount of backroom research done is hugely important. If one happens to be a member of the Joint Committee on Transport, as I am, one will be aware that every month of the year proposals are made by people all over the country. Everyone thinks his or her proposal is the best in the country. However, there are several litmus tests that need to be met on a project of this nature.

One needs to consider factors outside Galway city also. I have great interest in this project because thousands of people from my constituency of Galway East and surrounding areas such as south Mayo commute to Galway city every day. The solution to this problem needs to extend further than Galway city, as it involves a much wider issue. The first section of the western rail corridor, a hobby horse of ours during the years, has been opened, and I expect to see a train passing through Tuam on its way to Claremorris in the next section of the corridor soon.

Someone has mentioned that the big problem will always be in the centre of Galway city. I apologise for missing part of the meeting when I had to go to the Dáil Chamber half an hour ago to attend to a farming matter. In the next few years it will not be a problem to bring thousands of commuters and tourists, etc., into the city. We have to accept that the M6 is an outstanding piece of infrastructure. Regardless of how one looks at it, one will appreciate that it is a fine road. The problem to which I refer also arises when one gets off the train, although the rail network is much improved. When one arrives at a particular point in Galway, one may be a good distance from where the majority of people work. Thousands of people travel towards Galway on the M6 each morning, but they get jammed on their way in. There are similar problems on the mainline train service which may develop in the western rail corridor when people travel from Tuam.

As Mr. Holland rightly said, we have to think outside the box. What will happen in the centre of Galway in the five or ten years' time when passengers are coming and going on the various modes of transport? Several things could be done. The concept of Nipper buses was initially advocated. It was suggested people could be collected from the railway station and so on. I am not an expert on this form of transport, although, God knows, I have heard enough about transport systems. However, on the basis of what I have heard, this proposal appears to represent good value for money, although I am not sure the delegates know how much it would cost. They have given us some figures. If the cost of the project, when completed, is the figure I first heard, it would be the first time that would have happened in my 33 years here. I am not asking the delegates to believe that but I do.

That said, we know the cost of other forms of transport. I recall that at a previous meeting of this nature, it was argued that a bus system would be cheaper than this system. That is a big question. The delegates will have to convince people like us that the system is more likely to work than anything else. There is a great deal of convincing to be done in that regard. However, the delegates are on the right track in the sense that they are in the middle of the pitch. All of the other transport systems such as the main roads and railway lines come to a stop in Galway city. There is nothing one can do about it.

Gluas has done research and will conduct more on the best way we can disperse hundreds of people from certain points. It cannot be done by cars. However, it does not matter what one does, as it is like filling a half pint glass with a pint. One could have ten roads like the M6 approaching Galway, but they would still be jammed in the last mile each morning. Regardless of what one does, everyone will come at the same time. It is a question of the method of dispersal. From what I have seen, the delegates' approach seems to be the right one. I have been briefed on this matter by a number of others. Regardless of what Government is in power, several additional steps need to be taken before someone will provide the cheque. It was rightly mentioned at the beginning of the meeting that it was unlikely to happen in the current economic circumstances. We hope for everyone's sake that things will not always be as bad as they are now.

I will conclude by talking about the issue of private funding, which has been mentioned. I am sorry I was not here to hear Mr. Grogan's presentation, but I understand he answered many questions in an eloquent manner while I was absent. I assume the Gluas delegates can convince us not only that value for money will be achieved but also that this system is the only way to move people from the pressure points I have mentioned to their places of work. We know the system is right, but we need to convince everyone up the line of this. One can imagine the level of convincing we had to do on the western rail corridor. Much more convincing will have to be done in this instance. There is a certain similarity between the two projects. Many outside Dublin will shrug their shoulders and ask why Galway city needs a system such as this. We know we want it, but it is up to the Gluas delegates to convince others of its merits, at which which we will do our thing. We are on the right road. I wish those involved with Gluas the best of luck.

I am not a member of this committee and, therefore, appreciate the opportunity to attend this meeting. I welcome the delegation and thank them for their presentation.

I have serious reservations about the methodology used in the research for the case made against a light rail project for Galway city. Sociological studies have shown that when people change their mode of transport, particularly if it is easily accessible, they tend not return to the previous one. The Luas was a good example of this and is one of the most attractive features of the Galway proposal.

I have not been successful in persuading CIE or others about the importance of integrated and regional transport. Galway city has current and inherited traffic congestion problems, particularly with residential zones overwhelmingly on one side of the city and industrial and service activity on the other. Going around the city would never solve the internal problems of moving from one side of the city to the other.

An alternative to the light rail proposal is bendy buses. Would they work? I do not believe they would because the city's street lay-out does not lend itself to the bendy bus solution. There are questions about street narrowness and acute corners.

This is probably the most effective time in decades for achieving good value in public tenders. It is not only effective because of low interest rates but also, sadly, because of the unemployment of many architects, engineers, lawyers and building workers who used to service the building industry.

Sometimes at Galway City Council level the question is asked as to what temporary modes of transport could be used if the roads needed to be torn up for such a light rail project. I find this a somewhat abstract argument. The examples shown where one tacks on a system are totally different to the systems for which one would be excavating for electric cables, etc.

The light rail proposal has the benefit of reducing carbon emissions, of which we are all in favour. I believe it is good for populations and the benefit from it should accrue to the State. I am opposed to Goldman Sachs marketing carbon which is the next global bubble.

The proportion of spend on land prices for road projects in the overall public expenditure for a project is enormous. When it comes to the use of public space, the light rail project is attractive. Recapturing public space for a city is also incredibly important.

These are the main features of a light rail project. I hope the case for the project has not been closed. A fresh run on the research of a light rail project is needed to deal with some of the counter arguments that will be put forward. Anything that we can do in reducing carbon emissions for the benefit of this and future generations should be tied to good planning and good environmental strategy. It is possible to have cost-effective public transport that meets all these requirements.

Since I went to live in Galway city in the 1960s, I have noted the population projections for the city have always been wrong and understated when it comes to water and sewage treatment and public transport. New thinking is needed for Galway city planning and institutional support for research into the light rail project would be very welcome.

Mr. Colm Grogan

Galway's daytime population is far higher than its residential population, evident on the five trunk roads into the city every morning. This plan would take advantage of this by servicing the requirements of these people through park-and-ride facilities at strategic points.

Regarding the value for money aspect, the MVA report stated the acquisition of a bendy bus system would cost €115 million. It arrived at that on a benefit-cost ratio, BCR, calculation and comparator with light rail. For the bus corridor, the ratio is 1.7, an attractive figure. The report stated any BCR over 2 is a must-build in any infrastructure project.

The report has identified a light rail project would cost €699 million, a figure which would blow the project out of the water when compared with the previous one. However, this works out at €48 million per kilometre and €70 million for land acquisitions. We cannot understand these calculations because the Luas cost €28 million per kilometre. If these figures were correct, then it is game over for a light rail project for Galway.

The figures, however, do not feel right. If our figure of €200 million is correct, then the BCR ratio would be 2.14, which is in the must-have category in any public infrastructure project. That brings us back to the focus of the Chairman. We want this tested and to find out more. We believe it is possible. There must be new thinking. If there is to be old thinking, it will be a case of "game over". There are services under the existing Luas system, accessed by manholes, but we do not know the extent of the services under the route in Galway. Obviously there will be services in the city but they may not comprise an intractable problem. We fully accept the point on value for money. If the MVA report is right, the game is over.

Professor Padraic O’Donoghue

We have spoken exclusively about Gluas. Deputies Connaughton and Higgins referred to other matters. We see Gluas as part of an integrated solution for Galway and its environs. As Deputy Connaughton suggested, the M6 stops dead at a certain point. We would like to see another bypass at some stage. The manner in which Ceannt Station and Galway port would be redeveloped must be considered. We envisage a fully integrated system in which Gluas would be a very important cog.

Mr. Brendan Holland

I thank Senator Healy Eames, whose idea it was to invite us here. I thank the members for their support. The general reaction to the numerous presentations we have made to all sorts of people, including attendees at the recent Labour conference, has been such that 95% agree with what we are trying to do. We are just trying to make our environment and city better for ourselves, our children and our children's children.

I congratulate all those individuals who are not present but who have supported us along the way in what we are trying to do. In our presentations to two different administrations of Galway City Council, we achieved 29 out of 30 votes in favour of what we are doing. This is an absolute measure of our success. The comments today are largely positive and we are very much encouraged by that. Ours is a voluntary organisation and its project is huge and ambitious. I make no apology to anybody for my being ambitious for my city. We seek the help of the arms of the State that are available to us and which come in many forms. Galway City Council has come on board in the spirit of partnership and is enthusiastic about what we are trying to do. It may not have been initially but it is learning as we proceed. If we have a partnership with the RPA, I hope we will be able to proceed much faster with our project.

I am not one for extending the recession but contend that if we had spoken about building the Gluas system three or four years ago, nobody would have spoken to us. Now, however, every construction company near us is very keen to talk to us. I do not want to miss the opportunity and I hope the recession will not have a negative impact. There is urgency given the time it will take before digging starts. Predicting the timeframe is like telling the length of a rope. Now that everybody is available to us in a like-minded way, we must put pressure on them to step up the mark and help us out in whatever way they can.

I thank the delegation for its presentation and compliment it on the impressive way in which it answered all the points put to it. I thank the visitors in the Visitors' Gallery who came with the delegates. In particular, I thank Mr. Tom Manning, who is an observer today on behalf of the RPA. We appreciate his coming here at relatively short notice.

The committee has agreed unanimously to recommend to the Minister that the RPA engage with the delegation over a given period so the proposal can be taken forward positively. We hope that, with the agreement of the Minister and RPA, the nature of the next stage of the project can be determined. I have often expressed reservations about elements of the scheme, particularly in regard to the cost and some of the issues raised with me by the RPA. However, we must bear in mind Mr. Holland's point on thinking outside the box and the points of Mr. Grogan and Professor O'Donoghue on considering new technology and the need to be prepared to discover what may be possible in the future rather than focusing on what was impossible in the past. For this reason, I want the delegation to progress to another stage and, I hope, have its project reach a positive conclusion.

The western rail corridor proves one point, namely that motorways at a cost of €10 million per kilometre comprise very expensive infrastructure. In this regard, one should consider that the total cost of the western rail corridor from Ennis to Athenry was approximately €96 million. Therefore, there is some cause for us all to re-examine this matter and adopt a more positive approach to Gluas. Mr. Grogan put what should occur in a nutshell. It will be a matter of the delegation engaging, I hope, with the RPA and trying to narrow the gap between the estimate of the consultants, €700 million, and the delegation's estimate of €200 million. There are certainly many innovative aspects to the delegates' proposal. If it can be shown that a rail line can be put down at a depth of eight inches, it will certainly be a very significant step. If alternative energy, such as that obtained from wind and hydroelectric generation, can be brought into the equation to contribute towards the running costs of Gluas, it will be very significant. There is outstanding potential for a hydroelectric facility on the Salmon Weir Bridge. The project is very futuristic.

I thank the delegates and all the Deputies and Senators who have contributed. We wish the delegates the best of luck and will be happy to invite them back at a later stage when they have engaged with the RPA. The RPA staff could be invited also to determine the state of progress. We will encourage the Minister to support it all the way.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.50 p.m. until 3.45 p.m. on Wednesday, 19 May 2010.
Top
Share