Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport debate

Roads Infrastructure Programme: Discussion.

Chairman

I remind members, witnesses and people in the Public Gallery to turn off their mobile telephones as distinct from flight or silent mode, as they interfere with the broadcasting equipment. We now turn to consideration of the issue of the roads infrastructure programme. I welcome the witnesses to the meeting and thank them for their attendance.

I welcome Mr. Ray O'Leary and Mr. Dominic Mullaney from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and Mr. Michael Nolan, Mr. Peter Walsh, Mr. Pat Maher and Mr. Nigel O'Neill from Transport Infrastructure Ireland. I thank them for appearing before the committee today. I thank the officials who are in attendance with them. The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss issues relating to Ireland's roads infrastructure programme. The opening statements have been circulated to members.

In accordance with procedure, I am required to advise the witnesses that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. 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 the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I remind our guests that their presentations should be no more than five minutes in duration. I invite Mr. Ray O'Leary from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to make his opening statement.

Mr. Ray O'Leary

I thank the Chairman and the members of the joint committee for the invitation to attend today's meeting. The Republic of Ireland has a public road network of more than 99,000 km, some 5,400 km of which comprises national roads with the remainder comprising regional or local roads. The chief executive of Transport Infrastructure Ireland, Mr. Michael Nolan, is here today to address issues relating to national roads. My colleague and I hope to address matters pertaining to regional and local roads. Expenditure on regional and local roads has decreased from more than €600 million in 2008 to less than €300 million in recent years. Unfortunately, the latter amount falls well short of what is required to maintain the network as estimated under the strategic framework for investment in land transport. A recent survey, which was based on limited data, suggested that the backlog of repairs increased from €3 billion in 2005 to more than €10 billion in 2016.

The Department has two main grant programmes to cater for major schemes separately from maintenance. The specific grant programme covers projects costing €5 million or less and the strategic grant programme covers projects costing more than €5 million. To maximise the moneys available for maintenance, a limited fund of just over €10 million is available this year for these two grant programmes. This represents a decrease on the €170 million that was available for them in 2008. While the capital plan allows for investment of €140 million in such programmes over the period from 2016 to 2022, much of this money is being provided in the later years of the plan. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport has indicated that he intends to make a strong case for additional funding for the transport sector under the upcoming review of the capital plan. Local improvement schemes relate to works on private roads, while community involvement schemes relate to works on public roads. It is still possible for local authorities to undertake both types of scheme, but such a decision needs to be made at local level because money is no longer ring-fenced for such works. The programme for Government indicates that as the economy recovers, the Government will promote increased funding for regional and local roads. The Minister has indicated that the issue of increased funding will be raised in the context of the capital plan review.

The committee asked us to speak about the impact of Brexit on cross-Border projects. Commitments regarding the A5 are governed by the Stormont House agreement and implementation plan, known as the Fresh Start agreement, which reaffirms the Government's commitment to provide funding of £50 million for the A5 project and an additional £25 million to ensure the first phase of the project, from Newbuildings to north of Strabane, can commence as soon as the necessary planning issues have been resolved by the authorities in Northern Ireland. Options for the proposed Narrow Water Bridge are under discussion by a group of senior officials. An update in respect of both projects will be presented to the upcoming plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council, which is scheduled for 18 December. I will be happy to address any questions from members of the committee.

The committee also asked us to comment on the national mitigation plan, which is very distinct from the roads topics we are discussing today. At the moment, there is no transport element of the plan per se, although there will be in due course. Therefore, it might be more fruitful for the committee to consider the issue at a later stage when the draft national mitigation plan is out for consultation and we have a document about which to talk. I am always happy to help the committee and I can refer the matter to my colleagues from our climate change division who are present if the committee wishes, but I suggest it might be a more fruitful use of the committee's time to leave the-----

Chairman

What is the anticipated timeframe for the national mitigation plan?

Mr. Ray O'Leary

A draft plan will be produced for consultation before the end of the year. It is probably a topic that could be better discussed with some of my colleagues, including officials from the public transport division. I am open to proceeding as the committee wishes.

Chairman

I propose that we note Mr. O'Leary's suggestion as a committee and that we discuss it in private session at a later date. Is that agreed? Agreed. I thank Mr. O'Leary and invite Mr. Michael Nolan to make his opening statement.

Mr. Michael Nolan

I thank the Chairman for inviting us to attend today's meeting. Before I move on to the matters the committee has asked us to address, I would like to make some introductory remarks about Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII. It was established under the Roads Act 2015, which provided for the merger of the staff and functions of the Railway Procurement Agency with those of the National Roads Authority. The name Transport Infrastructure Ireland was specified by the Minister as the name by which the NRA may describe itself for operational purposes. TII is a non-commercial semi-State body that operates under the aegis of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. Its primary purpose is to provide an integrated approach to the development, maintenance and operation of the national road network and light rail infrastructure.

I will now address specific matters of interest which come under the remit of TII. Funding for national road maintenance and renewal has reduced severely since the onset of the financial crisis in 2008. Maintenance funding decreased by approximately 35% between 2008 and 2016 against a background of significant additional commitments in the maintenance of the new motorway network and more costly winter operations. The costs associated with the safe and effective operation of the motorway network are significantly higher than those for other road types. Although modernised roads are much safer for road users, we have to ensure levels of safety and operational efficiency are maintained. Road pavement, which constitutes a substantial portion of the road asset, is valued at approximately €30 billion. We estimate that the current level of investment in pavement renewals is less than one third of that required to sustain the pavement condition in the long term. We should be replacing approximately 400 km of road pavement annually, but we are not doing so. If we continue to defer essential renewals, the cost will ultimately exceed significantly what would be incurred if the works were carried out in a timely manner.

TII's strategy for the improvement of the national road network is determined with regard to three strategic priorities: asset management, network rehabilitation and operations; minor and safety works; and major improvement projects. This approach is consistent with the priorities for future investment outlined in the strategic investment framework for land transport, published by the Department last year. As I have mentioned, a key consideration is to achieve steady-state maintenance of the road network by allocating available funding to priority needs. This prevents the degradation of the asset and ensures the benefits of the road infrastructure are realised. The second priority relates to minor improvement works, the benefits of which relate to the safety and efficiency of the road network. Minor works are typically short realignments or safety improvements. The current construction programme of realignments will end soon. While approximately 50 other schemes of this nature are at various stages of planning, none of them can proceed to construction in the short term. Major schemes are considered in the context of the funding needs for the first two priorities and the infrastructure and capital investment plan. TII considers the future needs of the national roads network in the context of the anticipated demand associated with economic and population growth, road safety, improvements in accessibility to the regions and integration with other policies.

The capital investment plan provides for the construction of eight major national road projects and identifies five other projects to be progressed to construction subject to planning. The total investment is €730 million, with 90% of this spread over the last three years of the seven-year plan. This funding profile dictates the date on which construction will start. Most projects will start construction after 2019, with the exception of the widening of the M7 at Naas. TII's strategy is to advance enabling works during the early years of the seven-year plan.

Under the public private partnerships, PPP, programme three new roads are being delivered. These are the M17 Gort to Tuam motorway, the N25 New Ross bypass and the M11 Gorey to Enniscorthy motorway. While these schemes are on target and are set to deliver significant benefits and value for money, roads are not included in the next phase of the PPP programme.

Should additional funding be allocated following the mid-term review of the plan TII will look at the potential to accelerate certain projects, the construction of additional projects and the planning of others, including the upgrade of the strategic connection between Cork and Limerick. As it can take five years to achieve planning approval for a major roads project we risk having a shortage of approved projects for inclusion in any new capital investment plan. Failure to respond to future needs will lead to increased congestion, longer and less reliable journey times, less safe roads, higher costs and suppressed economic activity.

I wish to refer to the North-South transport infrastructure area. The only cross-Border national route planned at the moment is the link crossing the River Foyle between Lifford and Strabane. The construction of the link is conditional on the construction of the A5 at Strabane. At the southern end of the A5 there will be a need to agree details where the new A5 meets the N2. As that section of the A5 will not be built for some years, neither Monaghan County Council nor the TII is actively engaged with Transport Northern Ireland on the crossing.

There are other national road initiatives in the Border area that do not involve a crossing. Donegal County Council is commencing the preparation of the design of a number of priority schemes. It is also progressing the construction of a number of minor realignment projects. Leitrim County Council will shortly open another realigned section of the N16 at Cornacloy. Monaghan County Council has completed a number of short upgrade schemes on the N2. In County Louth, land for the N52 Ardee link road has been purchased but funding is not available for construction.

I have kept my opening remarks brief. We are happy to answer questions on any scheme and matters of interest. If we do not have the information requested to hand we will follow up with a written statement.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Nolan and call Deputy Fitzpatrick.

Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick

I thank Mr. Nolan for his presentation. He has stated that all the lands have been purchased for the N52 bypass in Ardee. Can he outline when this badly needed bypass will be started? I have stated many times previously the need for Ardee to have the bypass. The town comes to a standstill on a daily basis due to the high level of traffic and the situation is getting worse. It is vital for Ardee's town centre that the bypass is completed in the near future. Mr. Nolan stated in his opening remarks that "we risk having a shortage of approved projects for inclusion in any new capital investment plan." I urge his organisation to include the Ardee bypass as a priority project.

I would appreciate if Mr. Nolan would give me an update on the Narrow Water Bridge project. I would also like an update on the funding promised by the Irish Government towards the A45 motorway in Northern Ireland, particularly in the light of the UK's decision to withdraw from the EU. Should circumstances for the A5 change and our commitment to provide funding no longer be required, am I right in saying that the €75 million promised by the Irish Government can be used on projects in the South?

Figures show that national roads comprise only 6% of the total network yet carry 45% of all traffic; regional roads account for 13% of the total network and carry 30% of all traffic; and local roads account for 81% of the total network. As the delegations will know, funding for local roads has been slashed dramatically over the past number of years. In my own county of Louth the current state of the local roads network is a matter of great concern. In my opinion the local improvements scheme was worthwhile and allowed for investment in these roads. The majority of local authorities have opted not to allocate funding for the schemes and instead concentrate on funding public roads. Is it possible to get a breakdown of the local authorities that have availed of the scheme? Can I have a breakdown of the local authorities that have availed of the community investment scheme?

Deputy Imelda Munster

I apologise for arriving late. I missed Mr. O'Leary's statement but heard Mr. Nolan's statement, which makes for a depressing read. I made a few notes about the TII's statement.

My first concern is about where the A5 meets the N2. Mr. Nolan has said that the TII is not actively engaged with Transport Northern Ireland. Why? Mr. Chris Hazzard is the Minister for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland. He has given a commitment that the A5 project will proceed. In the original St. Andrews Agreement a sum of £400 million was committed to the project by the Northern Ireland Government and Department at the time. I do not know whether the TII has requested a meeting with the Minister for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland. If not, why not? He has actively sought a meeting with his counterpart in the Republic but to no avail. I seek an update on the A5 project. Can a commitment be given that the project will be included in the mid-term review?

Like Deputy Fitzpatrick, I wish to refer to the land purchased for the Ardee bypass. Why has the project been delayed? A delay makes no sense. Can the project be included in the mid-term review? Can it be progressed to the next stage? One often hears that a project has been delayed because the land has yet to be purchased or the project is only at the planning stage. It makes no sense to have the land sitting idle and waiting for the project to proceed.

I wish to highlight the minuscule additional funding provided for the regional and local roads issue. Such minuscule funding will ensure the continued deterioration of our roads. An additional €25 million is less then €1 million per local authority. I remember the Chief Executive of Louth County Council said two years ago that funding was so dire that the local authority had to prioritise which potholes to fill. The amount of additional funding does not give us hope. If one does not maintain roads it costs more in the long term. Inadequate funding has a knock-on effect on everything else, not just the upkeep and maintenance of roads but safety measures and realignment projects, etc. fall by the wayside.

Mr. Nolan said that 90% of capital funding would arrive in the latter years. There is nothing new in his statement but I do not blame him personally. Its a complete and utter farce that we must accept a lack of funding and the dire state of national, regional and local roads. Unfortunately, the status quo will remain for the foreseeable future. Can the witnesses guarantee there will be increased funding for all of these projects in the mid-term review?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Do the witnesses have a set of multipliers that show the impact of not investing in the roads network? Is it staggered over one year, three years and five years, for example? Obviously it costs more to carry out significant pieces of work.

A lack of funding will also have an impact on the capital plan. I presume that the European Investment Bank will be one of the funding sources. The money will have to be paid back but it is quite cheap to borrow at the moment.

Is it more likely an argument could be made to exceed the amount we are permitted to borrow if it assisted with climate change mitigation? Would it be more likely to be permitted if we were borrowing for, for example, rail development, particularly in urban centres? I am thinking of the DART underground project which would result in a significant volume of traffic being taken off the roads and which would also address the congestion issue, insurance costs and go some way towards meeting our climate change targets.

I am surprised to hear the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport is not doing a sectoral plan in its own right because I had understood that it was going to do so but now it is going to be reflected in the national plan. Given transport is one of the three big areas in terms of climate change targets, I would have thought it required that attention in its own right. We could take action on the area of transport but it would be more difficult to make progress on agriculture. The witnesses might reflect on that.

Funding for the A5 road project was committed in the context of us being part of the Single Market and in the context of the peace process. It would be strange if we made that investment and then found there to be a Border post at the end of that road towards the cost of which we had made a contribution. That aspect would be quite useful in terms of hearing what the attitude is or if there are discussions taking place on that. Clearly, we are now in a very changed environment from the one that prevailed when the commitment to that funding was made. Normalisation of movement between the North and the South is terrific and we do not want to see that damaged. The lack of focus on that normalisation of movement during the Brexit campaign was quite disrespectful. I would like to hear what the witnesses have to say on that.

Senator Pádraig Ó Céidigh

I thank Mr. Ray O'Leary and Mr. Michael Nolan for their presentations. I have two brief questions. Will they provide the committee with an outline of their overall strategy for investment in national, regional and local roads and how they will spend the very limited financial resources available? What is their thinking and assessment model for doing that? That is my first question on their assessment criteria.

My second question follows on from a very good point made by my colleague, Deputy Catherine Murphy. Finance was never as cheap as it is now. It is time for us to consider borrowing again now that we have such low interest rates. What opportunities are there, through the EU mechanisms, to raise finance for this urgent and important infrastructural need? We appear to be contributing to creating a hard Border under Brexit rather than anything else. That is through no fault of anybody around this table, rather it is because we do not have the resources for it. Therefore, we need to expand our resources. My first question relates to how are we utilising our existing resources. How do the witnesses assess and decide what money goes where? My second question relates to securing extra financing and funding. I have one further question. It relates to the bypass or the ring road around Galway. If the witnesses have any up-to-date information on that, I would appreciate it.

Chairman

The next speaker is Senator Feighan. Before we proceed, I wish to convey the congratulations of the committee to the Senator on the birth of his baby daughter, Francesca, at the weekend. I thought he looked a little tired this morning coming into the meeting. He had better get used to that.

Senator Frank Feighan

I thank the Chairman for that compliment. I am looking forward to it. That compliment was a gift from him.

I left Boyle, which is in the north west, at 5.30 this morning. If I drive from Galway, Belfast or from any other part of the island, there is access to a motorway or a dual carriageway. In the case of the N4, N5, N3 and N2 there is no motorway extending beyond Mullingar or Kinnegad. What will be done about that? There is a dual carriageway in Leitrim but we want to open up the north west, especially in the context of cross-Border co-operation. I welcome the funding for the A5. When I left Boyle at 5.30 a.m. the traffic was not bad, but if one travels that road after 7 a.m. or 8 a.m., it takes more than an hour to travel from Boyle to Mullingar. It is an issue if we want to open up access to the west. What is happening about that?

We have spoken about cross-Border routes and I want to focus on the N16 between the west and Belfast. Other speakers mentioned other routes which are also important. The N16 route comprises 10 km in Sligo, 30 km in Leitrim and 7 km in Cavan. Some work has been done on it but it needs to be upgraded in the context of cross-Border co-operation. I am concerned that no works are taking place on the A4 between Belcoo and Enniskillen. It could take an hour to drive through Enniskillen.

I was Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and, with respect to the Good Friday Agreement and cross-Border co-operation, it involves not only the North and the South but also the east and the west. More needs to be done there. I am not blaming the witnesses but I am seeking their views on this and it probably also would involve a political decision on both sides.

We need to consider the upgrading of national secondary routes. No money has been spent on national secondary routes during the past 25 years. I can understand that the focus was on upgrading all the national primary routes. Many of those have been upgraded and we now need to consider the national secondary routes. I will be parochial again and point to some works that have been done on the N61 between Boyle and the county town of Roscommon. It links the N4 to the N5 and to the N6. It makes sense to link Roscommon town with Athlone and to link Boyle with Roscommon town. It makes sense to have that arterial link from the north west to the south east. The witnesses may contradict me on that, and I do not mind if they do, but it is an aspect we need to examine. Instead of a few million euro being provided to remove one or two bends, we need to consider upgrading the national secondary routes.

I wish to ask about a bypass project. There is major traffic congestion in Carrick-on-Shannon, the county town in Leitrim, at the weekends with people travelling from Sligo to Dublin on a Friday. It could take 45 to 50 minutes to get through Carrick-on-Shannon. With all the rivers and lakes in the area, there is only one route through it. How long will it take for the completion of the proposed bypass around Carrick-on-Shannon, a project which I know is not shovel ready?

Chairman

The next speaker is Deputy Sherlock to be followed by Senator Kieran O'Donnell.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

I note with interest Mr. Nolan's submission, especially where he refers to the capital investment programme, saying, "Should additional funding be allocated following the mid-term review of the plan, TII will look at the potential to accelerate certain projects, the construction of additional projects and the planning of others, including the upgrade of the strategic connection between Cork and Limerick." In the context of the Government's Action Plan for Jobs and regional economic growth and development, the Cork to Limerick corridor, or the Atlantic corridor as it was known previously, is a vital link because there are more than 300,000 jobs earmarked for that region in the action plan.

Is the M20 being actively considered in discussions between Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and the Minister in terms of ensuring that the project, which is so vital to the economic and social interests of the people in the south, south west and west, is progressed? Is there any potential for money to be made available on the basis of the submission that has been made to this committee? The witnesses have said that it can take five years to achieve planning approval for major roads projects. They also said that we risk having a shortage of approved projects for inclusion in any new capital investment plan. Failure to respond to future needs will lead to increased congestion. Reading between the lines, TII is sending a signal that this project is vital and that funding is required to get it through planning or at least to the first phase. I am not talking about an entire package of funding for absolute completion but funding to at least progress the project. Is there a funding line for that project?

Under the previous capital investment plan announced by the last Government there was a specific reference to the relief road for Mallow. As everyone knows, Mallow forms part of the M20 corridor. The people of Mallow and north Cork want to know when they can expect to see that work starting. They also want to know if TII, the Department and the Minister are considering the question of dovetailing the two projects. How will the two projects coalesce?

There is an understanding on all sides of the need for the M20 Cork to Limerick project. That is understood by everybody in an apolitical sense but the question is, "When?". The submission to the committee today suggests that a political decision on funding will be vital in order to get the project off the starting blocks.

I want to acknowledge the constructive engagement I have had with TII on national secondary roads. Notwithstanding the dearth of funding that is available for such roads there have been some improvements to the N72 and the N73 in the north Cork area of late. However, further funding is required for these roads. There is a serious public safety issue, particularly with regard to the Mallow to Mitchelstown link which serves as a corridor west of Mallow for connectivity onward to Dublin. It is a vital transport corridor but there are parts of that national secondary road that are so narrow that two lorries trying to pass each other would have to slow down to 5 kmph to do so safely. I am making the case for further investment from a road safety point of view and ask that this be actively considered and prioritised in the TII budget line in co-operation with Cork County Council.

To reiterate my earlier point, if it takes five years to achieve planning approval for major road projects such as the M20 then we need a signal now from TII that it is engaging with the Department on the Cork to Limerick section of the route. We need to see some progress made.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell

I welcome the witnesses. I wish to deal specifically with the upgrade of the Limerick to Cork motorway, the M20. In his submission, Mr. Nolan referred to "the construction of additional projects and the planning of others, including the upgrade of the strategic connection between Cork and Limerick". I have raised this issue on numerous occasions in the Seanad with the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Ross. As recently as 6 October I asked that the Minister would engage with Mr. Michael Nolan of TII to determine what work had been done on the previous M20 project which was suspended in November 2011. I wish to compliment the Minister and his officials, particularly Mr. Dominic Mullaney and Mr. Nolan from TII for their work in this regard.

I understand that the Minister has given approval to reactivate the planning process on the M20. In that context, I ask Mr. Nolan to elaborate on how the process will be reactivated, the various stages involved and the cost. My understanding is that it will cost in the order of €1 million. I very much welcome this initiative because the project was suspended for five years. It has now been given the green light and it is important that it gets moving prior to the mid-term review of the capital programme so that no time is lost. Over the next few months there will be re-engagement on the planning process to determine what was done up to November 2011 and work will begin on preparing a brief for the appointment of strategic consultants. I seek details from Mr. Nolan and from Mr. Mullaney and his departmental colleague Mr. O'Leary on how this process will work. I am delighted for Limerick and Cork that the M20 motorway is back on the live agenda again with TII and the Department. I am particularly interested in the timeframe involved. How long will it take to re-engage in the planning process and how much work will be done prior to the aforementioned mid-term review? What are the costs involved? I ask the witnesses to give an outline of how long a project like the M20 will take. Reference was made in communications to me to five stages, the first of which is the approval to commence the early planning activity, which will run to €1 million. The second is the approval to commence planning and design, which will run to between €12 million and €15 million. Next is the business case by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and then the approval to submit to An Bord Pleanála and purchase the land, which is estimated to cost €150 million to €180 million. The final stage is construction, which will cost in the region of €600 million.

I ask the witnesses to give the committee an outline of where we are at. This is very positive for the M20 project, which I have been working on for a long time with the Minister, the Department and Mr. Nolan from TII. I am looking for the specifics on progressing this vital infrastructural project for the development of the mid-west, southern and western regions as a counter pull to Dublin.

Senator John O'Mahony

I will be brief because most of the points I intended to raise have already been covered. I thank the Department and TII for their presentations. They have provided stark figures on the reduction in funding since the economic crash in 2008. To see the figures on paper is confirmation of what we have all seen around the country in recent years.

The witnesses made reference to a number of specific projects about which I have some questions. They also spoke about a shortage of projects down the line because of the lead-in time that is needed. I ask for an update on the motorway project from Gort to Tuam. When will that be completed and opened? In the context of what was said about the shortage of projects going forward, or future planning, what needs to happen next for the rest of that project to be completed, that is, the road from Tuam to Claremorris and on to Sligo?

The other road of concern is the N5 from Strokestown to Castlebar, particularly the Ballaghaderreen part of it, which is the black spot on that major route. Senator Feighan would be well aware of this issue.

Chairman

If I may, I will also put a few issues to the witnesses before the responses. The first is specific to the Department and TII. I am not sure if other members have encountered this, but when we table parliamentary questions to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport and they are referred to TII for reply, increasingly, and particularly of late, I have noticed that we tend to receive very much a copy-and-paste response in which even the specific question is no longer referred to. At the very least, I expect that there should be a reference to the question that was asked in the response we get in the letters sent back to us. This is quite important for the sake of housekeeping. For the sake of parliamentary accountability, responses should come directly from the Minister. For that matter, there is far too much delegation in this regard. We have the same issue with responses from the Department of Health and the HSE. We are where we are, as the saying goes, but I expect at least when answers are sought that the responses sent to Deputies should be a little more detailed and should at least refer to the questions asked so that we know in our offices which questions are being responded to. I ask that this happen.

Another matter I would like to raise regarding accident data is how TII decides what is and is not a priority project. It is a very reactive system. I am sure most of the members here can recall cases in which public representatives, whether councillors, Deputies, Senators or MEPs, have raised with TII cases of specific concern that they have heard of on the ground, but "the computer says no" because the data or the number of accidents is not high enough. Then an accident occurs at the particular location and all the public representatives say "we told you so". There is an over-reliance on the data. Cognisance needs to be taken of public representatives' continual and repeated calls for action in certain areas. There is not enough listening in this regard. A revert to process is the default response. There needs to be a little give and take. Not to be parochial, but I will point to examples in Kerry. The Killarney bypass junctions with Lewis Road and Madam's Hill and the Tralee-Killarney road are just two examples in very close proximity to each other that public representatives constantly raise, but the TII and the Department respond that they are not an issue. These are examples where the process needs to be tweaked. I would like to know the witnesses' views on them.

I wish to raise another issue that causes much ill-will on the ground, namely, the fact that TII takes successful applications to local authorities for planning permission to An Bord Pleanála because of planning applications on national secondary routes or other roads under TII's remit. There needs to be a more common-sense approach to this, and each case needs to be treated on its individual merits. Again, I know of cases - for example, on the N72 east of Killarney, a wide, straight section of road - in which family members are seeking to use existing entrances. One case concerns the relative of an elderly farmer who has inherited a farm and who wants to live on the farm, keep the community alive and look after that elderly person. Their case has been frustrated for years because of NRA and TII objections. I have been to the area in question to examine the situation and the logistics. TII's actions make no sense in this case. As a result of the blanket approach to it, real people are being victimised and their lives are being put on hold. I would like to know the witnesses' views on this. Will they engage with people in a more constructive way as distinct from the default response to the effect that local authorities have the discretion to make allowances for such cases? That is not working on the ground for people, and this needs to be addressed.

I also add my voice of support to what is a very important regional project, namely, the M20, which needs to be examined. Regarding the choice of preferred routes, if one looks at the map of the plans, there is the possible M20 route, but is the M8 and its proximity to Limerick also an option? There are always local concerns about areas being far away from the proposed motorway and so on, but are all options being considered? What is the current situation? We have seen cases in the past number of years in which motorways were built parallel to each other where mathematically it might have been more affordable to choose a different route and have one motorway instead of two running parallel in relative proximity to each other.

Why did we not see any significant increase in the Department's allocation in this year's budget? What efforts were made at departmental level to increase the Department's allocation for 2017? Much of the feedback I have received since the budget has centred on a sense of disappointment that other Departments scored much higher and more strongly than the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. It is an issue of concern among many representatives. What is the situation in this regard? One of the issues being conveyed from the ground up to representatives is that of the real schemes such as local improvement schemes. We are told no funding is available for the last kilometre to many people's homes in rural communities in particular. What is the situation in this regard?

The N22 Ballyvourney-Macroom bypass is in the capital plan, which is a huge step forward. The matter had been neglected for many years by successive Governments. My understanding now is that a recent tender has issued for the fencing off of the corridor for the road. Could the witnesses confirm if this is the case? This is a massively important project for the region. As a Kerry Deputy, I would say it could be the greatest socio-economic development for us for many decades. I see it as a priority and hope that the mid-term review will see an acceleration of the project, which is nearly shovel-ready, as the witnesses will be aware.

I also ask for an update on the N69 and the Dingle relief road, which are also in the capital plan. My colleague, councillor Séamus Cosaí Fitzgerald, has been constantly lobbying on the issue of the Dingle relief road, as the witnesses will be aware, and he is very anxious for news on it. The road is now on the Wild Atlantic Way and therefore, like many towns along the western seaboard, flooded with traffic. Dingle in particular is choked with traffic. The relief road would not only take traffic related to heavy fishing industry out of the town, but also provide additional parking, which has become a huge issue in Dingle and, I am sure, in other towns throughout the country.

I ask Mr. O'Leary to respond first and Mr. Nolan after him.

Mr. Ray O'Leary

The committee has raised a wide range of issues. In general, I will leave it to my colleagues in Transport Infrastructure Ireland to address questions about specific national routes and some of the policies of TII. I will try to address the questions that relate to regional and local roads and perhaps some of the more general operational policies that apply.

Deputy Fitzpatrick raised the Narrow Water bridge. As noted in my opening statement, the two relevant Departments continue to engage with each other to develop options for the development of the project and are also engaging very closely with local stakeholders, North and South.

Following the last meeting with the local stakeholders it was agreed that the two Departments would develop criteria to assess the options that might be available. The Deputy will be aware that a specific option was developed previously. However, when it went to tender it was found that the cost was significantly in excess of the funding available at the time. The important point is to produce options aimed at addressing the priorities of local communities in terms of developing tourism and some of the specific traffic-related issues around Newry. We hope to come back to the local stakeholders in the new year with criteria that could be used to evaluate the various options.

Deputy Munster raised the question of the Narrow Water Bridge. There is a wider funding issue. The principal challenge continues to be the fiscal constraints faced by the Government and the many competing resources. The work of the Department in preparing the strategic framework on investment was critical to providing an evidence base for putting the case for increased investment. A number of Deputies and Senators have made points about the value of maintaining the asset base we have. It has been the experience globally that many countries which would be perceived as having gold-standard infrastructure have not continued to invest in its maintenance and now face significant challenges and competitive disadvantages because of this. One of the questions raised related to the priorities in terms of national, regional and local roads. Our priority is to get back to a position, as early as possible, in the capital plan whereby we do not face a deteriorating national infrastructure with the associated implications for national competitiveness, regional development and safety. It is critical to maintain the asset base we have and then to add some of the key or critical links that I referred to in the capital plan. They will serve similar objectives.

Sometimes I suffer from being unable to read my own handwriting. Can you remind me if I have forgotten anything, Chairman?

Chairman

There will be an opportunity for Members to come back in. Do not worry about it.

Mr. Ray O'Leary

Deputy Catherine Murphy referred to sources of funding. Irrespective of the source of funding, the basic elements of the fiscal framework remain in place at European level. The committee will have to forgive me because this is outside the general area of roads, but my understanding is that the European Investment Bank has environmentally-related goals among its priorities in the context of various projects, including those related to climate change. Although that may be the case, we will be constrained by the overall level of borrowing available, irrespective of the source.

It has been the experience that apparently clever ways of getting off-balance-sheet seldom turn out to be that clever in the long run. The key criteria for decisions on investment will remain the same. We continue to work closely with the European Investment Bank to identify opportunities where the bank can assist in appropriate investments.

Deputy Murphy also referred to the national mitigation plan. It is a national mitigation plan that will include agricultural sectoral elements, as well as transport. The framework set by the legislation is for a national mitigation plan, but with the sectoral elements put together. Clearly, when we are considering the question of emissions, it is the overall impact of emissions that is most important. We are working on making our contribution to that plan. The consultation process will be critical. We hope to have it published before the end of the year as a draft. The Government is committed to publication of the draft before Christmas. Separate inputs are being prepared by those in the agriculture, built environment and power generation sectors. The process is being led by the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment. Clearly, this is challenging. We continue to work on the preparation of the transport contribution to be put together with the rest.

There are some ancillary initiatives. The Minister launched a public consultation initiative last week to develop a draft national policy framework on alternative fuels infrastructure with a view to removing barriers that exist towards greater uptake of low-emissions vehicles. Profound changes to transport systems will be required if we are to contribute to our national policy vision of a low-carbon economy. Indeed, it is fair to say that many of the possible tools to support that goal are not necessarily at the disposal of the Department. This will require a whole-of-Government effort and will require looking at it from a fiscal and economic framework. This will not only be about transport. Land use and planning will contribute to a low-carbon future in the transport sector as well. These are significant challenges and we are trying to be part of it at national level.

Some general points were made. Senator Ó Céidigh mentioned the framework for investment. I have referred to that. Our first priority is to ensure that we do not lose the infrastructure we have, although I have noted that there are gaps. Deputies and Senators have referred to several of these gaps. A point was made about finance as well. I will leave it to my colleagues to discuss national roads.

Reference was made to the mid-term review of the capital plan. It is not possible to give guarantees at this point, simply because the process is really only starting next year. The process will be led by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The terms of the capital plan have not yet been set, never mind the position relating to the kind of resources that might be available. There continue to be many competing resources.

The committee members will be aware of the increased level of global economic uncertainty. It is not only a question of resources in terms of capital expenditure. Current expenditure is relevant as well, especially in light of the completing demands around social services like health and education, as well as the challenging situation in respect of housing. We will be making a robust case. We will highlight the critical nature of transport infrastructure to our national competitiveness in a more challenging economic environment.

The Chairman mentioned the additional resources made available this year. Ultimately, decisions on allocations to Departments are a matter for Government and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. While it is not possible for me to comment on the priorities, clearly, a range of other national priorities exist. Additional funding has been made available to the Department. We have been a strong Department in case-making for additional resources if they become available over the course of the year. Significant additional resources were secured earlier this year to address storm damage. We always end up looking as if we have done worse when comparing the allocation for the year coming to the out-turn for the current year. That is because we have been strong in making the case to get additional resources in the current year. Clearly, it is challenging. Equally, there are many competing, critical and important demands within the transport Vote relating to public transport and the tourism and sports sector. These are smaller in scale but equally of value, as committee members are aware.

I suspect I may have missed some of the points.

Chairman

We can go back to anything that was left unanswered. There will be an opportunity for members to come back in.

Mr. Michael Nolan

There were some questions on the N52 Ardee bypass and I will deal with those first. The N52 Ardee bypass and Ardee link road project has been on the books for some time at this stage. It is a short scheme, approximately 3.5 km long. It is the only scheme on our books at the moment that is shovel-ready but not included in the capital investment plan published last year. The cost of construction of the scheme is of the order of €15 million. It is a fairly straightforward scheme. As mentioned previously, the land has been purchased and the associated costs have already been dealt with. Without revealing our hand I can say that Transport Infrastructure Ireland will make a submission to the Department as part of the mid-term review. It is one of the schemes we will be pushing forward to be added to the list.

Deputy Munster asked about the discussions on the N2 at the Border crossing and how it integrates with the A5 road. Phase 3 of the A5 scheme is really from Omagh down to south of Ballygawley. In the case of the road from Ballygawley to Aughnacloy and from the Border crossing to Monaghan there is no active engagement with Transport Northern Ireland on the cross-Border scheme.

It is a part of the A5 western transport corridor. It terminates just south of Ballygawley. There is actually no interaction at the Border crossing at the moment.

Deputy Imelda Munster

The funding for the Clontibret to Aughnacloy route was €1.8 million. Was there any discussion-----

Mr. Michael Nolan

There was. We have a scheme between Monaghan and Emyvale up by the Border, but it stops just short of the Border. There will be a need or requirement for its extension at some stage. When the A5 comes close to being in operation and when we have more work done on the N2, at that point there will be a cross-Border scheme to extend it with Transport Northern Ireland. There are many decisions to be made on exactly where it should go from Ballygawley in the South across the Border to meet with the N2. That is a stand-alone project in its own right.

There was a question from Deputy Catherine Murphy about a set of multipliers. What does it cost us to not look after the network? This is an area in which we have done a lot of research. We have a lot of data on it. It comes down to what is the cost of delaying works and delaying the retention of the network in a steady state of good repair. I will hand over to my colleague, Mr. Pat Maher, who has some data on that.

Mr. Pat Maher

In response to Deputy Murphy's question, I give the example of our network pavements. These are the most important asset that we have within the national roads network. We measure the performance and undertake a condition survey of the network each year in order that we know exactly what the trends are in terms of condition. We also know how different pavement types perform. We are in a position to take the existing condition and previous condition and predict the future condition based on different funding scenarios. Looking forward to a horizon of approximately 20 years, we can tell that at the current levels of funding, we may not be in a situation that we are going to go off a cliff. However, in the longer term and particularly post-2020, if current levels of funding continue, we are going to inevitably encounter significant reductions in the condition of our pavements. The consequences of that on a 20-year horizon would be very significant in terms of the extra expenditure that would be required to bring the condition of the pavements back up to the standard they are at now. That is something that we have modelled.

It aligns with the strategic framework for investment in land transport, SFILT, which indicated the need for a level of investment in pavement renewals of approximately €140 million. We are running at approximately one third of that at present. We can see that about six, seven or eight years out, the conditions start to diminish significantly. We absolutely prioritise the funding that we have to where it is most needed. That ensures that we do the best that we can. However, it will inevitably get to a point at which the condition of the network will diminish significancy unless there is an increase in funding. In 20 years' time, were we to look to bring the condition of the network back up to current condition, we would be paying up to twice what it would cost if we maintain a consistent level of funding.

Mr. Michael Nolan

Deputy Murphy also asked about the peace process and cross-Border investment in light of the impacts of Brexit on our future plans for infrastructure. One of the schemes that we seek to be considered as part of the mid-term review of the capital investment plan is the N2 north of Monaghan. There is a very deficient piece of network on the N2 from Monaghan up to south of the Border. We did some work and have a route corridor reserved. We would like to progress that at some stage if funding will allow it.

Senator Ó Céidigh mentioned the criteria by which we assess how we spend the limited amount of funding that we do receive. We have very detailed assessment criteria. I mentioned them in broad terms earlier as part of my opening statement. As Mr. Maher mentioned, our first priority is to keep the network in a state of good repair and to keep a steady stream of State funding in order to not allow the network to degrade. We have invested €15 billion over the last 15 years or so in the network and are getting benefits from that investment. Keeping the network safe, efficient and open for business is our first priority. Most of the money goes in that direction. Some of the money goes to some minor schemes. As I mentioned earlier, in our current programme of construction of minor projects, there are 20 active projects this year, some of which will run into next year. That programme of minor schemes will end next year. We have some schemes in the planning process but no scheme looks set for construction by the end of 2017. That is because our priority is to keep the network in a state of good repair and to focus all retention on safety schemes, bridge repairs and pavement repairs, as Mr. Maher mentioned. It is quite simple: our priority is to keep the network in a state of good repair.

Senator Ó Céidigh asked for an update on the Galway bypass. As the Senator is no longer present, does the Chairman want us to address that?

Chairman

If you could, for the record.

Mr. Peter Walsh

That project is quite well-developed. A new alignment has been chosen. The preliminary design is well-advanced. The environmental impact statement, Natura impact statement and all the other statutory documents are just about complete. We expect that the business case will be with us in a couple of weeks. It will progress to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and then to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. The expectation is that Galway County Council will be in a position to submit the project to An Bord Pleanála in the first quarter of next year. I do not know if further detail is required on it at the moment.

Chairman

I think that is fairly comprehensive.

Mr. Michael Nolan

Senator Feighan mentioned the issue of the national roads infrastructure north-west of Mullingar, which is basically the N4 from Mullingar to Longford and from Longford up to Cloonamahon. We actually have a scheme for the N4 mentioned in the capital investment plan. It for the 14 km or 15 km stretch on the N4 just south of Collooney. That is one of our high-priority schemes. That road has very poor safety aspects and there will be huge safety dividends to come from that scheme. There is a scheme to join Mullingar with the Drumod-Roosky bypass. That was a 50 km scheme for a dual carriageway-standard route from Mullingar up to the split of the N4 and N5 at Longford. We went through the process for that scheme with Westmeath County Council as the lead authority to select a preferred route corridor for that project. Unfortunately, due to the onset of the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, that scheme was shelved. To give a sense of the scale of the scheme, it is 50 km long and would require an investment of about €400 million investment to open. The corridor is still protected by Westmeath County Council and Longford County Council, so the potential for it is still there.

Somebody mentioned the N5. I may as well deal with it now. Between Scramoge and Ballaghaderreen, there is 33 km of really poor national primary road on the N5. We are working closely with Roscommon County Council, the lead authority on that scheme, to develop a preliminary design and complete the statutory orders and the environmental impact statement. The business case for that scheme is about to be finalised and it will be sent to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform over the coming months for approval. Beyond that, we will await the outcome of the mid-term review. That scheme was not mentioned in the capital investment plan for 2016 to 2022.

Senator Frank Feighan

Will that be included in the mid-term review?

Mr. Michael Nolan

It will be part of our submission to the Department but there are many other considerations to be considered.

Senator Frank Feighan

Thank you.

Mr. Michael Nolan

The N16 was also mentioned as a cross-Border project. The N16 has been on the books for some time. We had schemes to completely realign the N16 between Glencar and Glenfarne. As the Deputy says, it is 40 km in length. Given the impact of the financial crisis and the downturn in our funding levels, we have reverted to carrying out a series of small low-cost but high-value and high-impact schemes. We are on our second scheme for the N16. There is territory on it with very severe S-bends. We could take off a half a kilometre by putting in a new route of 1 km.

There are a series of S-bends. It really is an abysmal piece of network. We hope to keep progressing with the planning and design of a series of schemes on the N16. We will have two opened by year end, or early in 2017.

We acknowledge that the schemes on the A4, Belcoo to Enniskillen, are really poor. That is for Transport Northern Ireland. Let it worry about that one.

On the comment about no money being spent on the national secondary routes, it is worth mentioning that we have been doing a lot work with our minor scheme programme. We have built up 43 of these schemes since 2013. They are small schemes, typically of the order of 2 km to 5 km. They are low cost. They are easier than the major projects to get through the planning process. We can usually get them through the compulsory purchase order, CPO, stage without any objections. An Bord Pleanála would revert the scheme back to the local authority to make decisions to approve those schemes.

Substantially, most of those schemes would have been on national secondary routes. Also, in 2010 to 2012, we started a programme of focusing our attention on some of the tourist national secondary roads. At this point, we have piloted national low-volume secondary tourist routes under development. There is one between Oughterard and Clifden, and in Westport, up as far as Mulranny, we have full approval for 40 km of national secondary route. We are buying the land for all of that. We are at the second stage of construction. We are constructing those schemes in short stages. In Donegal-----

Chairman

Is the N86, Tralee-Dingle, one of those?

Mr. Michael Nolan

We struggled to get the N86 through An Bord Pleanála.

Chairman

I must commend Mr. Nolan on TII's efforts.

Mr. Michael Nolan

And Kerry's efforts.

Chairman

Common sense prevailed.

Mr. Michael Nolan

That is back on track. We have full approval for a long scheme between Camp and Dingle. We have just started Lispole to Mountoven, a short section. It is at second stage construction.

Up in Donegal, we got approval for Dungloe to Glenties on the N56. That is another substantial scheme. We have full approval from An Bord Pleanála for that. What we are doing is taking off bite-sized chunks. We are taking 4 km sections at a time. By Christmas, we will have completed the second phase of those works. There will be five or six phases in total. We are preparing tender documentation for phase three. As funding allows, we will keep chipping away at those sections.

I refer to two sections of the N56 in Donegal, Dungloe to Glenties and Mountcharles to Inver. Those two sections were mentioned in the capital investment plan and we keep hitting those on a rolling programme of short sections. We will finish one and start the next. That is the plan for that.

We have focused a lot of attention on short sections of national secondaries since 2009. In the Government's Road Safety Strategy 2013-2020, one of the targets given to TII was to progress 150 minor projects over the life of that plan. The best we will do in that period given the funding constraints is 50. We have another 50 of those minor schemes, most of which are secondary routes, in some stage of planning and design. We will bring them to a point where we will have them tender ready, and if funding conditions change, we can react quickly and move those small schemes onto site. We have another 100 minor schemes in the wings on which there is no action at present. They are on our books but we are not progressing them because we cannot overload the system. It is too much to buy the land and go through An Bord Pleanála with too many schemes at present.

Mention was made of the considerable delays on the Carrick-on-Shannon bypass. I am well aware of that. We brought the scheme to the stage of having the statutory orders, the environmental impact statement and the preferred route ready, but that is where it is at. It is quite a big scheme. It is a tricky scheme in terms of the environment. We are crossing the Shannon callows north of Carrick-on-Shannon. That would pick up a lot of the regional roads radiating out of Carrick-on-Shannon and bring relief to the old bridge in Carrick. We have done as much work as we can but we are constrained by the lack of funding. It is on our books. There are 50 major schemes that we have suspended at present and, unfortunately, Carrick-on-Shannon is one of those.

Senator Feighan asked how long it would take to bring a major scheme to planning. Typically, it would take between two and four years to bring a scheme to planning. That is if nothing goes wrong with regard to judicial reviews.

Deputy Sherlock mentioned the mid-term review and adding schemes to that, and the M20 featured in that. Senator O'Donnell asked a number of questions about the current state of progress on the M20. We have approval from the Department now to commence some early activities on that project and we split the scheme into five decision points. The first decision was to do some early activities in advance of the mid-term review of the capital investment plan next year. There are some matters we are getting along with and we will have more information over the next nine months.

The second decision point is to approve the formal commencement of the planning and design and statutory order stage. That stage will cost between €12 million and €15 million. That means procuring engineering firms and environmental consultants to prepare an environmental impact statement, EIS, and bring the scheme in a state that we can bring it back to An Bord Pleanála and prepare to procure and prepare a business case for that scheme. That will take three to three and a half years. The third decision point is the approval of the business case by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, DTTS, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, DPER, and ourselves, and then Government. It is a massive scheme and we need Government approval for it.

The fourth decision point is to approve to submit that scheme to An Bord Pleanála. Once one goes to An Bord Pleanála and it consents to the scheme, one is committing at some stage to buy the land and that brings the State a commitment of between €100 million and €180 million in 2016 prices. That is quite a big decision point.

The final decision, decision No. 5, is Government approval to proceed to commence construction. At that point, that would commit the Government to an investment of approximately €600 million in today's money. The construction could be phased over a number of years. It could be done in two phases. It could be done in four phases. It depends on what route we choose, how we can break it up and where the logical places are where we would break the scheme. We have to go An Bord Pleanála with a full scheme, and whether it is the full 80 km depends on which route it takes.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

Is it appropriate for me to seek clarification?

Chairman

Briefly, yes.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

Effectively, Mr. Nolan is saying that this progressed significantly in that resources have been made available to get the M20, Cork to Limerick, back on the planning agenda.

Mr. Michael Nolan

We have approval. It is back on the agenda. It is not as such a green light. It is a green light before the green light. There are works and early activities we can be doing. I will give a sense of those early activities. We will be conducting traffic studies over the next nine months to validate previous traffic surveys. The previous scheme went to An Bord Pleanála in 2010. It was pulled from An Bord Pleanála in 2011 before the board had made a decision on the scheme. All our traffic studies would have been conducted in 2008 and 2009. In almost ten years, it will have moved on and we need to review those traffic studies. We need to create a project-specific traffic model for the whole corridor between Limerick and Cork. We have to assess other transport modes, junction strategies, utilities, service locations, engage with the National Parks and Wildlife Service, NPWS, and conduct ownership searches as land ownership will have changed. Land use will have changed. With the end of the milk quota, perhaps the dairy farms are bigger and there are new dairy farmers. We will have to go through all that, and that is quite important. On land use planning, what do local authorities have? We try to protect them as best we can. There may be new developments along those lines. There would be economic analysis of the potential conglomeration effects on Limerick and Cork and the environs that we will be looking at.

Senator Kieran O'Donnell

This has come out of our lengthy discussions and discussions involving the Department, the Minister, Deputy Ross, Mr. Nolan and myself. We have come to this particular solution. In terms of the first phase, which is to re-engage on the initial planning phase, how long before Mr. Nolan will have the information compiled to enable him to come up with a brief for the consultants? Assuming the mid-term capital review happens in 2017, can Mr. Nolan deal with stage one?

Mr. Michael Nolan

Deputy Kevin O'Keeffe

The route is 80 km so it will not be built overnight. Could it be done on a lead-go basis? In other words, could Mallow be the first location and build north and south from that?

Deputy Catherine Murphy

Like Castlebar and the N4.

Deputy Sean Sherlock

I am glad the Deputy is coming around to my way of thinking.

Deputy Kevin O'Keeffe

In fairness, it was brought to compulsory purchase order, CPO, stage many years ago. My point is that the road will not be built overnight, but can we get a priority commitment today that the Mallow bypass section of the motorway would be where it starts first? It covers a major interchange of the N72 and N73, for traffic heading east-west from Mitchelstown to Fermoy to Killarney in the west. With regard to previous comments, it might all sound like very good news. I read the articles in the press last week. However, this had gone beyond An Bord Pleanála previously. The rulings were made on the route and in regard to confirmed interchanges. The witness mentioned the delay with the appeal on Buttevant.

The general guideline for making submissions on motorways is five years. After all the work done to bring it to the planning stage six years ago could it be fast-tracked and the five years reduced to get to construction stage? TII must have seen the files, drawings and proposals. Plans in this area have been refused because it is the preferred route. Is it possible to drive ahead with this project in less than five years because work has been done on this route?

Mr. Michael Nolan

I asked for an update on the A5 motorway. I had concerns about the UK decision to withdraw from the EU. My concern is that the taxpayers are investing €75 million which will go toward the cost of the A5 motorway. There is also a possibility, or rumours, that the taxpayers in the Republic could be charged to use the A5. If this project does not work out, will the €75 million be used for projects in the South, for example the Ardee bypass?

I asked about the local improvement schemes and the community investment schemes. Local roads account for 81% of the total network. I requested a breakdown of the local authorities that avail of these schemes.

Chairman

We will finish the first round of questions before we go back to members for supplementary questions

Mr. Michael Nolan

The Chairman asked a number of questions related to road safety, which I will now address. First, I was asked how the TII decides on the priorities for work on safety improvements and the locations of the work. There is an EU directive on road infrastructure safety management. We rank the whole road network on how sections of the network perform in relation to what an average piece of that type of network would deliver on. We identify the location of clusters of incidents where the accident rate is twice the national average for that type of cross section. We work with local authorities. We identify about 200 locations annually, where we see clusters of incidents above the normal. Following an appraisal it is decided whether an engineering, enforcement or education solution is required. We work with the Garda Síochána and the local authorities on the issue. Of the 200 locations we identify on an annual basis, between 40 and 60 locations might require an engineering solution. We then start working with the local authorities to consider what the solution might be. This is how we identify issues. We get calls from local authorities. We may be working off Garda accident records that are two years old. At present we have validated data up to 2014. We have data that has not been validated for the years of 2015 and 2016. We rely on local authorities and public representation to identify the location of the recent spate of incidents. Because of funding, we have to deal with clusters of accidents that are twice the national average for that type of road section. We deal with them first. We do not have enough funding to deal with locations, where there have been no accidents, but it could be an accident waiting to happen.

Chairman

Chairman

As the number is so small, it is feasible for a liaison person from TII to work with the small number of people for whom engagement with the process has resulted in the outcome being negative.

I am aware of cases where the local authority has given approval but where the decision of TII was negative. As public representatives, we are not getting the engagement that we feel is appropriate. I am asking whether TII will start to engage or liaise with people who find themselves caught in that net. It is a very small number of individuals.

Mr. Michael Nolan

TII is neither the roads authority nor the planning authority, so we can engage with individual applicants. I give a commitment to the Chairman that I will consider this and come back to him on it.

Chairman

Could we bring cases to the attention of Mr. Nolan, as chief executive, and would he advise specifically on them?

Mr. Michael Nolan

I will go away and consider it as an option.

Deputy Kevin O'Keeffe

I appreciate that only a few cases go to An Bord Pleanála. In recent years, however, local authorities have been guided by precedent and when they see that the precedent is set by An Bord Pleanála, they start to refuse permission. There might not be so many cases out in the public domain with An Bord Pleanála but there are umpteen cases with various local authorities. The local authorities do not want to be seen with egg on their faces as a result of granting permissions and then having their decisions overruled by the higher authority. It is as if the local authorities do not know their own laws. The ball is back in TII's court in the context of addressing the terms of reference so that suitable applicants can obtain planning permission.

Mr. Pat Maher

May I make one point on the overall issue? It is not just a matter of TII setting parameters and standards in respect of these applications. There are national guidelines regarding access to national roads which did not emanate from TII but which came, rather, from the former Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. There is always some discretion in individual cases but the overall framework is set by national guidance and TII is at one level merely complying with the guidelines that have been set down for it.

Chairman

I appreciate that. My experience has been that a lack of interaction and engagement is what is frustrating the process and preventing people from having an opportunity to comply with the guidelines and from knowing how to go about doing so. That is the crux of the matter. Openness and a willingness to co-operate with people would circumvent the problems that have arisen. That is why I am asking that there be a more open policy in terms of trying to engage with people. I accept that there are some cases for which there will never be an engineering solution that will result in a safe situation. That is acceptable and understandable, but I have seen cases where I think there are engineering options that would allow for development in tandem with the preservation of a safe road. However, we are not able to get to that point because of a lack of engagement. That is the point is want to make.

Mr. Michael Nolan

The very fact that we filter out from 800 to 900 applications that involve road safety issues to a final 37 appeals is a demonstration that there is a great deal of engagement. There are some difficult cases at which we might look. I give a commitment to come back to the Chairman on that issue.

I will respond to the question on the N22 Ballyvourney-Macroom road. There were tenders for fencing. We have a whole series of advance works contracts planned for 2017 for that scheme. It is quite a long scheme and we have three archeological contracts, a hedgerow removal contract and some service diversion contracts. There is also the contract for fencing. We have much advance works activity in the next year on the Ballyvourney-Macroom road that will be evident to the public. That is in preparation for a mains works contract which will happen a few years later.

Chairman

Would it be possible for Mr. Nolan to issue a brief summary of the works?

Mr. Michael Nolan

I will give the committee a brief summary of the whole works programme.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Nolan. That is perfect.

Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick

I think Mr. O'Leary will give me an answer on the A5 motorway and the issues in respect of the local authorities.

Mr. Ray O'Leary

The A5 motorway is a high-level political commitment by the Irish Government in the context of the agreement framework of the Stormont House Agreement. It is not really contingent on British membership of the EU or issues relating to Brexit, but clearly that is a challenge which people on both sides of the Border are getting their heads around. It remains a political commitment, however, in terms of the overall settlement framework. I cannot comment much more than that because of the nature of the commitment. Deputy Catherine Murphy also raised the same issue and it is part of a higher-level political commitment.

In terms of local improvement schemes and community improvement schemes, we will come back to Deputy Fitzpatrick with a detailed note as he was asking for figures about which local authorities are making allocations in those area.

Let me reiterate again the local improvement scheme does not apply to 83% of the road network because it is an allocation for private roads. The position remains that local authorities can make allocations for the community improvement schemes and local improvement schemes, but the difficulty is that at national level, if we had kept a specified pot for either we would simply have had to cut the overall road maintenance budget. The overall restriction that was there was the framework within which we had to make those allocations.

There was a question on the future of PPP projects. The position under the current capital plan is that there are no additional road PPP projects, that was a policy decision at Government level. What might happen in the context of a mid-term review will be a policy decision at Government level.

In looking at the priorities, we will be keeping an eye on the emerging national planning framework as well in trying to identify how we should prioritise our investment. If I can add a note of caution, members spoke about a great many good projects this morning. Even in the context of the mid-term capital review, we will have many good projects which were highlighted by the committee and for which there will be a case made by TII. However, they will all see the scope to accelerate some of the existing projects under the capital plan. Unless we are very lucky in the capital plan, it will be difficult to do them all. We will be working with TII to see what the best phasing is for any additional resources we get.

Mr. Michael Nolan has spoken several times about the many projects ranging from very large to small ones that are at various levels of development that Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, could valuably do. We, along with our public transport colleagues, will be making those cases but it is difficult to divide up the cake for everybody in time. The case put by the company is also important to note in that context. I would signal that slight Civil Service note of caution.

Chairman

I will take concluding questions from members starting with Deputy Fitzpatrick.

Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick

I am very concerned about the A5 project. Irish taxpayers are paying €75 million towards its cost. We have been accused by the First Minister, Arlene Foster, of trying to take jobs in the North down to the South, but that accusation is wrong. There is a possibility that Irish taxpayers will end up paying to use the A5. We are trying to complete many projects, one of which is the Ardee bypass project that I mentioned earlier, and €75 million would go a long way towards covering the cost of their completion. I have been approached by many people living in the Border area who are very concerned about our providing €75 million towards the cost of that project.

The Deputy's point is well made.

I raised the issue of possible congestion on the Wild Atlantic Way. I asked for an update on the Dingle relief road which is part of that route. Is there a general approach to dealing with anticipated congestion on the Wild Atlantic Way? Is there an update on the N69 Limerick to Kerry route?

Mr. Ray O'Leary

The Wild Atlantic Way is a mixture of national and regional roads. Mr. Michael Nolan has spoken of TII's work on the tourist routes in terms of small schemes to improve them. Clearly, the impact on the economic development, including tourism, is one of the factors we consider when we engage with local authorities. Regional and local road improvement funding is still of the order of €10 million, which is significantly constrained for the non-national routes. That is a consideration we will bear in mind.

To pick up on the cases that were well made around the local improvement schemes and the community improvement schemes, there is a commitment in the programme for Government that as funding is re-established and we move towards being able to maintain the infrastructure we have, we will look again at the scope for a specific local improvement scheme and community improvement scheme and the mid-term capital review will inform that also.

That is the Limerick to Waterford route. There are many variations but it is too early to say and I do not want to predetermine the outcome of any deliberations.

Senator Kieran O'Donnell

In terms of the project that was suspended in 2011, was the route on the existing M20?

Mr. Michael Nolan

It was on the M20 as much as possible.

Senator Kieran O'Donnell

It went via Charleville, Buttevant, Mallow and Cork.

Mr. Michael Nolan

Yes.

Mr. Ray O'Leary

I have one small point to make about roads in and around Kerry. The fact that a large chunk of our Department is stationed in Killarney means that the roads in the county are rarely let out of our attention, whatever about TII's familiarity with the roads.

Chairman

This committee will certainly keep reminding the Department. I ask Mr. Nolan to address the question on the Jack Lynch tunnel.

Mr. Michael Nolan

The Dunkettle job is mentioned in the capital investment programme as well as the Ballyvourney-Macroom project. In the Cork area generally, of the eight schemes for construction mentioned in the plan, two are in Cork, while of the five schemes that are in planning and design, two are in Cork. Cork is well represented in the 13 schemes that are mentioned in the capital plan.

On the question of the progression of the Dunkettle project, there will be a lot of site activity, as in preparation works, over the next 18 months. The same is true of the Ballyvourney-Macroom project. We envisage the contractor going on site in the early part of 2019.

Chairman

Is Deputy Fitzpatrick happy with the responses?

Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick

I am happy.

Deputy Kevin O'Keeffe

Much has been said about new routes and green routes. Has consideration been given to developing new motorways on existing national primary roads, incorporating fly-overs and so forth, in the context of a greener Ireland and climate change? In that way, there would be two roads on the one brownfield site, so to speak.

Mr. Michael Nolan

Such options would be examined as part of the economic analysis before we go too far down the road of concentrating on a fixed, determined solution. We would have to look at that and it would be standard practice to do so. We do not just decide to upgrade a road from A to B. We also examine if there are other ways of meeting our objectives by going in a different direction.

Mr. Dominic Mullaney

There would be an access problem because no direct access is allowed onto motorways. Therefore, we would not be able to cater for existing-----

Deputy Kevin O'Keeffe

I know that but what I am saying is that one could have the motorway and the existing road in conjunction with each other. There could be fly overs and-----

Mr. Michael Nolan

As part of the original solution for the M20, some 30km of the scheme was actually on the line. We were utilising a lot of previous investment between Mallow, Cork and Blarney along the line of the existing M20. We had major savings by actually availing of a good alignment with very little private development on that section. Cork County Council did a good job of protecting the integrity of that section.

Chairman

I am conscious the witnesses have been here for almost two and a half hours at this stage. I had hoped to raise two issues today but instead I will ask the witnesses to provide a written update to the committee. The first issue is our winter readiness preparations. While the weather is unseasonably mild at the moment, a week is a long time in politics and in meteorology. I ask for an update on what has been done to prepare for any potential cold snap or other adverse weather conditions.

The other issue is the commitments made regarding tolling, public private partnerships and the expense being incurred by the Exchequer by way of payments in respect of the motorway network. I ask the witnesses to provide data on the annual payments and to indicate whether the Exchequer has benefited from the increased usage of the motorway network as a result of the improvements in the economy. I would be grateful for an update on the current position in that regard.

I thank all the witnesses for their attendance this morning. We have had a long meeting and we appreciate the openness and frankness of the witnesses' engagement with us.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.25 a.m. until 1.30 p.m on Wednesday, 23 November 2016.

Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport debate - Wednesday, 16 Nov 2016

Roads Infrastructure Programme: Discussion.

Mr. Ray O'Leary

Mr. Ray O'Leary

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Ray O'Leary

Mr. Ray O'Leary

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Pat Maher

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Peter Walsh

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Peter Walsh

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Pat Maher

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Ray O'Leary

Mr. Ray O'Leary

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Ray O'Leary

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Michael Nolan

Mr. Dominic Mullaney

Mr. Michael Nolan

Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport debate -
Wednesday, 16 Nov 2016