Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Transport and Communications debate -
Wednesday, 28 Jun 2023

Toll Increases and Ongoing Projects: Discussion with Transport Infrastructure Ireland

The purpose of the meeting is for the joint committee to discuss toll increases and ongoing projects with representatives of Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII. On behalf of the committee, I am very pleased to welcome from TII Mr. Peter Walsh, chief executive officer; Mr. Pat Maher, director of network management; Mr. Robert Desmond, head of PPE procurement and finance; and Mr. Nigel O'Neill, director of capital programmes.

I will read a note on privilege. All witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I also remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings.

I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask members participating via Microsoft Teams to confirm, prior to making their contributions, that they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

I invite Mr. Walsh to make his opening statement.

Mr. Peter Walsh

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend. I am joined by my colleagues, Mr. Maher, Mr. Desmond and Mr. O’Neill. I understand the committee wishes to discuss toll increases and ongoing projects.

Before providing an update, I would like to briefly describe the legislative duties and functions assigned to TII. The National Roads Authority, NRA, operating as TII since 2015, was established under the Roads Act 1993. It is the general duty of TII to secure the provision of a safe and efficient network of national roads having regard to the needs of all users. Under the public spending code, TII is the approving authority for national road projects and works in partnership with local authorities, which are the road authorities for all roads, including national roads. In 2015, the NRA merged with the Railway Procurement Agency. The Roads Act of 2015 added the function of securing the provision of or providing such light railway, for example, the Luas, and metro railway infrastructure, as may be determined by the National Transport Authority, NTA. The latter is the approving authority for metro and light rail projects. For that reason, I have not included any details on these projects. In September 2021, TII became the approving authority for greenways.

At the committee's meeting of 29 November 2022, the motorway toll charges were to apply from January 2023 were discussed. In the opening statement I made that day, I sought to: provide some legislative and contractual context; explain why toll charges are rising; explain what toll revenue is used for; outline the consequences of deferring toll charge increases; and describe TII’s engagement with the Department of Transport in respect of tolls. The information I provided in that statement remains valid. In the interests of making as much time as possible available for discussion, I will not reiterate that information. However, I have provided a copy of the opening statement in appendix A today.

Given the elevated levels of inflation experienced in the 12-month period to August 2022 and the consequent impact on 2023 toll rates, a Government decision was made on 28 November 2022 to request TII to seek the deferral of the application of toll increases, by agreement, with the eight concession toll roads for the first six months of 2023. In the case of the M50, TII was directed to implement this discount directly in conjunction with the eFlow operator. On 13 December 2022, TII received a ministerial direction, under section 41 of the Roads Act 1993, directing TII to introduce arrangements to apply discounts to the amounts that would otherwise be payable by users of toll roads during the period 1 January to 30 June 2023 in order that the amount payable would be the same as in 2022. The arrangements were to include agreeing to make payments to the PPP companies in connection with any shortfall in toll revenue and any increase in costs, including third-party costs, incurred as a consequence of implementing the arrangements.

The Minister for Transport wrote to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform on 12 December, advising that the total cost of deferring the toll charge increases was estimated to be €15.2 million and confirming his understanding that the additional cost would be met through additional allocations to be provided to the Department of Transport. A report on the deferral of the 2023 toll charges to be paid by toll road users is provided in appendix B. The anticipated cost of the deferral of toll increases on the eight toll concession roads, inclusive of advisory costs and additional administration charges, is expected to be approximately €7.6 million. The full cost to TII of tolls not collected on M50 is expected to be in the region of €7.2 million. TII will not be in a position to provide final figures until such time as full traffic figures are reported for the six-month deferral period and all reconciliations completed.

The toll rates applicable for 2024 under the relevant bye-laws will not be known until mid-September. Preliminary calculations indicate that any increase in the 12-month consumer price index, CPI, to August greater than 3% will lead to toll increases for all vehicle categories, save for motorbikes, on all toll roads. CPI figures for the nine-month period from August 2022 to May 2023 currently stand at 4.6%. It is therefore considered highly likely that toll rates will increase in January 2024. Details of projected increases are included in appendix C with the projections based on inflation assumptions ranging from 1% to 6%.

With regard to the longer-term tolling and road user charging considerations in the context of climate action obligations, policy and commitments in relation to the decarbonisation of mobility are set out in the Government’s climate action plan and sustainable mobility policy, among other documents. Delivery of these plans and compliance with those policies will require behavioural change. Research by the Economic and Social Research Institute indicates that in order for change to be acceptable, the value of fairness must be adhered to. The "user pays" principle is consistent with that value. The cost of operating and maintaining the national road network must be funded. If the funding provided by tolls is reduced, the shortfall must be made up by general taxation levied from people, some of whom are not using the toll roads. To assist the committee in understanding TII’s 15 PPP contracts, an information note is provided in appendix D.

The second topic to be discussed is the ongoing national development plan, NDP, national roads projects. An update on delivery of the NDP national roads and greenways programmes is provided in appendix E. TII secures the provision of the NDP national road projects in partnership with local authorities, within the constraints of available funding and in compliance with the provisions of the Roads Acts 1993 to 2015. Under section 24 of the Roads Act, the Minister sets such conditions as he sees fit in relation to grants from moneys provided by the Oireachtas towards capital and current expenditure of TII. The conditions that have been set for 2023 are summarised here. The Exchequer capital allocation for new roads projects is based on the following prioritisation: first, the maintenance of existing national roads assets, keeping them to a safe and robust standard; second, progression of projects currently under construction and those close to construction; and, third, progression of the major projects at pre-decision gate 2 in the public spending code. For projects further back in the development pipeline, that is, pre-decision gate 1 in the public spending code, the focus of the remaining funding should be on progressing bypasses and other projects that will contribute to achieving town centre first objective and compact growth.

Regarding new roads, the Exchequer capital grants to be provided in 2023 amount to approximately €237 million, subject to the condition that this funding is allocated toward those projects listed by the Minister, and to ensure that key capital projects are advanced to support sustainable transport, including road-based public transport. The indicative Exchequer capital allocation for new roads in 2024, notified by the Minister to TII, is approximately €145 million. In accordance with the conditions, the allocations for 2023 provided by the Department of Transport to TII for the following projects are to meet current project commitments. I will not list out all the projects but the names are in the submission. This means that the allocations may only be provided by TII to the respective local authorities to secure the completion in 2023 of current planning and design activity for those projects and not commencing further stages. For six of the projects, the relevant local authorities have requested that the allocations for 2023 be revised to allow further planning and design to continue. TII has reviewed each request and has forwarded these to the Department of Transport for further consideration. In each case, having reviewed the local authority’s request, TII has recommended that each of the local authorities’ requests be granted. TII has confirmed to the Department that the funding for the adjustments to the allocations for 2023 can be managed within TII’s existing overall allocations. TII understands that the requests from the local authorities are under consideration by the Minister.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the achievements of local authorities and their civil engineering contractors on the N22 Ballyvourney to Macroom project, where the Macroom bypass section was opened by the then Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, on 9 December and the N5 Westport to Turlough project, which was opened by An Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, on 15 June.

Both projects provide significant contributions towards improving the safety of the national road network and addressing deficiencies in regional connectivity. I had the privilege of attending both events and witnessed the appreciation expressed by people who live and work in the regions which benefit from these investments by the State. I look forward to similarly positive events in the coming year to mark the completion of the N69 Listowel bypass and the N59 Moycullen bypass, which, along with the Dunkettle interchange upgrade, are the only major road projects currently under construction.

The delivery of the transport infrastructure programme is important because it safeguards and improves the performance, reliability and safety of the overall network, enabling the mobility of people and goods across the country. City and county development plans have strategic dependencies on the delivery of transport infrastructure, including national roads. The construction, maintenance and operation of transport infrastructure needs to be paid for. Tolling is a vital part of the funding required and is consistent with the value of fairness and the principle that the user pays.

When I addressed the committee in April last year, I outlined systemic challenges that must be overcome if Ireland is to deliver on its NDP objectives for transport infrastructure. Several reforms have been put in place and these are very welcome and are making a difference for the better. In my opinion, more work needs to be done to drive out delays to the delivery of transport infrastructure. Therefore, more progress is needed in the following areas: first, ensuring alignment of stakeholders, especially State bodies and State-owned enterprises; second, further reform of the State’s standard form of contract to support the viability of the civil engineering sector; and third, ensuring a reasonably stable supply of tendering opportunities for the civil engineering sector in order that capabilities can be maintained and developed.

That concludes my opening statement. My colleagues and I will endeavour to answer any questions members of the committee may have.

I thank Mr. Walsh not just for his opening statement but for the 113-page briefing document. I am not sure everybody got a chance to read all of it but it is certainly there for us to refer to in the future and during the meeting. I call Deputy Lowry.

I welcome the witnesses and thank Mr. Walsh for his presentation and for the amount of information in it. With regard to toll charges, we are hearing every day that motorists and hauliers are crippled by transport costs and the costs of driving a car have increased dramatically. All of the costs, including fuel, maintenance and ancillary charges have surged. We are now talking about new increases in tolling charges, which will add a further burden.

The public will never understand the structure and management of the tolling companies. The cost to the motorist and the profits to the controlling companies are a source of amazement to the public. We are getting a sniff of that here again today in terms of what Mr. Walsh has said in regard to the charges. Effectively, what he is saying is that the motorists have to take the hit, and the Exchequer has already taken the hit, to compensate the controlling companies. How can that be fair or equitable? Is the contract so binding? How can it be so lucrative for these companies that everybody else takes the extra charges and the companies continue to make massive profits? I am asking how these charges can be justified.

Will Mr. Walsh explain to the travelling public why TII deems it necessary for these measures to be imposed on the travelling public? Will he refer to the contractual agreements that TII has in place? Is it because they are binding that these charges are being increased? It is astounding to the public that the Government took a decision to waive the charges for six months and the Exchequer has to pick up the tab. Where do the companies come into this in terms of any reduction in the level of profits they are making?

My other question is in regard to the N24 in Tipperary. This project is between Cahir, County Tipperary, and Oola, County Limerick, and it incorporates Tipperary town. I received a commitment from the Minister for Transport on the record of the Dáil in regard to prioritising this section of new carriageway. TII communicated with me that it had gone to pre-decision, gate 1, in the public spending code. It further stated that the focus of the remaining funding would be on progressing bypasses and other projects that will contribute to achieving town centre first objectives and compact growth. Can Mr. Walsh confirm that Tipperary town meets the criteria, that that project will progress, that it is a priority and that the element of it which incorporates the Tipperary town bypass will be prioritised over any other section of that motorway?

Mr. Peter Walsh

I will deal first with the tolling contracts and the notion that the toll companies are making a lot of money out of the contracts. I appreciate there is a lot of paper but I thought we should be comprehensive in what we provided to the committee. At Appendix D, page 10, we have reproduced the profit on ordinary activities in the profit and loss accounts of the PPP companies’ audited financial statements, and these are up to 31 December 2022. These are the facts in the public domain.

I am sorry, but the public are listening and they do not understand the accounts. When I read them myself, I am confused. Can Mr. Walsh put it in layman's language? What is he attempting to tell us?

Mr. Peter Walsh

With regard to profit before tax, eight companies returned profits and three returned losses, and some of the profits were quite marginal, for example, Waterford bypass had a profit of €912,000. From these records, we can see that these are not making a huge amount of money and at least three are returning losses.

On the arrangements that were put in place for these contracts, if we step back for a moment, it was a Government decision to get private money into the funding of the roads programme. We do not comment on the justification for anything around that; it was a Government decision. We put in place contracts and we managed to get private funding into the construction of those roads. They formed part of the overall inter-urban programme that was completed by 2010.

Whether they would have been built without that money or not, it is not possible for me to say, but that money was used, the projects were completed, the projects and contracts remain operative and everybody is fulfilling their contractual obligations. Those contracts vary in length, with one up to 45 years and the majority for 35 years. Nobody would enter into a contract without some form of indexation over that duration, so indexation had to be built into them, and that is the condition of the contract. Honouring those contracts is very important for the State in terms of our credibility. These were international companies which borrowed money to invest in Ireland's infrastructure and they have to pay it back over the period of the contract. We cannot take these commitments lightly and we do not. Given the performance of some of the PPP companies and their financial returns, opening up that contract may not work out very well for Ireland. Our advice would be to maintain those contracts and meet our commitments, and part of that is going to be the honouring of the clauses associated with indexation to pay for toll rates.

As the Deputy rightly stated, costs are going up, and they are going up for everybody. There are 250 people employed in those various toll operations, so costs are rising for them as well. Is that an adequate answer on why we believe the toll rates have to go up?

That is Mr. Walsh's answer and I am sure he is sticking to the facts in regard to it. I do not want to take up the time of my colleagues. I am sure they will tease it out further with Mr. Walsh.

Mr. Peter Walsh

I will ask Mr. O'Neill to deal with the N24.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

I thank the Deputy for the question on the N24 and specifically the Tipperary town bypass. The preferred route was published in May and work is progressing on phase 3, which is design and environmental evaluation.

This year we allocated money to Tipperary County Council to progress that work. Without prejudice to the whole design process and the environmental impact assessment that needs to be carried out with the schemes that are brought to An Bord Pleanála in due course, the intention would be to progress the Tipperary town bypass element first.

Has sufficient funding been provided to Tipperary County Council to conclude that work?

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

To progress it this year, the current phase, yes.

We have heard that the Department of Transport underspent the money allocated to it. How is that impacting TII?

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

Our allocations are divided into different programmes. The Tipperary town bypass in 2024 and other projects come under the new roads programme. We had no underspend on the new roads programme last year and we do not expect to have one this year.

I welcome the witnesses to the committee. I will start with the positives. It is great to see the progress on the Ballyvourney-Macroom bypass. The second phase of that seems to be rocketing ahead. In addition, I understand the Dunkettle interchange is doing quite well. When are those projects expected to be completed and what are the approximate opening dates?

Mr. Peter Walsh

They are both in 2024. My colleague Mr. O'Neill may have precise dates on those.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

We expect substantial completion of the Dunkettle interchange before the contractual use date of February 2024. I cannot be particularly specific about that, but we expect to beat February 2024.

By how much? It is a significant window.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

By some weeks, I would say.

Excellent. That is good news. What about the Dunkettle project?

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

I was referring to the Dunkettle interchange.

Sorry, what about the Ballyvourney-Macroom bypass?

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

As the Deputy will know, the Macroom bypass section opened on 9 December. That project is about 90% complete. We expect contract completion by mid-2024.

That is good.

I want to discuss the ongoing capital roads projects and follow up on what Deputy Lowry touched on regarding the roads budget. The Department uses section 24 as an instrument to pause things potentially. How often has the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, used that instrument?

Mr. Peter Walsh

Section 24 of the Roads Act provides that the moneys voted by the Oireachtas are transferred from the Department of Transport to TII. The Minister may attach any conditions he sees fit to the transfer of that money. However, every year our money is transferred under section 24. Applying conditions is a rarer event.

I want to get to the bottom of this. That was used as an instrument of delay on the Mallow relief road to postpone the project on the grounds of funding uncertainty.

Mr. Peter Walsh

The condition attached to the Mallow relief road, along with a number of other projects I listed in the opening statement, is that this year's funding should meet current commitments. The understanding we were given is that no new commitments should be entered into. That is true for all those projects.

Would Mr. Walsh consider that to be manipulating section 24 from an environmentalist's point of view and trying to stall those projects?

Mr. Peter Walsh

I am not sure I understand the question.

Was it done to try to stall road projects?

Mr. Peter Walsh

The effect is that the road project will not progress. The condition of restricted funding in the years 2024 and 2025 is one that would apply across the programme. The condition relating to the named projects would have a focused effect on those projects. One of the features of those projects is that they are at relatively early stages of planning. Therefore, there are fewer commitments in existence on them. For instance, we could not discontinue with the commitment on the Ballyvourney-Macroom project. It is under construction and it would be unthinkable.

Regarding the projects that are ready to go to sod turn and commencement of construction, on how many of those have section 24 conditions arisen in the last 12 months? I say they are on the méar fhada. How many projects have been impacted by new conditions that might have been put forward by the Minister's team and his Department?

Mr. Peter Walsh

None.

It has happened in the case of Mallow, has it not?

Mr. Peter Walsh

Projects of a shovel-ready nature-----

Was it not used in Mallow?

Mr. Peter Walsh

Mallow was not shovel-ready. Mallow is at a very early stage of development. We were asked to put together several scenarios at the end of last year, ahead of the decisions on funding. Those scenarios were based on the level of commitment of each project in our entire programme.

I ask Mr. Walsh to stop for a minute just to get on track here. Obviously, statutory processes involving road construction are highly complex and difficult to progress. How many capital roads projects have been interrupted in their progression as a consequence of section 24 being used? I am actually trying to help Mr. Walsh. I know he wants to update us on his work programme.

Mr. Peter Walsh

I will go back to my opening statement just to be accurate.

It is not Mr. Walsh's fault.

Mr. Peter Walsh

The number is ten.

I ask him to name them.

Mr. Peter Walsh

I can. They are in my opening statement.

Obviously, one of them relates to Mallow. What is required for that project to progress?

Mr. Peter Walsh

It would require a decision to remove the condition that no new commitments could be entered into.

Would that fix all the problems?

Mr. Peter Walsh

Yes.

Is a budget available to progress them?

Mr. Peter Walsh

Yes, although I think I should refer the Deputy to Mr. O'Neill who deals with the capital programme budget. I do not want to give the impression that it is completely open; there are constraints.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

We are only talking about 2023 here. Budget requirements for a project need to be discussed and agreed for 2024 and subsequent years. For instance, the Mallow relief road is at phase 2 which means it is at options selection stage. It is quite early in the design process when that options selection stage is done. There is typically a non-statutory public consultation, the preferred route is then announced and if that is approved, it then goes into more detailed design and planning, preparation of the environmental impact assessment and so on. That is the stage that project is at. We are not talking about huge amounts of money for the planning and design stage at this point.

We have been waiting for about six months for the appointment of a design consultant on the Castlemartyr-Killeagh project. What is going on with that?

Mr. Peter Walsh

Can we come back to the Deputy on that because it is contained in the update?

Does Mr. Walsh have any information on it?

Mr. Peter Walsh

Not off the top of my head, but we will look it up.

I have been waiting a long time.

Is it somewhere in the 113 pages?

Mr. Peter Walsh

It is indeed, yes.

I could be waiting a long time for that.

Mr. Peter Walsh

It is being progressed. I just need to look up

It is in the briefing material document. The witnesses will be able to find it and revert to the Deputy.

Details on the appointment of a consultant are not contained in that briefing document.

Mr. Peter Walsh

I would need to look it up. With all of our projects I do not know who has been appointed to what.

(Interruptions).

Hold on a second. One voice only, please.

I need no assistance from the floor on the matter. I am well briefed on it. I want to get an insight as to why we have been waiting six months for that to happen. It does not make any sense. As far as I can see, all it needs is sign-off from the Department.

Mr. Peter Walsh

I had better look it up. All I know is that section is part of the N25, which is a larger project. The subset to look at the immediate bypasses of Castlemartyr and Killeagh was identified and approved by TII. Procurement can take some time; I do not know whether it has taken six months or not. I will have to look it up and come back to the Deputy. We are not trying to avoid describing it and it certainly has not been held up. It was added to the list of projects in 2022 and has been progressed.

Does that answer suit the Deputy?

I am happy with that.

Mr. Peter Walsh

I will have more detail for the Deputy before we leave.

I read the opening statement. Only as the Leas-Chathaoirleach was speaking did I realise that a 130-page document is buried in the file tabs. I have a lot of bedtime reading for the next few nights.

I have a few questions. The first concerns a very general point. It is always excellent to have different agencies and entities come before the committee to engage with us. It is democracy in action. Many of the elected representatives present were, at one time, county councillors. I remember that up to 2019, when I was still a local authority member, it was a nightmare if you wanted to deal with TII on any issue regarding a regional or national road in your locality, and there were many such issues. You would raise an issue at a council meeting, and would be told by the engineer this would be referred to TII, but it was like the football socks in the laundry basket; it would go missing and would never be seen again. So many issues local authority members throughout the country bring forward as motions get filtered off to TII and are never responded to. From a communications point of view, TII is very good at engaging with us. We have an Oireachtas email address and there is a very linear pattern. I will not name TII's people on the ground but I find them excellent. I want to make that clear. It is not a criticism of them. It is a criticism of how something goes in, gets turned up and comes back out again. There must be a better way for TII to engage with local authorities so that the elected mandate of local authority members is respected and their issues can be fed up and down. I would like to hear what the representatives have to say on that. Do they agree that there are deficiencies in that regard?

Mr. Peter Walsh

There are 31 local roads authorities throughout the country. We deal with local authorities through the professional local authority staff, including the chief executives. The circumstances of local politics have to be dealt with by the local authority, from our perspective. We are not from that part of that country. We do not know the nuances of circumstances so we are very much guided by the local authority and the roads authority. We do not intend to be in any way difficult or hard to get at but if local authority elected representatives from 31 different local authorities deal directly with us, it would make the progression of projects, and the amount of time we have for them, very difficult. Our regional road management unit has a total of 15 people for the country. It is not really feasible. A number of elected representatives are very persuasive people. If we do not get somebody who is assessing the overall argument around a particular issue, then dealing with individuals could be counterproductive.

I will make the point, even though I do not know if it is a fair analogy, that Irish Water is another entity that shares many assets. There are many overlapping matters here. Irish Water is far from ideal but at least, despite all its flaws - and it has many - it has a very linear structure that allows local elected representatives to query matters and get answers within a day or two. Hearing that TII only has 15 people to do that, answers the question. I ask Mr. Walsh to talk to the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan. That unit needs to be better resourced.

This leads me to my next question regarding TII having been tone deaf to a very rural issue. As Mr. Walsh knows, counties prepare county development plans, which are the bibles, if you like, for how development should happen in counties. I live in County Clare and, like every county, it has different demographics and pockets. The part I live in is quite urbanised. When you go west and north of Ennis, heading towards the Burren, the Cliffs of Moher and the beautiful Wild Atlantic Way, remarkably, most of the road networks are classified as regional or national routes. A number of weeks ago, TII meddled with the Clare county development plan. At the eleventh hour, TII said there could be no more housing development on regional and national roads. I agree with that most of the time. From a road safety point of view, we should not be developing along these roads. However, if that rule is taken and applied to a county such as Clare, and I am sure it is relevant to many other counties, maybe one third of the county is entirely taken out from having the potential to develop. There were some caveats to the TII position. It stated that where the speed limit is 80 km/h or lower, then development could be entertained. However, what it means in real terms, is that there is no more development along the N68, the N85, the N67, the R460, the R457, and the R484, which maps out pretty much all the roads west of north Clare. This means that villages such as Inch, Lissycasey, Connolly and Kilmaley are just shut down.

I have contacted the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, regarding this decision, which is very punitive. As Minister, he has to strike a balance between housing development and road safety. Road safety has to be paramount, but an old gauge, applicable until January this year, was that each and every housing application was assessed on its own merits and it if was not safe, permission was not granted. That was the right way to do it. Why bring in the blanket rule? I would like someone to explain. Who is the architect of this proposal?

Mr. Peter Walsh

We are a prescribed body for commenting on development plans and planning applications. To be clear, our remit relates to national and not regional roads. We follow the Government policy on development and national roads, and remind local authorities of that when asked to comment on their development plans. The policy is a national policy. We simply bring it to the attention of the local authority. We cannot change a development plan.

We will have a kind of cliff-edge situation in a few weeks, when the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, has to assess TII's fairly hefty submission and decide whether he accepts it. I will be very clear that I am not disputing the road safety argument for a moment, but I, along with Deputies and Senators on a cross-party basis, am telling him that the blanket approach will not work here. We will lobby the Minister, but it is a cliff-edge moment. He will decide this with his officials, more than likely, in a few weeks' time. Will the TII rescind its proposal? It would make life much simpler and we could revert to the very safe practice that existed up until January 2023. There was nothing wrong with that practice because a lot of houses were refused planning permission on road safety grounds.

Mr. Peter Walsh

We are obliged to comment and reiterate national policy for national roads-----

The TII does not make policy. It implements policy made in the Houses.

Mr. Peter Walsh

We gather road safety statistics. We see that additional junctions on national roads, outside the speed limits, create hazards. We cannot resile from that in some sort of piecemeal manner. That does not mean that a planning application, on a national road with particular traffic volumes and in particular circumstances, would not be considered on its own merits. If a local authority is bringing in a development plan that will, as a consequence, create a breach of that development plan in the event of that being considered, that is a different matter. We are not a planning authority, however.

I thank Mr. Walsh. I have a final question, if the Leas-Chathaoirleach will allow it. I do not dispute the TII is perfectly entitled to make this proposal. I just dispute how it could manifest itself in real life. Deputies and Senators here will know this is one of those little things that gets slotted in at the end of the county development plan. It has been sent to many local authorities. People should tune into this. It is maybe not so much an issue in Dublin, but this will totally shut down what can happen in counties such as Meath and Cork and pretty much anywhere in the west of Ireland. Mr. Walsh said it is Government policy, but it is totally contrary to what the Minister for Rural and Community Development, Deputy Humphreys, and the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, are trying to lead out as regards housing and rural development.

However, I respect the role of the witnesses. I will take it up with the Minister.

Mr. O'Neill is probably the best person to refer this question to. Where a road stops in the middle of nowhere, it can be very frustrating for us as public representatives. It is very frustrating for motorists and I am sure it is frustrating for TII. There are a number of examples. I am not totally familiar with Deputy O'Connor's examples, but he is going down a path and I want to go a little bit further, and perhaps to veer off it a little bit as well.

The Limerick north distributor road is not included in TII's brief, but it links with the N18 and the national assets maintained by TII. At the moment phase 1 is going full tilt and construction vehicles are on site every day. It will end at a roundabout on one of TII's roads. It will end on a roundabout on a regional road. Phase 2 will never happen. This is a fact because, as the witnesses have stated, the Minister said he does not believe it should happen. Mr. O'Neill might not be able to comment specifically but, in a general sense, does he not think it is a bit ludicrous? It might be a bit like Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote, where there is a road coming out of town that drops off and goes nowhere. When you go out of town you fall off the edge of it. That is what it feels like to us. It is better to build no roads than to build half a road and to have a roundabout in the middle of nowhere. Does Mr. O'Neill agree?

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

I am not going to comment on the Limerick northern distributor road. That is not a national road. It is outside my remit.

Can I ask Mr. O'Neill a general question? TII is doing great work. We have seen the list of works. We have a lot to read in the next few days. I am sure when TII develops phase 1 that it wants phase 2 or phase 3 to happen; it certainly does not want a road to be left piecemeal. Is that fair to say in a general sense?

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

There are plans and programmes. Do I want them implemented? Yes. Do I accept that circumstances can change? Yes.

I appreciate that it is a tricky question. Deputy O'Connor elicited some answers that spoke volumes to me as well. I thank the witnesses for the work they are doing. We might not agree on everything. We appreciate the engagement. I urge TII to please try to work a bit better with local authorities. TII should ask the Minister for Transport, Deputy Eamon Ryan, for a doubling of the unit that deals with local authorities.

We will have the Minister of State, Deputy Chambers, in before the committee in two weeks so we can feed the same questions to him.

Yes. We can follow up with our party colleague.

I will return to the tolling aspect of the debate and pick up on some of the points made by Deputy Lowry. When it broke in the back half of last year that the tolls would be increased because of the indexation, it was paused but the pause has now ended and the increases will come on stream. It was clearly communicated that the reason is that there is indexation in the contracts and all the rest. Mr. Walsh replied in his response to Deputy Lowry that it would have been difficult to get people to run the contracts if they did not have indexation attached. Notwithstanding that, we have highly profitable roads. We have a PPP on the M50, for example, that has been fully paid for and is returning large amounts of profit to the State. You can see the disconnect for the ordinary person who has to use these tolls every day. These are not anti-congestion measures either; people have to travel long distances to work or whatever the case may be. Is there another model that is used elsewhere for tolling that TII is looking at for when these contracts come to an end, or does it imagine that the contracts in their current form will be rolled over with superficial differences?

Mr. Peter Walsh

There is a project called Project BRUCE, which is a better road-user charging evaluation. We raised the issue of what might happen at the end of the contract periods with the Department of Transport because we could see that in other jurisdictions it has not been dealt with very well. In some jurisdictions, politicians came under pressure to return the roads to the public free, and it ended up with no revenue to maintain them and it became very difficult to try to reverse out of that. We suggested that this might be a topic that could be looked at sooner rather than later. That happened a couple of years ago. It has now been included in a number of Government policies and strategies around climate action and sustainable mobility in which the issue of how we might pay for the roads is addressed. First, the question of what happens at the end of those contracts needs to be thought through. If we are going to do that, we must bear in mind that most of the toll locations came about by a series of incremental decisions. They are not dispersed in a very scientific manner around the network. It is a question of how fair it is and whether we should look at another distribution of charging.

The wider context is what we were asked to look at. In the context of not having excise duties on fossil fuel, petrol and diesel, how are we going to fund the road network? If we do not have a road network, we do not have any economic activity or social activity and we cannot get around, so we need it and the question is how we pay for it. In terms of the climate action plan, the user pays or distance-pay type arrangements are things that need to be looked at. We are contributing to a couple of committees and producing some information around modelling. We hope to have well-informed decisions progressed over the next couple of years.

That is good to hear. What angers people is the fact that they see the profits. I am not arguing that we should remove tolls altogether. I understand the value of them and that we need to pay for our network. The network is vitally important. Notwithstanding issues that people have about car and vehicular traffic, it is probably the best network we have for mass transit in the State. It is better than our rail network, unfortunately, and all the rest. Our buses benefit from it as well. It is the lack of transparency that the ordinary punter has over this which is troubling, in terms of the increase. It seems like there is an awful lot of discretion within the contract on behalf of the provider to increase the amount. Perhaps there is a piece to be done on creating some better transparency and understanding about that for the existing contract and any way it goes.

Mr. Peter Walsh

One of the reasons for burdening the committee with the amount of paper that we did was in an effort to be transparent around this. We provided as much information as we could in a relatively digestible form for each of the PPP contracts. The notion that there is discretion in relation to the toll charges is one that I would like to address. The mechanism within the contract associated with the consumer price index sets a limit on the level at which the toll company can set the toll charges. It cannot go above that number. That is the mechanism for limiting it, and it has worked. Over a ten-year period, the charges did not go up at all. In fact, there was a brief period when they went down. Last year there was a significant change in that circumstance, for everything, and that brought about the increase in January.

To go back to what Deputy Smith mentioned earlier when he said the toll charges were deferred; the toll charges were not deferred as such, they were applied.

The Government picked up the tab.

Mr. Peter Walsh

The general taxpayer paid for it, and paid for the administration of it as well.

In the short time I have left I want to raise something that is a bugbear of people in my constituency regarding the Dublin Port tunnel. I have tried to get through to it myself on this. It advertises most mornings that it will be closed northbound between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. or 6 a.m. the next morning, whatever it may be. It is on the road signage. Almost every night it is closed at 9.30 p.m. or 9.45 p.m., when people are coming back, so it is closed before 10 p.m. If people who work 12-hour shifts use the port tunnel one way, they are likely to use it on the way back. They are hoping to get in before 10 p.m. That is an anti-congestion piece of infrastructure to keep people out of the city. Could Mr. Walsh get the message back please that if it says 10 p.m. then it should be closed at 10 p.m.? If people are there 30 seconds before 10 p.m. they should be able to get through the tunnel.

Mr. Maher is our director of network operations and can provide some background on that.

Mr. Pat Maher

That should not happen. I would be very happy to take that away and impress upon the people involved that it should not happen going forward.

It probably only affects a few people. but it is real. The fact is these are people who need something.

Mr. Pat Maher

As a point of principle.

Earlier, Mr. Walsh used the phrase "ensuring alignment of stakeholders, especially State bodies and State-owned enterprises". I could not help but interpret that line in light of what emerged in the print media last week about MetroLink and other State bodies making submissions on a project that is vitally important and in respect of which there has been a massive amount of engagement and consultation. Am I correct in having that vivid an interpretation of the project in question?

Mr. Peter Walsh

That is a manifestation of it, but there are other examples.

How can we improve that, given the planning framework we have at the moment?

Mr. Peter Walsh

If the Cabinet has decided that a particular project or initiative is a priority for the Government, it would be helpful if the agencies of the State were given the ability not to mind their own bailiwicks to the detriment of that project. I do not think anybody is up to mischief. They are just left with the responsibility around their own element of infrastructure or whatever and are obliged to defend, seek to minimise or to raise concerns about what might be a negative impact on it. Whereas we have brought an awful lot of projects through planning, and we know the process is not the place to do that. The difficulty is that there is no mandate to start thinking about the common goal and concede something. We have conceded in terms of accommodating cables under national roads because, as an executive, we went to some efforts to persuade our board that even though our requirement is to preserve the road to the best of our ability, we can see that the national grid needs to be upgraded and that we are just going to have to work with ESB Networks and EirGrid to ensure we get the least worst outcome of a process that is going to be disruptive. For some reason, we seem to think cables should not be put overhead on pylons anymore. That is another day's work. If they have to be accommodated, then we-----

Thankfully, it is not the committee's work.

Mr. Peter Walsh

Yes. So that is what I am referring to. There needs to be a sense that we are in a climate crisis. We are trying to change from one source of energy that we have used for the past 200 years to a completely different way of living and providing energy for what we do. It changes absolutely everything. We need to be freed up to see what common outcome the Government has decided it would like to see and then let everybody apply a bit of imagination and flexibility in trying to help each other get there.

I agree. I thank Mr. Walsh.

I thank the witnesses. I particularly thank Mr. Walsh for his lengthy statement and his remarks so far.

It is not that I am naive, but I am going to tease this out because an awful lot of normal people outside of this room would be under the impression that when a public private partnership is arranged, the cost of the contract is determined on the basis of the construction costs, which would be shared between both, the length of the road, future maintenance, etc.. I will use the M50 as an example. Are we still paying construction costs to the private element of the organisation that built or paid for half the road? If so, how long will we be paying for it? There was a view among people when tolls came in that they were there to pay for the private part of the road and that when the road was paid for, they would be reduced drastically. This was seen as the benefit of us using this kind of engagement. What Mr. Walsh suggests this morning is that there will be no end to the tolls. He also suggests that the CPI part of it is contractual, which is incredible when we think about the fact that most of the charges to people are index-linked but most of the payments to people are absolutely not index-linked. There is a bit of a dichotomy in that regard.

I digress somewhat. I am asking specifically about the likes of the M50. How much are we still paying of the contractor's costs for the building the latter? How much of the 1% and the 6% proposed increased fees will go towards increased wages? There cannot be 250 people on the M50. I suggest it is probably less than 40 or 50 people manning the road. How much of the percentage of that project is going towards the maintenance and development of the rest of our network? With regard to the overall tolled roads in the country, how much of the income is going towards the TII budget annually to maintain, grow and develop our network for the rest of the region?

Mr. Peter Walsh

There were quite a few questions there. I will take the last one first. We have a revenue-sharing arrangement with the toll concessionaires, the public private partnership companies. There are eight private tolls on the network. We get approximately €8 million a year as a revenue share from those. It will be in our financial statements anyway, but the Senator can take that as my approximate number on it.

Ballpark figure.

Mr. Peter Walsh

As to the tolling companies and the cost, they maintain the network for the period of the contract. The deal was made up of the construction cost and the operational maintenance of the contract for the full duration of the contract, which, depending on the contract, is 25 years, 35 years or 45 years. Those costs are ongoing over the period. The cost of finance is also included. My colleague, Mr. Desmond, can provide more detail on this if the Senator likes. However, we have indicated in the pack provided details of the costs for each of the eight tolls. When the deal is originally done, costs relating to finance, construction and operational maintenance are all included. At the end of a contract, there is an obligation to hand the road back with a certain residual life. It varies on the asset type within it. For large structures, it is a very long life; for pavement, it is ten years. All of this is rolled up and that becomes the deal. Over the duration of the contract, that deal has within it a mechanism that is fixed to CPI. Whatever increase the latter allows is the maximum increase that can be brought about in terms of toll charges. Those are the mechanisms that are in place.

When you look at the contract that would be negotiated, and I will take the M50 for argument's sake, over the 40 years or 50 years of the contract, the increased financial charges, the CPI, the cost of wage increases and, obviously, construction and operational costs are built in. Is the profit for the private partners built in?

Mr. Peter Walsh

Of course.

Can I ask one question? In my understanding, the only part of the M50 that was ever the subject of a public private partnership was the West-Link toll bridge. Is that right?

Mr. Peter Walsh

The M50 is different.

Yes, but the only part that was ever the subject of a public private partnership on the M50 was that one stretch. Apologies, I know the Dublin Port tunnel is kind of called the M50.

Mr. Peter Walsh

There was an upgrade of the M50 to free-flow junctions and a third lane, which also involved a public private partnership.

However, there is no revenue from that.

Mr. Peter Walsh

There is no revenue from that. It is-----

The only revenue was the West-Link bridge. That was bought out by the State approximately ten years ago at a cost of €400 million.

Mr. Peter Walsh

I cannot remember. Mr. O'Neill may be happy to answer questions on that.

I will extend the Senator's time. This is just part of the same problem.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

The Government decision for the NRA at the time - I think it was in 2006 from recollection - was to buy out the toll concession-----

The State bought it out and now collects the revenue.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

Exactly, yes. We put in the free-flow tolling. The toll plaza was dismantled and free-flow tolling was put in. The revenue from that goes to TII, which uses it to pay for the M50 upgrade public private partnership. That is an availability public private partnership. It also pays for operations and maintenance on the network.

Mr. O'Neill is painting it that there is no private operator involvement at all at this stage in that scheme.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

It is a public sector toll.

Mr. Peter Walsh

We should also say that there are other availability PPPs such as that one and three others where it is effectively a mortgage. The State says, "You build it". A couple of elements of the contract are very helpful for the State. One is that the risk of construction is completely transferred. That might not sound like much but it is a significant thing. What we are paying for is the finished road available to the public and if it is not available then we are not paying for it.

When the Limerick road sank-----

Mr. Peter Walsh

Or indeed when New Ross was a year late, the public paid nothing for it because it was the contractor's risk so the contractor carried it.

It was suggested earlier that the overall revenue from tolls for TII was €8 million. Are we suggesting that the M50 turns over €8 million or less than that-----

Mr. Peter Walsh

No, I did not say that. It was that the revenue share from the eight PPPs, and I may be wrong on the number. In total, revenue from tolls-----

Is it profit rather than the revenue?

Mr. Peter Walsh

For those eight, we get a share of their profits.

Mr. Peter Walsh

Yes.

Revenue is much higher but-----

TII does not get a share of the revenue. It gets a share of the profits.

Mr. Peter Walsh

It is the same thing. It is a revenue share mechanism.

I am only a driver so I am not looking into the technicality of it but it very much looks like the contracts were constructed in favour of the private partnership as opposed to the general public - not necessarily the taxpayer. Can I ask two more questions because we could go round in circles about money? Has TII ever looked at more tolls on the M50 and reducing the cost of journeys for people as opposed to having one toll? This is something that gets brought up from people in Lucan for some reason. I have no connection with Lucan but they bring it up a lot, particularly the people from Kildare. It provides a rat run for people to avoid it but the people who do use it and might get off after Lucan have to pay for the whole thing as opposed to splitting the journey. That is number one.

I drive an electric car and my husband drives a hybrid. We both get significant discounts on our tolls because of the type of car we drive. Who is going to mop up the loss when we all end up driving electric or hybrid cars in the next couple of years? What will happen then?

Mr. Peter Walsh

That is the exactly the kind of question the Government is going to have to grapple with. There are incentive schemes in place that we administer on behalf of the Government. That is what turns it into the benefits gained by the Senator. I would not like to go past the comment that the contracts were plainly bad deals for the public; they were not. They were commercially tendered and entered into and have returned for the public as they were supposed to.

To be fair, the people who are still spending €40 or €50 per week on the M50 some 30 years after it was built and a long time after the State bought it, would question where the benefit for them is. They are not interested in spending money to build the Macroom bypass. They live along the M50 and wanted the benefits of a road that has been paid for. That is all I am suggesting.; I am not suggesting anything untoward.

Mr. Peter Walsh

All I am saying is that the Government has given TII a mechanism for raising revenue and it is not for TII to decide it will not use that mechanism but come back and go to Government and ask: "Can we have compensation for the stuff we have not used and get general taxation to pay the difference?" We were given the mechanism and were asked to administer it and make sure we raise it.

It is not a criticism of TII. I do not mean it in that way.

Mr. Peter Walsh

I know but-----

The problem here is that in this equation, nobody is fighting for Joe driver. That is the problem.

Mr. Peter Walsh

The other aspect of things-----

The Cabinet certainly is not and neither is TII.

Mr. Peter Walsh

The Senator also mentioned multipoint tolling on the M50. We have looked at that and various other mechanisms. The NTA is developing a demand management scheme for the greater Dublin area. We are contributing to that. We use our modelling and expertise on safe traffic flows on the M50 to contribute to that in any way we can. The thing about the M50 is that it is very heavily used. The tolling of the road does help manage demand. It is a useful mechanism in that regard. We would not underestimate the value of that.

To pick up on Senator Doherty's point, is Project BRUCE, Better Road User Charging Evaluation, looking at all of those scenarios? Regarding the transition towards zero-emission vehicles, we have a funding stream that involves taxes based on emissions. We have limited tolling infrastructure, which is very frustrating for those using it. Is Project BRUCE looking at-----

Mr. Peter Walsh

It is.

One scenario in the future might be that we raise revenues based on the number of kilometres driven. How can that be measured?

Mr. Peter Walsh

Looking at it as a spectrum, we either go from having no revenue gathered from the network at all to a very sophisticated method of distance charging that can be tailored to different parts of the country. If there is public transport in an area, maybe using the roads in those areas should have a higher premium put on it than in places where there are no options. That is all doable. What we are trying to put on the table and contribute to is the understanding of the range of options. It is a full range from one extreme to the other. Where does the Government want to go? What path do we want to take because it will take some time to develop the technology and the hardware to make that work?

Is Project BRUCE looking at all of that?

Mr. Peter Walsh

It is. The Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Finance-----

What is the timeline on it? How advanced is it?

Mr. Peter Walsh

It has only just started. We have been doing some work on it for a while to see what the international examples would be. We have had a year or two year of exploratory work. Very few resources were put into it but some good information was gathered so we think we are in a good position. We have a national transport model that gives very good information on the network. I cannot really say how far advanced any projects that might come out of it are.

Mr. Peter Walsh

Or proposals.

I have a question about the N2 Rath roundabout to Kilmoon Cross transportation corridor. It is one of the projects that has been stalled. Meath County Council has gone back to TII and TII has gone to the Minister. What was the request from the council? What did it look for? I think it was to advance the project. When did TII write to the Minister and how long has it been waiting for a response or has it received one?

Mr. Peter Walsh

I might defer to Mr. O'Neill on that question. Does he have any information?

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

The Rath to Kilmoon Cross project got an allocation of €750,000 for 2023. That was to meet current project commitments. Options selection deliverables were completed in December 2022. That allocation for 2023 was to allow for commitments that had been entered into by Meath County Council, namely, a geotechnical survey and to pay for technical adviser fees that had accrued to date. That is one of the projects that would be the subject of discussions between us and the Department in terms of what the allocations might be for 2024 and 2025.

Has a formal request come from-----

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

We are in the discussion process with the Department for 2024 - not just for that project but also for all projects.

All projects or just the list-----

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

All projects.

In respect of the Slane bypass, final statutory documents are expected to be completed in quarter three with TII approval to publish also expected to be completed in quarter 3 of 2023.

Is that the up-to-date position?

Mr. Peter Walsh

It is, yes.

Things are in hand as best as they can be.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

In addition, that project will encompass traffic management measures and public realm improvements within Slane village itself.

That is right. There is a public realm piece involved. That is good.

I do not know if any of the witnesses are covering the greenways but may I ask about the Boyne greenway? There is an update on it in the briefing material. It is potentially a very important piece of infrastructure. It is complicated by the fact that it is combined with a navigation scheme, which brings in a number of important considerations, including heritage considerations, and a number of assessments. I understand that the preferred route is to be published imminently. I note that the project will require an environmental impact statement, EIS. Do the witnesses have an update on that project? Locally, there is greater eagerness for it to progress. I recently met representatives of Meath County Council and I know the local community really wants to see it delivered. I recognise that there are technical challenges but surely they are not insurmountable.

Mr. Peter Walsh

Mr. O'Neill may have some detail on it. On the route from Boyne Valley to Lakelands, we have started the section from Wilkinstown to Castletown. I do not know the project in detail and I do not know if Mr. O'Neill has more to add but the one thing I will say about greenways is that there is no funding constraint.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

That project is at phase 2, the route selection stage. TII has carried out a peer review of the options selection report. The Deputy mentioned navigation and so on. Further flood study analysis has recently been completed by technical advisers. That will allow the options selection to be finalised. That is under review by Meath County Council. The update I have before me says that the project will require an environmental impact assessment. It appears to be above the threshold or to have an impact that will require such an assessment.

I ask that TII give as much support to that project as possible. There are others, which Mr. Walsh has mentioned, on which I welcome progress. The Lakelands one is among these. However, this one is the jewel in the crown in pulling all of that together. It is along the Boyne from Drogheda to Navan in the first instance. It really is something we would like to see progress on. I thank the witnesses for that information.

I have two minutes left. On tolling, the PPP scheme on the M3 from Clonee to Kells is one of two that included provision for variable operation payments, VOPs, which is to say that the State had to make up any shortfall. There are two tolls on that road. Based on what the witnesses have said about Project BRUCE, it may have been ahead of its time but it certainly does not feel like a benefit for those people who have to travel from Kells or north of Kells to south County Dublin on a daily basis. To echo the point made by Senator Doherty, there really is a perception that it is a burden and that this is a cost that has shifted from the State to the commuter to allow the road to wash its face. When people see the profits being reported and hear about increases, index linking, guaranteed income and the possibility of indefinite duration, it really does leave them with a sour taste. How is a decision made to put two tolls, or indeed any toll, on a road? What type of cost-benefit analysis or critical assessment of alternative options for these projects is carried out? To some degree, I suppose that opportunity has passed but what are the options for further major roads projects as regards PPPs and direct State investment? Do the witnesses have any reflections or opinions on that?

Mr. Peter Walsh

Do I have reflections on it? These arrangements are not of indefinite duration. The durations are set out.

That depends on what comes out of Project BRUCE.

The contracts are not of indefinite duration but there is potential for the tolls to keep going afterwards.

Mr. Peter Walsh

That could well be the case. The Government may well decide that or it may decide on a different approach.

That was the case with the toll on the East-Link Bridge, was it not? Does that bridge not now belong to Dublin City Council?

Mr. Peter Walsh

Yes.

That bridge is long paid off but the council just keeps the revenue.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

It has bills to pay so, yes, it does.

You either know or you do not know. The East-Link Toll Bridge has been paid off and the city council gets the revenue.

Mr. Peter Walsh

The city council gets revenue from it. I do not know enough about the project to know whether it had to make some expenditure recently for which those tolls are paying. I do not know. We have provided some detail on the M3. I did not mean to swamp people with paper. What we wanted to do was to provide enough information so that, for any given toll scheme, members would be able to see when it started, when it will finish, what the payments are for and how long they will run for. To clarify again, we are not talking about profit sharing but about revenue sharing. Whether these companies make a profit or not, we still get a share of the revenue.

Mr. Robert Desmond

On the M3, there is not projected to be any more variable operation payments for the duration of the contract.

They are only still an issue with the Limerick tunnel.

Mr. Robert Desmond

Yes.

May I ask a question? I misunderstood Mr. Walsh earlier on with regard to revenue sharing as opposed to profit sharing. Will he tell me what the €8 million he referred to earlier was?

Mr. Peter Walsh

That is the revenue share. The State gets income from the PPP toll franchises based on the revenue each one gathers. As the traffic numbers go up, we get more money.

This €8 million is the total TII gets from the seven PPPs in the country, the eighth now being back in State control.

Mr. Robert Desmond

There are currently two generating revenue share. Essentially, it was a mechanism put in place at the outset to prevent PPP companies making superprofits. It was a mechanism whereby some funds would be remitted to the State to prevent them going to the private sector.

I hope the witnesses will excuse my ignorance because I really feel thick now. Mr. Desmond says there are only two schemes now generating revenue but each of the eight roads has a toll so they must be generating revenue.

Mr. Robert Desmond

That is correct but not all are generating revenue to the extent that they are required to return revenue share to TII. It is only those that are-----

The revenue share is a percentage of the revenue and not the revenue itself.

Mr. Peter Walsh

Of course, it is a share.

That is not what Mr. Walsh said earlier on.

Mr. Peter Walsh

No, it was.

We do not know what the percentage share is.

It is now part of the contractual agreement between the PPP company and the public. We have now determined what the revenue share is going to be, which is over and above the------

Mr. Peter Walsh

The Senator is not trying to suggest I was trying to mislead her, is she?

I am sure the Senator is not making a charge on anybody.

I could not understand what the €8 million was. I am not suggesting Mr. Walsh was misleading me. I am just teasing it out. How much of the overall contract, as a percentage, is the revenue share? How does that compare to the profit share?

Mr. Peter Walsh

There is no profit share.

I will start my questioning, if that is all right.

I will start by continuing on the Senator's point.

Mr. Peter Walsh

I used the wrong term. I am sorry about that.

What would be the right term?

Mr. Peter Walsh

It is a revenue-sharing mechanism.

It is not a 50:50 share, however. The TII might be getting 5%, 2% or 1%.

Mr. Robert Desmond

It depends on traffic levels and income levels.

Will the witnesses explain to those watching and to ourselves the nature of a revenue-sharing model?

I appreciate there are lots of different schemes but how would Mr. Desmond explain what happens?

Mr. Robert Desmond

As part of the procurement process, when these were tendered on day one, parties who were bidding to win the contract competitively would bid at a certain level of revenue share they would commit to return to the State should traffic reach certain levels. The winner, on a range of issues including on the financial aspects, would then commit in the contracts to returning that revenue share and this is now paying out.

Is that typically 5%, 25%, 40%, or 1%?

Mr. Robert Desmond

It is a fairly complicated arrangement. It is bands-----

It is not in our briefing document.

Mr. Robert Desmond

Pardon?

It is not in the 113 pages.

Mr. Robert Desmond

It is not. There are bands and once one gets above one band a certain percentage is remitted to the State, and then with another band one gets a higher percentage.

Was there a time when it was the opposite? There was a time when we were, effectively, subsidising roads that did not generate the level of traffic that was anticipated. Is that correct?

Mr. Robert Desmond

Yes, for M2, and for M3 Kells-Clonee, and Limerick tunnel, based on scale first of all. The Clonee-Kells project was such a big scheme to get bidders to bid, so it required that. And for Limerick-----

Is that still happening on those roads?

Mr. Robert Desmond

On the M3 Clonee-Kells, there are no more projected payments for variable operational payments.

Is this because the level of traffic has now got to the level it should have go to?

Mr. Robert Desmond

That is correct. On the Limerick tunnel, there is projected to be future payments, and this is all set out in the briefing document.

What percentage of the revenue from the M3 would be acceptable? What does Transport Infrastructure Ireland get?

Mr. Robert Desmond

There is a revenue-sharing mechanism in the entry contract. We do actually project that it will return some revenue in years to come, given on the basis that traffic will continue at-----

Is TII not getting any revenue from the M3 right now?

Mr. Robert Desmond

We are not getting any revenue share. The toll company does not return any revenue share.

Is it because of the volume of traffic? I will not ask for a total, but for now I will take the point. On the projects and the ongoing NDP projects, it was all set out in TII's opening statement, including the criteria around maintenance, existing projects currently under construction, those close to construction, pre-decision gate 2 and pre-decision gate 1. For people who might not understand, will the witnesses explain what pre-decision gates 1 and 2 really mean?

Mr. Peter Walsh

Decision gate 1 is to submit the project to planning. It has been brought to the point where you can apply to An Bord Pleanála for the planning approval. Decision gate 2 is the decision to go to tender for the project. This is when it has come through the planning and whatever conditions might be applied to it. The project is developed in accordance with the planning approval and it is brought to the point where it can then be tendered. Decision gate 2 is going out of the market to seek a price to construct it.

Is it only at that point, when the price comes back, that the Minister may or may not decide?

Mr. Peter Walsh

There is a decision gate 3 then.

I am not sure that made it to the opening statement, but what is that?

Mr. Peter Walsh

That is to award the contract, depending on the scale of the contract. Am I misrepresenting that-----

For our information, and for people who may be looking in here, the TII has referred to current projects such as Listowel bypass and others almost ready to be opened, or soon, and we will also be looking forward to the Dunkettle interchange upgrade and so on. Then there are the projects that are provided for, the N2, the N3, the N11 and so on. There is a list. Of these, do we know what is in gate 2, gate 1 or gate 3 to see where they are in priority hierarchy after this list? There is a long list of projects being contemplated.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

Yes they are pre-decision gate 1. I do not believe that any-----

They are all equally valid or not.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

Decision gates is the terminology used in the public spending code. The public spending code is a set of administrative arrangements made by the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. Authorities like ourselves are required to comply with those under administrative arrangements. They are not statutory requirements, of course. They are the rules that are issued by circulars.

People are looking at the long list of projects that were in various annual reports as being considered. Does anyone have an idea as to what is lower and higher in the hierarchy?

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

It is very hard to say now because there is so much uncertainty in the system. I could pick a number of ten projects, and I am not saying that this number relates to anything. If I have ten projects and all are at a similar level of development, and I put them into the planning system, I do not know when they will come out or if they are going to come out. Some will take quite a number of years to get a decision on planning and others will spend several more years in judicial review if somebody takes a challenge.

Mr. O'Neill is saying that those blockages are several years in planning. He does not mean the planning process. Does he mean in planning generally?

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

No, I mean the planning process. There are years of development in the design and planning.

Yes, but not submitting it to the local authority.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

That is within the control of the local authorities, working under our management.

Is Mr. O'Neill talking about land acquisitions and compulsory purchase orders?

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

That comes after a project gets its statutory approvals. TII would need those powers to do land acquisition.

Will the witnesses tease out the statutory approval process, for example, for a new road from Dublin to wherever?

Mr. Peter Walsh

We could give an example. If we wanted to build a ring road around Galway city-----

Which has been talked about.

Mr. Peter Walsh

It was submitted to planning in 2006, got its planning approval, which was appealed, and went through the courts, ending up in Europe, and finally was quashed. In that case we could not proceed. We went back to planning for that some years later and again it got planning approval as a different project. It did not impact on a designated area but it is now the subject of a number of judicial reviews. In the end, An Bord Pleanála conceded that the approval was not in compliance with legislation, so it was quashed and is now back with An Bord Pleanála. That process started in 2006 in the planning process. There is shorter-term ones-----

In terms of gate 1, gate 2 and gate 3, that project is still at gate 1, or not even.

Mr. Peter Walsh

Yes.

I am aware there is no typical answer, but there are variables between getting from gate 1 to gate 3 and it could be two years or 12 years.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

It will not be two years or three years. With project delivery life cycle, eight years is really good. That is getting back to how we used to do things in the mid-2000s when, from origination and conceptual design to the opening ceremony for the road could be seven or eight years.

That is as good as it gets.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

Now we would expect 15 years on average. This is what we are seeing. Some of our greenways are being promoted by local authorities. We are the approving authority for greenways. One project spent four years in a judicial process. Any project is spending multiple years getting its approval.

So basically we are telling people that we should not expect too many road openings any time soon.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

No, the committee should not, unless they are willing to back a lot of projects and accept that there will be a high attrition rate. That is my personal view.

Okay. On the old eastern bypass reservation that is floating around, has TII any involvement with that in terms of the bits?

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

We inputted into the National Transport Authority's greater Dublin transport strategy. I believe the reservation has been dropped for the purpose of an eastern bypass but some of it is being kept for-----

Potentially greenways or light rail or both or something.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

Yes, potential greenways. There is also a port access road, which may be a Dublin Port Company project or a local authority project with Dublin City Council.

And there are also bits in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, close to me, that could be used for greenways, light rail or bus corridors.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

Indeed, but that moves out of our remit.

I know. That is why I am asking.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

That would be squarely with the NTA and the local authorities.

I wish to go back to the tolls. Does every toll booth now take credit cards? There was one that did not, for a while. I believe it was the M8 that did not take credit cards. Do they all take credit cards now?

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

Yes, they all take credit cards.

Has TII seen a move away from cash towards credit cards or tags and so on?

Mr. Robert Desmond

Yes. Certainly since before Covid there has been a big move away from cash towards credit cards and tag payment.

There is differential pricing on the M50 in terms of video versus tag or paying the charge online. Does that happen anywhere else or is it the same price on every other road?

Mr. Robert Desmond

The tolling on the M50 is a barrier-free system.

I know, and there is different pricing.

Mr. Pat Maher

There is no discrimination. It is the wrong choice of word, possibly. There is no difference in any of the other toll plazas.

From July onwards, it will be €2, €2.10 or whatever whether using the tag, cash or a credit card?

Mr. Pat Maher

It is all the same. That is correct.

Does TII have any say in or involvement with active travel?

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

We have an active travel programme. That is a sub-programme within our national roads programme. We have a remit for national roads. Under our minor projects programme, there are gaps in footpath provision, particularly on national secondary roads, and we have a programme where we are planning to retrofit infrastructure of that type. These are small projects.

The TII is co-operating much of the time, I presume, with the Road Safety Authority in terms of speed limits, etc.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

For active travel, that is a programme directly with us and the local authorities. It is specifically on national roads. It is separate from greenways and the NTA's programme of projects.

It is retrofitting footpaths basically.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

Yes, it is retrofitting footpaths and cycleways where there are not none and there is a demand or need.

I call Senator Carrigy. I think I know what he might want to talk about.

I am just after coming out of the meeting of the Joint Committee on Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport and Media next door.

We are not worried about what happens anywhere else. We are only worried about this committee.

This is an important issue, which is why I have come to the meeting.

I thank the Chair for allowing me contribute. I welcome the witnesses. I have spoken about this issue previously. I note the title of today's debate includes ongoing projects. I will raise two projects. The first is active travel works in Ballymahon, County Longford, and the second is the N4 project from Mullingar to Rooskey.

Money sanctioned by TII for works in Ballymahon encompasses an active travel route. This project is being done due to the high traffic volume generated by Center Parcs. Part of the project involves narrowing the road on the bridge, which is the access point for traffic to Athlone. The slip lane for Athlone, which is the N55, will be removed, which will back up traffic into the town. This is being done to facilitate an active travel route on the bridge by narrowing the road and developing a footpath and cycleway on the roadway. Is that prudent?

I have met business owners and the business group in Ballymahon. This will only make things worse by backing up traffic into the town. The N55 is a busy artery route through the middle of the country. I ask that an alternative be considered, for instance, installing a footbridge on the side of the bridge to accommodate pedestrians, rather than narrowing the roadway and removing the slip road. This project will back up traffic into the town and make things worse. I ask TII to take that on board and for someone to get back to me on it.

I have raised the N4 project previously. It is not one of the ongoing projects and has been put to one side. Limited funding was put in place for the project this year. I had a presentation in Leinster House some weeks ago with chief executives from all the north-western counties. We had representatives from the chambers of commerce in the north-west counties, encompassing counties Longford, Westmeath, Roscommon, Mayo, Leitrim, Sligo and Donegal. It affects the entire north west but the project has come to a standstill. As a region, we are entitled to balanced regional development, just as everywhere else in the country is. As regards road safety, a significant number of fatalities on that section of the N4 are caused by head-on collisions, yet we are not prepared to do anything about it. A decision has been made at a different level not to proceed with the project. Based on EU legislation, it is my understanding that under the Stockholm declaration, the speed limit on that road will be reduced in a few years' time because there is no central median and it is not a three- or four-lane carriageway. This will mean our region will be further away from our capital and the ports and airports. This will limit the next generation of investment in our region.

Recently, a company, the name of which has just gone out of my head, made an announcement in which it stated it located in the regions because the site was beside a dual carriageway and had access to Dublin. The north-west region will suffer in generations to come due to a lack of investment because a decision has been made not to progress this road. I believe the project is high on TII's agenda of works to reduce fatalities. This section of road has roughly 500 exits. Where does that project stand? Is TII actively engaging with the Department and the Minister to make sure this is a priority project, as it should be, going forward?

Mr. Peter Walsh

We are happy to look into the N55 active travel issue the Senator raised and we will come back to him on that. None of my colleagues here have details of that.

In terms of the N4 Mullingar-Longford project, Mr. O'Neill, as our head of capital programme, will give an update on where it stands.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

The project is at phase 2, options selection. That is being closed out. An emerging preferred corridor will be determined this year. The allocation provided to us, with the conditions set by the Minister, is to meet current commitments and pay for that work. That is one of the projects on which we are engaging with dialogue with the Department with a view to 2024 and subsequent years. As matters stand, with our local authority partners, we can only complete the current phase and no further.

Would be prudent from the point of view of value for money for the State and taxpayer, considering the considerable amount of money that has been spent on that project since 2004 when it started, that the project would continue not only as an emerging preferred route but as a route with planning permission? Should it be necessary to delay the main capital spend, based on current timelines, it will be 2033-35 before the bulk of that money will be needed. Would it be prudent for the Minister or the Government to allow the project to continue to the next phase, phase 3? An emerging preferred route locks the land. TII still has to hold on to other routes in case an environmental issue crops up on the emerging preferred route. Lands have been locked for up to 20 years and even when an emerging preferred route is announced, that will continue. Would it be prudent on the part of the Government and provide value for money for the taxpayer to continue funding the project to get to the stage where planning permission has been secured and a route locked in?

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

The intention is to get to a single option but I will need to check that. The note I have on that is a little ambiguous so I cannot be definitive on that. My recollection is that we are aiming to identify a single route option as opposed to a whole fan of options.

Mr. Peter Walsh

I take Senator Carrigy's point. He is suggesting that we carry on through to get planning approval and land acquisition in place and that would not require the bulk of the funding to be provided until such time as the project is at construction as land acquisition can be quite slow.

We would certainly support that view. From our understanding of the progression of projects, to take a project through planning, as we were discussing earlier, can be a very lengthy process. We know there is an expectation that for 2026 to 2030, a significant amount of funding will be made available for the delivery of road projects. However, we are concerned that we will not have projects-----

Mr. Peter Walsh

---ready to go. Therefore, in that circumstance-----

Senator Carrigy is offering Mr. Walsh an opportunity for one that is ready to go.

Mr. Peter Walsh

I thank the Senator very much. We will comply with the requirements and conditions as given to us and our board is compliant with that. The conditions relating to the allocations for this year were clear. We will not and do not promote or lobby for any given projects. We will not engage in that. There is prudence in having, as Mr. O'Neill categorised it, a large number of projects on the basis that not very many may actually get through to full planning approval. It is prudent to progress because-----

I will mention this kind of metric. Mr. Walsh is saying there is a high attrition rate. We might decide there are 30 road projects worthy of consideration and put them all into the system and they all start falling at different fences, if you like. Are there criteria as to why we do or do not do a road? Is it road safety, fatalities or the volume of people living there? How do we have a hierarchy or put in a process for why some are better than others?

Mr. Peter Walsh

I suppose all of the above is the answer.

Is that a visible process? Are there criteria we can all see?

Mr. Peter Walsh

It is-----

I am not saying there is anything untoward happening. It is for people to understand why the motorway would be in west Mayo because there is hardly anyone there, relatively speaking. TII would not put in a very wide road for very low volumes of traffic. There is a chicken and egg situation there too, however, in that if TII wants investment in the north west, it has to give people decent roads even though there are not enough people there in the first place.

Mr. Peter Walsh

There are a number of different criteria that apply to the identification of sections of the network that require an intervention. We could have a high accident rate. We could have a mismatch between the demand on the road and the capacity of that particular road to cater for it safety. We could have a requirement to connect to a region.

The Ballaghaderreen to Scramoge road, say, is one of those where we have relatively low numbers of vehicles on the road. We had a very sensitive area in terms of archaeology through Rathcroghan, which resulted in a circumstance where the only route we could choose was 35 km long off-line. That makes it very expensive and it does not fit other criteria then. If we start applying purely economic matrices or measures to the assessment of that then it may perform very poorly. From a Mayo perspective, however, it is a very important aspect and one of the remaining bits of the N5 that connects to that region.

Different projects will have different reasons for being required but it does not make them invalid. They will go through the planning process and it will be a matter for An Bord Pleanála to determine whether something is proper planning and sustainable development for the State. In that circumstance, successfully-----

The motorway programme was done from 2004 to 2010. Are any other motorways being contemplated or is that it for now?

Mr. Peter Walsh

There are sections of motorway that are either in or have just gone through the planning process. The N28 Cork to Ringaskiddy road has a motorway section to it. It has planning approval and is being progressed. The N21 Limerick-Adare-Foynes scheme has planning approval. The judicial reviews have been resolved, thankfully.

Is that a motorway?

Mr. Peter Walsh

Some of it is. The N21 element of it is and the N69 part is not.

Mr. Peter Walsh

They are the only two. I am sorry; there are sections of the M6 Galway city ring road that would have motorway classification as well. That is back with An Bord Pleanála, however. That is a-----

That one had the 17-year delay.

Mr. Peter Walsh

Yes.

Before I bring in Deputies Matthews and O'Rourke, Mr. Walsh might give us an explanation of these revenue share models. It does not have to be now but he might do that, if he is able, for us to understand ourselves. This is the last point I want to make. I am wary that the phrase "demand management" was used once upon a time about the M50 whereby it would have a multi-point tolling all over it. My fear as somebody who has lived quite close to the M50 is that TII will move all the traffic back off the M50 through Foxrock, Stillorgan, Leopardstown and across Rathfarnham and all the areas close to the M50 because people will be jumping off in the same way as we see people jumping off the N4.

Mr. Peter Walsh

Studies of that nature are exactly what will be required before a decision of that nature could be made.

It was either TII or the National Transport Authority, NTA, that asked whether we see maybe a model in the longer term whereby rather than have road tax, which we talk about in terms of fossil fuels versus electric, we would have road pricing all the time. It could be very cheap in the middle of nowhere, relatively speaking, because there is no alternative. However, if people want to use the M50 at half eight on a Monday morning, they will pay a premium and if they want to use it at half six or half ten, they will pay less. Moreover, they will pay per kilometre because at the moment, I get my car and outlay for the insurance, which is a big block, and pay my road tax. However, the marginal cost is not that great relatively. Fuel is dearer than it was but the marginal cost is not that great. I am almost saying I bought the car and have the insurance and road tax but there is that relative extra bit. I cycled in today; I cycle in most days. However, the point is that if every kilometre was charged, for people who live right beside the DART and want to use it, it is a bit more expensive than if they live in a rural area with no public transport. Do we ever see that kind of model? My view is that it would be revenue neutral. It would not be about collecting more-----

Mr. Peter Walsh

Correct.

-----but if someone wants to drive 200,000 km per year, he or she will be paying more than somebody who does not.

Mr. Peter Walsh

It is achievable and it is one of the options that will be explored. A decision of that nature will be a matter for Government.

I get that but is it being investigated?

Mr. Peter Walsh

It is.

Mr. Peter Walsh

We are part of it.

Who is leading it? Is it the Department?

Mr. Peter Walsh

Actually, I-----

Mr. Robert Desmond

A national land management strategy steering group has been set up. I think there is a climate action plan deliverable for them to-----

No more than airlines charging more at certain times of the day than others.

Mr. Peter Walsh

We are on that committee-----

It would make sense-----

Mr. Peter Walsh

-----but I am just trying to remember who is chairing it. I think it is being taken by the Department of Transport.

It would involve us all having a kind of shift in our thinking if TII wants to get people out of cars. If everybody wants to use cars all the time, however, that creates a problem for TII as well.

Mr. Peter Walsh

We do not promote the use of cars.

I accept that. If nobody used cars, we would not need TII either, but they will be. I will go to Deputy Matthews now. He has ten minutes and then I will bring Deputy O'Rourke back in.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I apologise; I had to step out although I was here for the start of the discussion on the tolls and various road projects. I have a couple of questions on the way TII assesses road projects, especially with regard to carbon emissions or maybe reduced demand.

The climate action plan was published in 2023. Has TII reviewed its projects that are at all stages in the public spending code either in feasibility, design, planning or construction and all the different gateways there? Has it carried out an assessment of all those projects on whether they would lead to an increase in emissions or an increase in demand for road use?

Mr. Peter Walsh

The projects go through a life cycle. When they have achieved planning approval, the appropriate planning authority in the State has determined that they are proper planning and sustainable development for the country and we do not double-guess that. We carry on and deliver the projects as approved. Projects that have yet to go to planning will have to be assessed in the light of whatever climate action plan is in place at the time when the board gets to assess them.

Currently, that is the Climate Action Plan 2023. All of our projects will have to address the issue of a reduction in trips on the network and the carbon consequences, including emissions, associated with that. We do not know exactly what will be required of a project. Under normal circumstances, we can only deal with the national road element of a national road project. More recently, we have looked at expanding the scope of projects. Slane was an unusual one because, in order to justify or explain why one would ever impact on a world heritage site, it had to be in the context of what one would do with the town being bypassed. As such, there needed to be an urban realm development. Of late, however, we have been asked to include the traffic management plans for the bypassed towns. We are not sure where exactly our involvement with that will be. For now, the design teams will be developing those traffic management plans. From that, there may be the possibility of reducing vehicular trips on the network as a whole or within the scope of the project. We would see the possibility of addressing the reduction in trips in that way.

We have developed a carbon assessment tool that will allow us to assess the embedded carbon required to construct the project and the emissions that can be expected over the operational phase. We feel we are moving along in our ability to conduct the assessment, but we are not entirely clear on the question of how it will be interpreted. Previously, An Bord Pleanála viewed projects within an entire programme and, if it decided that a project’s carbon requirements were acceptable, it regarded the project as being proper planning and sustainable development and approved it. That was a few years ago, though. Under the current Climate Action Plan, that approach may not be open to An Bord Pleanála.

I do not know if I have answered the Deputy’s question.

Mr. Walsh has, but his reply has opened up a few other questions as well. All planning decisions are made in the interests of proper planning and sustainable development. I believe the common good is inferred in that as well. Mr. Walsh will accept that, once a planning authority makes a decision, it has properly assessed whether the project complies with the climate Act.

Mr. Peter Walsh

It depends on when the approval was given. If a project was not assessed properly in compliance with legislation, it would be open to challenge.

That would require someone challenging it.

Mr. Peter Walsh

It would.

Mr. Walsh stated it would depend on what was contained in the carbon budget and which cycle of carbon budgets we were in, but I would guess that our carbon emission budgets will never increase and they will always be on a trajectory that reduces emissions. There are projects in various stages. Can TII assess each of those and say whether any of them is likely to lead to an increase in the greenhouse gas emissions associated with road traffic as well as an increase in the demand for road use, that being, induced demand?

Mr. Peter Walsh

The projects are assessed in that way. The traffic they will attract and the residual traffic on the residual network will also be calculated. That was all done as part of projects as they went through planning, so those facts were there and the approvals were given.

As Mr. Walsh stated, it depends on when the planning application took place. It might have been prior to the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021.

Mr. Peter Walsh

Yes.

Some of them probably have exempt planning permission. Will planning applications made prior to the Act need to be reassessed or will TII accept them?

Mr. Peter Walsh

I do not believe they are required to be reassessed.

Mr. Walsh referred to judgments under the entire programme. Would that be where-----

Mr. Peter Walsh

Not by us. I saw decisions by An Bord Pleanála where a particular project was assessed and, even though it had a net carbon requirement, it was still regarded as acceptable and proper planning and sustainable development by An Bord Pleanála in the context of the overall transportation strategy at the time for Galway city. As I recall, that was the view taken, but we would not be relying on a view beyond the project. We believe that each project is going to require all of those assessments to be done and brought through the planning process.

Obviously, An Bord Pleanála’s decision on the Galway road was not the right one.

Mr. Peter Walsh

I would not say that.

Legally, it was shown to be non-compliant with the climate Act.

Mr. Peter Walsh

And it was quashed.

Exactly. So, we would not rely on that assessment.

TII’s lists of projects are at various stages and at different phases of the public spending code. TII has presented information on what has been spent on projects, who the contractors are and what the projects are trying to achieve. Is it possible to conduct a high-level readthrough of those and say whether they are likely to reduce emissions or demand? A high-level indicator like that would assist us in-----

Mr. Peter Walsh

I am not sure I understand the Deputy’s question.

Can TII provide information on all of the projects in question in terms of their carbon emissions and the assessments that have been done on them? Is that information contained in the 113-page document?

Mr. Peter Walsh

It is not.

Does the Deputy mean he has not read it all?

Where does the Leas-Chathaoirleach think I went for an hour?

Mr. Peter Walsh

Very few of our projects do not require an environmental impact report as they move through the planning process. As part of that report, extensive studies are undertaken and there are extensive projections and measurements of impacts. However, we do not reach the point of having definitive figures until we are at the point of submitting to An Bord Pleanála. It would take a significant amount of work to reach the point where you can have definitive numbers of that nature, but it can be done. Many factors will affect it. One of the reasons I mentioned traffic management plans was because, for us, once a road is bypassed, it is no longer a national road. The development of traffic management within the urban area that we bypass is not something we would normally oversee. We now have a requirement as part of the project to develop a traffic management plan, but I cannot be definitive on the question of whether it achieves what can be achieved in terms of the promotion of active travel, the reduction of trips and so forth because it may not be our project.

That leads on to my next question. Let us say there is a proposal to bypass a town and TII puts together a traffic management plan. Freeing up the town from heavy goods vehicles or through traffic and increasing walkability, cyclability, permeability and so one are counted as positives of doing the bypass. It reduces short commute trips around the town because it is now a much more pleasant town to walk or cycle in, it is safer for kids going to school, etc.

Mr. Peter Walsh

Exactly. Up until now, we typically did not present the potential benefits that a bypass made available as something we were delivering because they were outside our remit. We have now been asked to consider those. It may well be that we can associate them with the project. In most of our projects, the benefits are largely assessed – the monetised ones certainly are – in terms of time savings and safety. The benefits that the Deputy described within the bypassed town are only marginally captured within the project’s business case.

That leads to my next question. Is there anything in TII's remit that needs to be changed, through current legislation, the guidance document or whatever else, in the terms of reference for whatever TII has? Does anything need to be changed there to allow TII to start to include, maybe in finer detail, information on emissions, induced amount or the societal benefit of bypassing a town rather than just time saved?

Mr. Peter Walsh

I think that if the scope of the project is acceptable from the Department of Transport's perspective, spending the taxpayers' money we are given within that element of the project becomes a sanctioned expenditure. My colleague, Mr. O'Neill, deals with the projects and is very good on appraisal so he might have some comments to make on what we could or should be looking at in terms of expanded remit.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

One category within the programme of new roads is bypasses, and the direction we have got from the Minister for bypass business is to develop those bypass projects with traffic management plans for the bypassed areas. That is with a view to facilitating reallocation of road space and so on, which will have the effect of promoting active travel and cycling within those bypassed urban areas, reducing vehicle trips because the road space will have been reduced. The stop-start traffic, which is very inefficient on the fuel emissions curve, is taken out of those towns and villages. At very low speeds there are many more emissions from the tailpipe. The heavy goods vehicles, HGVs, are taken out, as, therefore, are all the particulates they produce. The blind spots of HGVs are a safety issue. All those benefits-----

Is Mr. O'Neill dealing with the active travel budget now?

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

No. That is the new roads programme. That traffic management plan is enabled by the bypass. An explicit objective of that project is to achieve those benefits within the bypassed area, and we are in early-phase planning on that. It is a new approach for us but we are very energised and excited about it. It means more benefits for citizens using infrastructure.

I absolutely see the benefits of bypasses in certain locations to free up towns. I can think of one or two in my area that would benefit greatly from that. Do the witnesses think that, as part of the bypass budget or the cost of doing the bypass, it should be tied to the development in tandem of the active travel measures so we get both of them rather than the bypass going ahead and the town maybe not getting the other works done because they come out of an active travel budget or might fall to the local authority to implement?

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

There may be a timing issue there. I think this is all quite solvable. Mr. Walsh is right that it is a function of the Roads Act that when a national road has a bypass, the bit that is then bypassed automatically ceases to be a national road. Our vires changes-----

That was the issue, that speed limits on some of the roads were-----

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

Yes, things like that, but until the point in time when the bypass is complete, we still have a national road, so I think-----

An operational one.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

Yes, so I do not think that is a problem, really. We should just be very clear that until a certain date, the traffic management plan can be fairly and squarely within TII's oversight. This is, after all, the same pot of public money, whether it is overseen by the Department or by us. The Department oversees expenditure on local and regional roads. We should simply organise ourselves such that we are clear as to when we deliver things. Once we have delivered and created these facilities, it is no longer a national road.

Yes, and it is outside the remit of TII then. I understand Mr. O'Neill.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

It then falls fully within the local authority's remit but it will have been provided in the first place.

I will bring in Deputy O'Rourke, who wants to come back in.

Mr. Walsh referred in his opening statement to previous engagements with the committee. I remember we talked about some public service contracts and the deliverability of projects. I think he pointed in his closing remarks to three specific measures on which he thinks there is need for further progress. Will he expand on each of them? I think he touched on the first one, the alignment of stakeholders, but I ask him to expand on each of them because it would be helpful for members.

Mr. Peter Walsh

Sure. I compliment the committee on its engagement with issues we dealt with before, one being the legislation associated with the variable speed limits on the M50. Members visited the motorway operation centre and I think it helped to highlight the complexity of the legislation. I know the legislation-----

The variable speed limits are now finally on the M50. I saw them at the weekend for the first time.

Mr. Peter Walsh

We have been building them all along, but they were-----

They are now being used.

Mr. Peter Walsh

We have been using advisory speed limits, but the legislation was signed by the President last week so I think it is through.

The other element was - and this touches on the point about the contract that I was getting to - that we believe an equitable share of risk is desirable in public works contracts. Inflation had suddenly and dramatically increased, and in terms of some building products there were unprecedented levels of inflation. To expect the contractor simply to absorb those costs was so unfair as to make the contract form undesirable. We have seen fewer and fewer tenders for some competitions and we should be aware of that. We cannot build anything without contractors. We need people to actually go out and physically build the projects. We can have all the reports we like, but if the people do not go out and physically build the projects, we have nothing. We need to recognise that we cannot expect the contractors to take all the risk and tender competitively for it. We need a fairer form of contract. I think some move has been made in that regard. Certainly, there was a sharing of the impacts of inflation in a revision to the public works contract that was very welcome. It allowed us to move on the pavement programme last year where there was an unwillingness on the part of the pavement contractors to tender because they were so worried. In previous years, a three-month period would not have been a worry to them, but the way prices were going in terms of bituminous products, they were worried, so that helped.

We have a derogation from the Office of Government Procurement for the use of an internationally recognised contract, the new engineering contract, NEC, form of contract, for Cork to Ringaskiddy. Cork County Council, with our support, will commence the seeking of expressions of interest from contractors for that. It could be indicative of how attractive it is and how it is perceived within the industry because we need to do something about recognising that the industry is losing interest in building infrastructure for the State from the point of view of roads. There are other jurisdictions, and we have recently had some contractors whose corporate boards decided it really was not worth their while taking on the risk so they withdrew from competitions. In recognition of that, we would like to see more flexibility and fairness brought into contracts.

What does that look like? Would it mean more tweaks to the design of contracts in the sense that they have gone some way and need to go a bit further maybe?

Mr. Peter Walsh

It is a matter of recognising that the cost of constructing something has to be paid. The forms of contract, we believe, will bring more fairness to this, although it is more onerous in terms of administration. It is an open-book type arrangement whereby the costs are known and there is a certain margin of profit that a contractor can make on it. It requires a high level of diligence but I think we have demonstrated that over the years from the perspective of roads. We have always had a very high level of involvement and oversight on site and in the contracts, so we are not worried that we cannot deal with that.

I refer to having internationally recognised forms of contract that international contractors have been trained in and are comfortable with and their risk committees know what they are getting involved in. I know I said I was not going to talk about public transport projects, but this is one area we are looking after and where we believe the need to have this internationally recognised form of contract, with fair sharing of risks, is one the Office of Government Procurement has recognised and will support.

My other question concerns the suggestion regarding ensuring the alignment of stakeholders, especially State bodies and State-owned enterprises. Mr. Walsh touched on some of this earlier. He gave the example, and it is one I am familiar with, of EirGrid or ESB Networks coming to TII in this context. It was reported that TII was uneasy initially. This is probably some of what Mr. Walsh is reflecting generally. How is it possible to operationalise this need? There are overarching elements, whether Government policies or the direction of travel. Not everybody is on the same page. There is an almost inherent silo approach to these undertakings because everybody is busy and struggling to deliver on what they are responsible to deliver on. Does Mr. Walsh have any ideas around this? Do we tweak the mandates of groups? Do we have an overarching governing body? What does he think?

Mr. Peter Walsh

For us, for example, regarding the cables in the road element, a forum has been set up under an experienced person who was selected by ESB and EirGrid but accepted by ourselves as being somebody who understood what was required in terms of the construction of the new grid. We are very happy that this is bringing a fair assessment of where the problems are and how we would address them. This example could be used elsewhere.

What happened originally was that we were trying to engage in a consultation. In fairness to EirGrid, it was concerned about getting its planning approval and did not want to compromise what it felt was the line of least resistance or the one that was going to give it success in this endeavour. This approach involved putting the cable down a national road. Now, where we began to see some development and progress was an acceptance that to do this, there was a need to develop a detailed design and to work out exactly where these are going to be put. These are not small things. Every 750 m there is a box that is 2.5 m wide, 6 m long and 2.5 m deep. It is a big thing and it is going to have a significant impact on the road and the travelling public. It is necessary, therefore, to work out the detail of that in respect of how it will be possible to pass all the structures, maintain all the watercourses and ensure there will not be an impact on streams and rivers and structures that will be passed.

This has been worked through for the north Connacht interconnector. Work has also been done on the interconnector on the N25 in County Cork. This is a very important project for the country. We fully recognise this fact. We have been working with Cork County Council and EirGrid's contractor. We need to communicate jointly the understanding of the level of impact and disruption this project is going to cause for the 20,000 vehicles a day that use the N25 through there. Deputy O'Connor will be very familiar with this because it is passing by Castlemartyr and Killeagh. We must ensure we minimise the impact on the public, keep the road functioning and deliver.

What I am saying is that when we get into the detail of something like this project, we can see that protocols can be developed. We will just have to deal with it. There will be a cost to the State. If the Department of Transport understands that, the Government can then decide who is going to fund it, whether it will be the project or the roads budget, but we need to deal with this situation. Otherwise, we will be standing off and the planning process could be paralysed in the process.

Yes. Okay. I thank Mr. Walsh.

I call Deputy Matthews.

I will be brief. I wish to ask Mr. Walsh about road surfacing and noise reduction methods. Road surfacing is going on along the N11 through my constituency now. I have got increased reports from people about noise levels on the N11 and I think this may be to do with Rosslare Europort and increased traffic to it. Is there any such thing as a low-noise surface that can be applied when a road surface is being relayed or restored?

Mr. Peter Walsh

Yes. Certain surfaces will reduce noise-----

We have some in Stillorgan now. I have had compliments about it.

Mr. Peter Walsh

Very good.

In fact, I had a query from Drumcondra concerning its installation there because it was so effective in Stillorgan. It certainly exists, therefore.

Mr. Peter Walsh

My colleague, Mr. Maher, is quite expert on the subject of what is achievable in respect of the noise reduction of vehicles.

Mr. Pat Maher

I am generally aware though perhaps not expert. There are different surfaces. We have lower noise surfacing. I do not think there are any surfacings we would describe as "low noise". There are, however, definitely differences in respect of the various surfacings we use in respect of performance. As the Leas-Chathaoirleach said, the works being done on the N11, on the Stillorgan Road section of the project, are on a very old surfacing. It was a rough-textured surfacing called hot rolled asphalt, HRA. It is being replaced by another surfacing, stone mastic asphalt, SMA, which in the context of an urban area, in particular, is very appropriate. There are trade-offs in terms of the different surfaces. For example, the surfacing being laid on the N11 now, the SMA, is probably in the longer term not as durable as the kind of surfacing we would see more typically nowadays in rural areas.

It is like a plush carpet rather than a hard carpet. It is different.

Mr. Pat Maher

It is something like that. It is certainly something to which we are giving more consideration nowadays. We would not necessarily see the use, especially in rural areas, of the lower-noise SMA as being automatically a panacea. I refer to us deciding to use this everywhere. I say this because we must, of course, have regard to the degree to which we are able to afford future renewals, maintenance and reinstatement of the surface. There are, however, differences. In sensitive locations - I am not quite sure where in particular the Deputy has in mind concerning the N11 - this issue is certainly given consideration. We have not gone and would be reluctant to go to the point of saying we are going to forget about the rougher surfaces and we will stick to the lower-noise surface. We find that the lower-noise surfaces are more generally available.

Mr. Peter Walsh

Additionally, we run a programme of pavement rehabilitation that is determined by the condition of the pavement. We do not operate resurfacing or the use of lower-noise surfacing to mitigate a noise issue that might exist. Our focus is on the road network, pavement health and achieving appropriate health levels on the pavement.

Sure. When resurfacing is being undertaken, all the factors are considered. The surface being relayed that I spoke about is down around junction 12 or 13. This was just a question that came into me. I turn now to a budget for noise mitigation measures. Let us forget about taking resurfacing as a noise mitigation measure. When roads are constructed, baffles or deflectors are often put up. When traffic has increased on a roadway, and it has increased on the N11, does TII have a budget to retrofit noise mitigation measures?

Mr. Peter Walsh

No.

Mr. Peter Walsh

Noise is also a public health issue. It is a complicated issue and the Environmental Protection Agency is the entity identified as the appropriate one to assess the consequences and mitigation of environmental noise. I would like to be clear that it is not a matter for TII.

Mr. Peter Walsh

Our role in this is as a mapping authority. We undertake the noise mapping for all the national roads captured within the provisions of the legislation as regards noise mapping.

The obligation on us under the regulations is to make that information available to the local authorities and it sits with the local authorities as the entities responsible for implementing the appropriate noise action plans.

The local authorities are responsible for the environmental protection relating to noise based on the mapping-----

Mr. Pat Maher

Based on the mapping that we provide to them. That is as it stands at the moment.

That is great. I thank the witnesses.

I could probably keep going but I think I will give us all a break. There is an awful lot in the witnesses' documents and their opening statement. We covered an awful lot of different issues. It can be seen from the number of members contributing, despite what might be happening in the room next door, that plenty of them are very interested in what is happening and what the witnesses are doing on behalf of all of us and on behalf of the public.

Mr. Peter Walsh

I might just mention one thing. Deputy O'Connor inquired about a project on the N25. The location he referred to is covered by the project N25 Midleton to Youghal. The update on that is contained within the document. He mentioned Castlemartyr and Killeagh but they fall within the scope of the N25 Midleton to Youghal project. I hope that is a sufficient reply. The information is there. We are happy to provide more information but I think that addresses the issue he was raising.

As people have acknowledged, TII is not inaccessible to members as a body and we appreciate that. I thank all the witnesses and members for being here this afternoon.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.12 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 July 2023.
Top
Share