Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT debate -
Wednesday, 30 Jun 2010

Work Programme: Discussion with National Roads Authority

I welcome the National Roads Authority. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that Members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House, or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of that evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a Member of either House, a person outside the House or official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I welcome Mr. Fred Barry, chief executive, and Mr. Hugh Creegan, head of PPP, NRA and in the public Gallery we have Mr. Séan O'Neill, head of communications, NRA. I propose that we hear a short presentation followed by a question and answer session.

Mr. Fred Barry

I thank the Chairman and members for the invitation to appear before the committee.

We were asked to address two issues and both relate to the M50 upgrade. The M50 upgrade scheme is nearing overall completion with works on the motorway lanes now effectively finished, together with a majority of the junctions programmed for upgrade. The remaining locations where extensive upgrading work is ongoing are junction 6, which is the junction with the N3 Navan Road, and junction 5 which is the junction with the N2-Finglas Road. All works on the M50 are due to be completed by the end of this year resulting in an M50 motorway able to satisfactorily cater for the modern traffic demands being placed on it.

One of the principal junctions on the scheme is the M1-M50-N32 junction or junction 3 in Santry. Prior to its upgrade, this was a roundabout type grade separated junction which suffered from severe traffic congestion. As well as catering for all of the movements to and from the N32 on the east side of the junction, the roundabout of this junction also had to accommodate the traffic flows from the southbound M1 wishing to travel onto the M50 and the traffic flows from the M50 wishing to travel south on the M1 towards the city centre or the Dublin Port tunnel.

The environmental impact statement for the M50 upgrade scheme proposed an upgrade to that junction, which included the construction of two new freeflow connector links for the M1 southbound traffic travelling onto the M50 and for the M50 traffic turning southwards onto the M1 towards the Dublin Port tunnel and the city centre. Due to these traffic movements being removed from the roundabout element of the junction, that left the roundabout dealing with only a fraction of the traffic that it previously had to accommodate. The EIS design also provided for a single lane exit from the roundabout to join with the M50 southbound traffic flows, reflecting the reduced traffic levels on the roundabout.

M50 Concession Limited is the company that was ultimately awarded the public private partnership contract for this section of the M50 upgrading. Part of its responsibility was the detailed design and subsequent construction of this junction upgrade, based on the approved An Bord Pleanála layout. This was duly carried out and was substantially completed by February of this year.

Following its full opening to traffic, it was observed that some difficulties were being experienced by traffic using this exit and travelling onto the M50 southbound from the roundabout. This was monitored and assessed and it was decided to remove the single lane exit road markings and, as a trial for observation, to reline the carriageway as a two lane exit that merges into a single lane further down the slip road. This layout was put in place on site in April 2010 and its operation was closely monitored by representatives of M50 Concession Limited and their designers, plus the NRA and Fingal County Council. Under observation, it was considered that the new layout worked better than the original and represented an enhancement to what had originally been put in place. A road safety audit was carried out on the site of this enhanced layout at the beginning of May. The road safety auditor had concerns about the merging of the two lanes into one further along the slip road and recommended reversion to the original single lane exit from the roundabout.

Arising from the fact that most parties did not favour reverting to a single lane exit, M50 Concession Limited developed an alternative design that retains the two lane exit and addresses concerns raised by the earlier audit on the merge to one lane further along the slip road. The design of that arrangement was reviewed and agreed with the road safety auditor. It was implemented on site and opened to traffic on Saturday, 26 June. It provides a two-lane exit from the roundabout with a gentler merge layout into one lane before exiting onto the M50 motorway. The new layout is being monitored by our site team and early indications are that the solution, as constructed, provides a good arrangement. Of course we will continue to observe behaviour there.

A separate matter was raised on works adjoining junction 6 at the N3 Navan Road. It is worth stating that upgrading a major motorway that is urban in nature, passing close to residential areas does pose huge challenges. As part of this challenge we must achieve a balance between the need to carry out the works efficiently and effectively, from the perspective of minimising delay and disruption to road users, and the need to have regard to the difficulties experienced by residents living in proximity to such works.

With regard to the works at the N3 junction, the initial communications between M50 Concession Limited, that is responsible for carrying out the work, and the residents adjoining the motorway in this area, was inadequate. However, the company has since worked closely with the local residents to agree an acceptable outcome.

The issues at this location largely relate to the removal of trees within the motorway boundaries and concerns about the environmental barriers and landscaping that will be put in place as part of the upgrade. The removal of these trees was always an unavoidable and necessary part of the project. They were part of the motorway corridor and had been planted as part of the original M50 scheme some years ago. It would not have been possible to create the space for the additional lanes and the junction upgrading without their removal.

I understand that M50 Concession Limited has had extensive consultations with certain residents and residents' associations adjoining this area. It has committed to install a higher barrier along part of the relevant section adjoining Castleknock Glade than actually required under the EIS. Furthermore, M50 Concession Limited is in ongoing communication with the residents groups to address many of the concerns previously expressed by them. In those areas where established vegetation had to be removed, new planting and landscaping will be provided as part of the project. We are working in the background with M50 Concession Limited, and residents' needs will be sorted out.

That concludes my comments on the two issues presented to us. My colleague, Mr. Creegan, and I will be pleased to take questions from members on any other issues.

Deputy Broughan requested this meeting with the delegates to discuss these specific issues. The delegates have provided an adequate explanation and unless any member wants to add anything, I propose that we move on.

I have one question for Mr. Barry. I thank him for his report. It was my wife who drew my attention to the dangers of the previous arrangement, although it may have been my driving that was of primary concern to her.

Mr. Fred Barry

It was Deputy Kennedy who first brought this matter to our attention.

I am grateful to Deputy Broughan for requesting this meeting. The new system is certainly working better than the old one. Mr. Barry indicated that the road safety auditors were not in favour of the proposal to have two lanes merging into one further up the slip road, but I assume all the other parties, including Fingal County Council and the NRA, were in favour of it. In the context of overall responsibility for these matters, will Mr. Barry indicate whether the NRA overrode the recommendation of the road safety auditors in this instance?

Mr. Fred Barry

My apologies if I did not make myself clear. The road safety auditors signed off on the original arrangement. However, when the first alternative was put in place they were not happy with it and suggested that we revert to the original arrangement. We all got together and presented a third solution to the road safety auditors who advised that this arrangement, which is now in place, was satisfactory. We would not override the advice of the road safety auditors.

I misinterpreted what Mr. Barry said. I thank him for clarifying that.

I frequently use junction 3, coming up from the N32, and have found that the changes have had a positive effect. It is working a treat even in the morning rush when it used to be dreadfully congested. I understand a truck overturned recently in the vicinity. Will the delegates confirm whether that accident occurred at the junction or on the main carriageway?

My constituency includes the Turnapin estate where residents are very unhappy with the noise coming from the motorway. They have thus far been unsuccessful in obtaining data on noise levels at the junction, and I received a letter recently indicating that those data are not available. Some of the residents of the estate did not object to the construction of the junction, but the additional slip road is much closer to their homes than they thought it would be. It did not dawn on them that the M50 would be so close. I would like to see those data on noise levels so that we can determine whether they are exceeding what was indicated. When will those figures be available? Is legal action delaying their release, as suggested in the letter I received from the NRA?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

There was a serious traffic accident at the junction in question some weeks ago, on the loop from the M50 turning south toward the Dublin Port tunnel. A truck overturned resulting in one fatality. The Garda is currently investigating that matter.

In regard to noise levels in the Turnapin estate, there was considerable interaction with residents of that estate during construction. In terms of noise monitoring post-construction, that is not something that is generally done, so it may simply be the case that the data are not available. The noise limits set for us by An Bord Pleanála related to construction activity and there are records in regard to that. Post-construction, however, noise levels are not normally monitored.

Mr. Fred Barry

A noise-mapping project is taking place under the aegis of the Environmental Protection Agency which includes major roads throughout the State. I am not sure where this junction fits into that, but we will check whether it has been included. If it has, that information will be made available.

I am surprised at the delegates' response. Construction noise will last only one, two or three years, but operational noise is ongoing. I understand the monitors are still in place, which suggests that somebody has the information but will not release it. The NRA's letter to me referred to a third-party legal case. I would have assumed the environmental impact statement would include consideration of the long-term noise impact.

Mr. Fred Barry

The restrictions in the environmental impact statement related to construction noise. I am not trying to get around the Deputy's question. We will check whether the junction was covered in the noise survey. We carried out some of that work on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency. If it is, the data will be made available.

Other members will know the Dublin Port tunnel has long been a hobby horse of mine. I have been arguing for a long time that the charges for using the tunnel are far too high and are discouraging taxi drivers from using it. Those charges have since come down, which is very welcome. The lowest charge of €3 is quite reasonable but the higher charge of €10 is still excessive. I have used the tunnel to travel to the airport and generally find it is not as busy as it should be. I drove through it last week at 3 p.m., for example, and marvelled that this major infrastructure, which cost billions of euro to construct, was virtually empty.

The NRA is not responsible for taxis but it has a responsibility in this area. If I take a taxi to or from the airport, the taxi driver will not go through the tunnel unless I request that we do so. Travelling from here to Dublin Airport via the tunnel will cost approximately €19, which includes the €3 charge, whereas it will cost some €29 if the tunnel is not used. One can get to the airport 20 minutes faster by using the tunnel. There is no joined-up thinking between the Irish Taxi Drivers Federation, the Dublin Transport Authority and the NRA. Taxis should be allowed to use the Dublin Port tunnel free of charge and it should be their automatic choice when driving to the airport or anywhere north of Dublin. I am blue in the face raising this point at meetings of this committee. Have any negotiations taken place on this issue?

The Charlestown bypass on the N5 comprises 14 km of single carriageway with a double white line in the middle. One cannot overtake on that stretch of road unless the driver in front pulls into the hard shoulder, which is illegal. As such, I cannot understand why the Ballaghaderreen bypass will not be dual carriageway or at least a 2+2 road, as we have from Dromid to Roosky and which has been a major success. The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, said that will not be done because of a lack of traffic volume. It is not good enough to have motorways rolled out all over the country, to Cork, Limerick, Galway, Derry and Belfast, while the north and north west are left with single-carriageway roads. What is the difference in price between a 2+2, which has been very successful, and a dual carriageway? What is the NRA's resistance to providing this? We do not seek either a motorway or a dual carriageway but seek a 2+2 and I cannot understand this.

Deputy Feighan has reminded me that as Mr. Barry is aware, the reduction of the charge for using the Dublin Port tunnel was a bugbear of mine for a long time. I am glad to note the charge now is €3 at off-peak times. Before the introduction of the current price of €3, the cost was €10 but a cheaper price obtained at the weekend. It always cost €3 on Sundays. Given that the weekday charge is now set at €3, might Mr. Barry consider a cheaper price for Sunday usage?

Mr. Fred Barry

I will take the Dublin Port tunnel first. The toll was reduced from €12 to €10 because as traffic volumes decreased as a consequence of the recession, there was no need to maintain the fee level at €12 to control traffic volumes in the tunnel. When the toll was set at €12, the traffic still was heaviest at the peak rush hour time and we must control the capacity at peak levels. Consequently, it was possible to bring this down. We will keep that charge under review and if the recession worsens and if traffic volumes fall further and there is no need to keep the charge at €10, we will adjust that further.

As for the €3 charge, members may remember that at the time, the inspector's report on the toll charges in Dublin Port tunnel recommended to us that there should be a minimal toll charge at any time of day reflecting the cost of operating the tunnel and so on. The amount that was recommended at the time was €3 or thereabouts, as it was then. We applied that at what then was the cheapest time, which was the weekend. Again, with traffic volumes being as they are, with business levels being down and so on, we are happy to be able to extend this €3 charge to all times other than peak rush hour traffic during the week. However, there is no plan to go below that €3 level. In other words, there is no plan to provide a further reduction. In addition, as it is somewhat relevant to this issue, I might mention that the operating costs of the Dublin Port tunnel are in or about in balance with the toll revenue.

At the current €3 and €10 prices.

Mr. Fred Barry

Yes.

However, the NRA is not thinking of trying to pay back the cost of a major piece of infrastructure for which the taxpayer paid.

Mr. Fred Barry

No, I am addressing specifically the operating costs.

There are hundreds of thousands of people, even in Dublin, but certainly throughout the country who have never been in the port tunnel. I acknowledge its purpose was to take lorries off the streets but taxis could use the port tunnel free of charge. This would be much more beneficial to the consumer and taxi drivers.

Mr. Fred Barry

It would probably be more beneficial immediately to all consumers if there were no tolls whatsoever on the Dublin Port tunnel.

I do not seek that. I referred specifically to taxis.

Mr. Fred Barry

With respect, Deputy Feighan may not be looking for that, but for every single user of the Dublin Port tunnel, there are groups advocating that this particular category of user should be able to go through the tunnel for free.

I am not a taxi driver.

Mr. Fred Barry

The Deputy today is supporting taxi drivers going free and I understand that.

I am supporting the consumer.

Mr. Fred Barry

Other consumer groups want everyone to be able to travel through for free.

Could the NRA not apply this to taxis first? I did not seek this for everyone and merely asked about taxis.

Mr. Fred Barry

We have no plans to change the existing toll regime as it applies to taxis.

That is incredible.

Mr. Fred Barry

A taxi is just another car. The question of who owns the car is quite irrelevant. The port tunnel was built to cater for heavy goods vehicles to and from the port and they travel for free.

I refer to every tourist who enters this country and who is going to a destination on the south side such as Ballsbridge or wherever. Mr. Barry is telling me that he intends to charge them either €10 or €12 extra because they will come in along the Drumcondra Road, across O'Connell Bridge and then onwards. I believe that a case could be taken in Europe on this issue. Not a single taxi driver, when asked to bring one into the city centre, will bring one through the port tunnel unless one specifically asks him or her to so do. It is €10 cheaper and 20 minutes faster to come in via the port tunnel by paying the €3 charge.

Mr. Fred Barry

I am not arguing that point with Deputy Feighan. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with me. I have nothing to do with the running of taxis.

While I agree with the NRA's policy that the tunnel should be retained for heavy goods vehicles and so on, I note that taxis are public service vehicles of which there is a defined number. I acknowledge there are too many of them in the view of joint committee. However, while I do not suggest that——

Mr. Fred Barry

Should we charge other car users more to subsidise the taxis?

There should be——

Mr. Fred Barry

From where should the alternative revenue come?

There should be a charge on taxis and I would not have it free. However, I believe the charge should be reduced somewhat over and above the charge for normal cars because there is an advantage to people using taxis, as opposed to using their private cars, from a congestion perspective.

Mr. Fred Barry

Yes.

So therefore——

Can Mr. Barry indicate how many taxis use the port tunnel over a week?

Mr. Fred Barry

No.

Can such figures be procured?

Mr. Fred Barry

No. A taxi is a car. While we have data on the number of heavy goods vehicles, light goods vehicles, cars, trucks, buses and so on going through——

But taxis have visible taxi plates.

Mr. Fred Barry

We do not have someone standing there with a little clipboard ticking them off.

However, the NRA has cameras. I am sure it would not be too difficult.

Mr. Fred Barry

We do not have that information.

Could the NRA get that information for members?

Mr. Fred Barry

Only if someone wants to subsidise somebody standing there to collect it.

I pay my tag up-front and use the direct debit system. In the case of a taxi driver who produced evidence such as his or her SPV licence, etc., surely the NRA could pre-sell X number of journeys to him or her at a discounted rate. That would be one way of getting over the problem.

I wish to make another point in respect of Sunday usage. I am thinking of the huge crowds that come to attend Croke Park from all sides, thereby causing congestion on the main roads such as the Drumcondra Road and the other arterial routes. Surely, from the perspective of reducing CO2 emissions, people should be encouraged to use the tunnel. A cheaper Sunday rate would induce people to come through the tunnel and would save all the congestion around the residential estates and so on.

Mr. Fred Barry

Yes. However, €3 is the cheaper rate.

I propose that the National Roads Authority should get someone to collate information regarding the number of taxis that use the port tunnel over a week, which would provide members with a little more information to go on. I believe the consumer is being ripped off, not because the taxi drivers wish to rip them off, but because no one is prepared to think outside the box to take traffic off the streets of Dublin, to provide a reasonable cost for tourists and consumers alike to come into the city centre and to ensure that the port tunnel receives more revenue.

At present, the charge is €3 at off-peak times for taxis, like everyone else.

Mr. Fred Barry

Yes.

And it is €6——

Mr. Fred Barry

The €6 charge is gone. All the times for which the charge used to be €6 now have had the charge reduced to €3. The charge is €10 going either north or south, depending on the time of day at rush hour. In other words, the charge coming out of town at rush hour is €10, while the charge coming into town at rush hour is €10. Other than that, the charge is €3 at any time of the day.

What is the charge for buses?

Mr. Fred Barry

It is free.

I fully accept the NRA's point of view that essentially, the tunnel is for commercial vehicles such as trucks and so on. However, if capacity exists within the tunnel, I support the point made by Deputies Feighan and Kennedy, especially in respect of people getting to and from the airport, that it would make good sense to allow taxis to use the tunnel at a reduced rate even in peak times. One must acknowledge that it can be a nightmare getting to and from the airport because of traffic and if taxis were encouraged to use the tunnel by making it as attractive as possible, it certainly would improve the congestion difficulties in the city and would encourage more people to leave the car out of the city and to use a taxi. I suggest this should be considered.

Mr. Fred Barry

May I offer this? We review the tolls typically about once every six months. The next review will take place at the end of the year, as we consider inflationary increases and everything else. The tolls are reviewed by the NRA board, rather than its management, and we will put this matter down for consideration. I will include the arguments made today in favour of a change of status for taxis. We will see what comes out of it.

Mr. Barry does not appear to agree with the change.

Mr. Fred Barry

I use the tunnel to the airport all of the time and, like everyone else, I pay the toll. Using the tunnel instead of going around saves me money. I live on the south side of the city. When I take taxis from home, I always tell the taxi driver to go through the tunnel. Typically, this costs approximately €3, as I would be using the taxi early in the morning or late at night. Saving the time is well worth it and the taxi fare is probably less because one is not driving around. I am all in favour of this proposal.

I have a number of concerns. I do not mean this in a negative way, but if taxis are given special treatment at this toll, will they argue that they should get special treatment on the M50 and the other toll booths around the country? Maybe they should, but if they are given special toll treatment, someone must make up the money. We cannot take money out of other consumers' pockets.

The NRA has been given its infrastructure free of charge. This is an opportunity to provide a service that would make money for the Exchequer, but the NRA is not prepared to think outside the box in a way that would make more people use the tunnel and take traffic off the streets.

Mr. Fred Barry

I do not understand how this would accrue more money to the Exchequer.

If more people use the port tunnel at €3 per car, more money would accrue to the NRA.

Mr. Fred Barry

I misunderstood. I understood the request to be about allowing taxis through free of charge.

That is one aspect of it. Another aspect is if more people use the port tunnel and trucks are removed from the city——

In fairness, the express purpose of the tunnel was to accommodate commercial traffic——

It is doing that, but it has a great deal of capacity.

There has been a strong argument to the effect that the policy initiative was to keep cars out of the tunnel. Deputy Feighan's case for taxis is a different matter, although it is justifiable. Dublin city has become a nightmare in terms of peak-time traffic. Mr. Barry has given reasons why he believes the idea would not be advisable but, to help commuters during peak times we ask him to allow taxis use of the tunnel for €3 at all times. It is the same logic as allowing buses to use the tunnel for free. If we even got that much of a step forward——

They got that compromise.

No, they are still being charged €10 at peak time, which is the most appropriate time——

Does the Chairman mean buses?

No, taxis.

The buses enjoyed the compromise. We appreciated that. When we started, buses were being charged.

We appreciate that Mr. Barry will table the idea before the board.

If Deputy Feighan's figures are correct and one could save €10 by going through the tunnel, the charge for which is €3 during most of the day, a public information campaign is necessary to prompt people to go to the airport via the tunnel. The charge is only relevant during the peak time, since the airport receives people for 16 or 18 hours every day. For most of the day, the issue is not whether the taxi pays. Rather, it is a question of a public information campaign to get people to tell their taxi drivers to use the tunnel. Regarding the Sunday matter——

It is cheaper to go through the tunnel, given the fare saved.

The Deputy is saying it is €29 versus €19. Even with €3 in a toll, one would still get there more quickly and for €7 less. The toll is only an issue during peak time.

I do not care about the Sunday matter. For those who are out for a Sunday spin or up for a match in Croke Park, a €3 charge will not put them off the novelty of their first trip through the tunnel. I travelled through it on the first Sunday it was open because we did not get a free spin the first day it was open.

What was the effect of the change in the toll in terms of car numbers? Knowing the elasticity in respect of the price would be interesting. Did it increase or decrease significantly?

Mr. Fred Barry

We do not have the data to hand, but we can send the Deputy a note on them. From memory, the change did not make much difference, but I would need to confirm the figures.

Having reduced the price from €10 to €3, is the NRA covering its running costs thanks to the increased numbers using the tunnel?

Mr. Fred Barry

It was €12 to €10 and €6 to €3.

That car owners were effectively priced out of the tunnel is a bug bear of mine. Any time I used it, there was nothing bar trucks in it. The NRA is now covering its running costs because more car owners are paying the €3.

Mr. Fred Barry

Approximately. In some months, the numbers would be higher or lower. With the lower tolls, we got a few more cars. I do not have the specific numbers. From a revenue point of view, it is probably about a wash.

We should encourage car owners, notwithstanding the fact the tunnel was built for trucks leaving the port. Even during peak times, there have never been enough trucks using it to cover the NRA's running costs. No one on the committee wants the NRA's running of the tunnel to be subsidised further by the Government.

Mr. Fred Barry

Indeed.

A number of questions were asked about the N5.

Mr. Fred Barry

A couple of issues were raised regarding the N5 and the Ballaghaderreen bypass. The type of road one builds, be it at Ballaghaderreen or elsewhere, depends primarily on expected traffic volumes in 15 or 20 years time. Different types of road can reasonably carry different volumes of traffic, although the figure is not an absolute. For example, one cannot say a road could take 9,900, but not 10,000. The ranges are fairly broad. To warrant a motorway or dual carriageway, significant volumes of traffic would be required.

Traffic volumes on the N5 around Ballaghaderreen are relatively modest. Ballaghaderreen is a congested area and going through it is a pain. We support people's wish to see it bypassed and have put in place a scheme through An Bord Pleanála to allow the bypass to go ahead, but the type of road we build is dependent on traffic volumes. If we propose to build roads that are more grandiose than required, we will run into two problems. First, An Bord Pleanála is likely to say "No" when we ask for planning approval. Second, our economic appraisals of the project will show the benefit to cost ratio as being far less beneficial than it would be were we to build a lower scale road.

We viewed Ballaghaderreen in the same way as we did other situations and came up with certain figures. That the N5 is involved is neither a plus nor a minus. For strategic reasons, a Government can always decide that certain linkages should be of a certain standard. On the inter-urban network, for example, the Government directed that the connections between Dublin, Waterford and so on were to be of motorway standard. We went off and did that. If the Government wants to direct something, we do what we are told. In the absence of a direction, we use appraisal guidelines from the Departments of Transport and Finance to determine the return on a project. A high return on the investment is required, otherwise the scheme has no chance of getting through the system because there are competing schemes. We consider what we need to build to accommodate what is present and what is likely to be present. This is how we arrive at——

I asked a question about the 2+2. It is effectively a single carriageway without the hard shoulder.

Mr. Fred Barry

The road is wider and so on.

What is the difference per yard between a 2+2 and a single carriageway?

Mr. Fred Barry

Depending on specifics, the difference is €2.5 million or €3 million per kilometre.

What about a single carriageway?

Mr. Fred Barry

No, that is the difference between the two. The Deputy asked about the difference between a standard single carriageway and a 2+2. The difference in cost is between €2.5 million and €3 million per kilometre. Individual schemes vary but that is the kind of difference we are talking about.

Does 2+2 refer to a dual carriageway?

Mr. Fred Barry

A 2+2 road is a dual carriageway but of a lower standard than a motorway.

The Drumsna to Rooskey road, which is a 2+2 road, is very successful. How much does it cost per kilometre?

Mr. Fred Barry

Approximately €8 million per kilometre.

What is the cost if it is a dual carriageway?

Mr. Fred Barry

Approximately €5.5 million per kilometre.

Regarding the upgrade of the M1, the three lane extension to the airport and the proposal to continue towards Swords, how much does that cost per kilometre?

Mr. Fred Barry

That is relatively cheap because we already have the land reservation and the bridges are in place. That is a case of putting down some extra——

In that case, my request to extend the three lanes to Balbriggan and Drogheda should not cost a lot of money.

Mr. Fred Barry

It depends how far one can go with the reservation and the structure and drainage that exist.

There are bridges all the way to Drogheda.

Mr. Barry should finish the point about the N4 and N5.

I am trying to get figures.

Mr. Fred Barry

As with most roads like the N5, to upgrade it to a 2+2 standard will cost approximately €8 million per kilometre. To upgrade it to single carriageway standard costs approximately €5.5 million per kilometre. The difference between the two is approximately €2.5 million per kilometre.

Can Mr. Barry not pare it back to a difference of €1 million?

Mr. Fred Barry

No. We have done that.

Regarding the N4 and N5, has any progress been made on prioritising or expediting the planning phases of that project? I refer to the N5, which serves Mayo and the N4 that serves Sligo.

Mr. Fred Barry

We have statutory planning approval for the Ballaghaderreen bypass. This is a key section of the upgrade. We do not have the wherewithal to build it.

Is that a question of——

Mr. Fred Barry

Funding.

——going ahead when other motorways are finished or next year?

Mr. Fred Barry

It will not go ahead next year unless there is a change in the funding profile. We understand that we will not know what moneys we will receive next year until we go through the budget process and the Oireachtas decides what to assign to the transport Vote. Based on the Estimates, the schemes we are looking to start next year include two PPP projects out to tender, the N11 Arklow to Rathnew and Newlands Cross and the N17 and N18 from Gort to Tuam. Both are at tender and we expect to have contracts signed before the end of this year. They will be PPP schemes and will go ahead next year. There are also four smaller schemes we are tendering at the moment. We are cautioning people that we do not know for certain whether we will have the money to sign the construction contracts. These include the Belturbet bypass on the N3, the Longford bypass on the N5, the Tralee bypass and two junction upgrades on the southern ring road in Cork city that have been through statutory approval for years. We are tendering those at the moment. Those who know Longford know that the Sligo road side is already bypassed but this aspect concerns the tieover to the N5. We hope to get those four schemes to construction next year, along with the two PPP projects.

When will the Ballaghaderreen bypass be completed?

Mr. Fred Barry

We have two other PPP projects for which the tendering process starts this year. We hope to have it signed off by the end of next year. Beyond that, we have no dates for any other projects and we must see what moneys are available for major schemes over the coming years.

What is the earliest date for construction of the Ballaghaderreen bypass? Will it be three years or four years?

Mr. Fred Barry

Without knowing the funding for the following years, I cannot give Deputy Feighan a date for the start. Neither can anyone else.

Is it correct that it will not start for two or three years?

Mr. Fred Barry

It will not start next year unless extra funding is available.

On the last occasion we asked that this be given priority. We will write to the Minister to ask for this. We have received representations from the American Chamber of Commerce on the importance of the road.

Mr. Fred Barry

For the information of the committee, the Ballaghaderreen bypass has gone through the statutory approval. We have gone ahead with a notice to treat so we are acquiring the land. We are going ahead with the construction and tender documentation. As soon as funding is available, it can immediately go to tender. I share Deputy Feighan's view that it needs to be done. There is no resistance from the NRA. It is a case of when we can get to do it.

Regarding the N17 and N18 Gort to Tuam roads, when will the decision on the selected contractor be made? Mr. Barry stated he will sign a contract by the end of the year. A figure of €10 million per kilometre was given before. I take it the road is of motorway standard.

Mr. Fred Barry

It is motorway standard and will be a unitary payment PPP project, not a tolled PPP. The payments will be made on an annual basis over 30 or 35 years.

How many kilometres is this road? It goes to the far side of Tuam and includes the Tuam bypass.

Mr. Fred Barry

That is correct. It is 54 km of motorway, with 3 km around Tuam that is not motorway but is bypassing Tuam.

It amounts to €500 million in construction costs.

Mr. Fred Barry

The PPP tender includes maintenance and rehabilitation over decades. It is a major scheme.

When will the successful contractor be chosen?

Mr. Fred Barry

We have gone from four tenderers to two and they are working on best and final offers. We hope to receive the tenders in the next few months and, following analysis of tenders, our target is to have the project signed up before the end of the year.

That is good news for Deputy Connaughton.

That is good news. I take it there are no hitches at this stage. The four contractors have been reduced to two and the contractors are active. I take it there is no danger that one of them will pull out prematurely in the next few months.

Mr. Fred Barry

We do not think these risks will come to fruition. The risks are that the PPP companies must deal with funding banks and it was difficult to get funding for PPP schemes a year ago. This is a Europe-wide issue and may even be worldwide but is certainly not only an Irish issue. The market has freed up in recent months but if it were to tighten up, the tender companies and banks who support these tenders without full commitment could decide not to fund the project. If that happened, the tenderers would have a problem and we would have a problem. The State would have a problem because many schemes are set up as PPP schemes around the State.

I have one other question, which concerns a subject not as glamorous as a motorway. Can Mr. Barry indicate the funding allocated to local councils for the provision of strengthening the edges of secondary roads? I am thinking about the N63 and many others all over Ireland. What funding is made available for these roads, some of which are extraordinarily dangerous?

Mr. Fred Barry

The funding for that sort of work, which is rehabilitation work for bridges and roads where the foundation is gone, was cut severely last year compared to previous levels. Overall budgets were cut fairly late in the day and uncommitted work was cut without regard to its nature. The funding this year is higher than last year but is not up to the level where we are happy we are doing all we can be doing. The funding available to us for next year for major schemes means assuming we continue next year at the levels of this year.

I assume the NRA and the local authority are in close contact in regard to distribution of these funds.

Mr. Fred Barry

The money is distributed as follows. There is an iterative process between the local authorities and the NRA in the months leading to the end of the year. The local authorities propose the schemes they feel need work and prioritise them within counties. As we have some data for national road conditions, we will look at how much will go to various places on a county by county basis. Some money is allocated for individual schemes, while more is allocated by way of a block grant to local authorities which are invited to prioritise to make the best use of the money in the county.

If Mr. Barry ever hears of a place called Abbeyknockmoy, he should send some money.

As there is a vote, we have to suspend. Deputy Broughan will speak when we return and we will try to finish with Mr. Barry as quickly as possible. I ask members to return immediately following the vote.

Sitting suspended at 5.10 p.m. and resumed at 5.40 p.m.

If there is no other question we can bring this section of the meeting to a conclusion. I was going to raise another issue but it is now irrelevant. We thank Mr. Barry and Mr. Creegan for being with us today. We have brought them in more than most. I hope we will give them a break for a while, although we appreciate their co-operation and the great progress being made. We sincerely hope the money will flow sufficiently to allow the authority to proceed with its good work.

Sitting suspended at 5.45 p.m. and resumed at 5.55 p.m.
Top
Share