This is the first occasion on which the Minister has come to the House and I formally extend a warm welcome to him. He will find a high level of debate and reasonable people here.
Underground Railway System for Dublin: Motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann urges the Government to inquire into the feasibility of providing an underground railway system before committing itself finally to the development of an urban light rail network for Dublin.
I join in the welcome to the Minister, who is a reasonable man. I welcome that, after protracted negotiation, the Government has agreed to withdraw its amendment and accept my motion. I would like to express my appreciation for the good offices of my friend and colleague, Senator Manning, and the goodwill displayed by the Minister in achieving this satisfactory resolution.
I am proposing an examination of a detailed proposal for a unified transport system for Dublin, including an underground metro element. I find it a little worrying that this proposal has existed for a considerable time but has not been examined in any detail. I reassure the Minister that we are not talking about abandoning or aborting all the proposals of the Dublin Transport Initiative but about expanding and evaluating them and making them more sophisticated.
This proposal has been developed by Cormac, Rabbit, Rudi, Monaghan and Associates. It is a blueprint for Dublin's renaissance and should help to make it a city second to none. Public transport to and within the inner city is proposed by three radial DART-LRT rail lines — the first from Sandyford to Liffey Junction, the second from Tallaght to Connolly Station and the third from Dublin Airport to Liffey Junction.
When the DTI issued its proposals, people on all sides of the House were astonished that no connection to the airport was proposed. To the minds of many Members and I, this made a nonsense of the entire matter. The three proposed DART-LRT routes dovetail to the existing Blanchardstown, Clondalkin and DART suburban rail networks. Existing reservations of the former Harcourt Street — from Sandyford to the Grand Canal — and Broadstone — from Broadstone to Liffey Junction — railway lines are utilised. These reservations are still largely intact after decades of disuse.
The Tallaght line makes use of an existing bus way reservation, that is, from Tallaght to Sundrive Road, and proceeds to the DART Howth line at Connolly Station via stations at Temple Bar and O'Connell Street. The Blanchardstown line utilises the Sligo-Mullingar railway line and the reservation from it to the Blanchardstown Newtown Centre. The Minister will see that we are taking in large population pools and there is no question that there is a high degree of passenger usage potential in these areas. It is important to bear in mind that many of these areas are not served by the proposals on the table at the moment.
All DART-LRT routes proposed are for twin track electric trains on standard national gauge. Both the Tallaght and Sandyford lines will cross under the River Liffey, intersecting at a metro station in Temple Bar. Also connecting to Temple Bar are the airport, Ballymun and existing Blanchardstown lines. Other city centre stations proposed are Grafton Street, Henry Street and O'Connell Street. I live in North Great George's Street. I have a real difficulty getting to the airport unless I take my car and leave it in the long-term car park. Under this system, all I need do is trundle my case to O'Connell Street, hop on the underground, change at Temple Bar and I am at the airport. This is practically the case in every capital city in Europe except Dublin. We are not even considering the airport in these current proposals.
Optimum use can be seen to be made of existing rail transport infrastructure and could maximise the use of the £198 million proposed European Union and Government funding for the Dublin LRT. The timescale for implementation of this proposal is estimated to be better than the current Luas on-street proposal due to a number of factors, such as a less complicated environmental impact study requirement, simpler right of way acquisition, faster construction time and widespread support declared by the environmental and business communities. This afternoon I was speaking to people in the environmental lobby and the business world. They all share the reservations about Luas and support the kind of ideas contained in these proposals. For this reason, I feel it is necessary to re-examine them.
I have exhaustively checked and can confidently state that the price of tunnelling, far from the inflated estimates produced by some antagonists to this proposal, is between £7 million to £10 million per kilometre. If I am challenged on this, I can produce the authorities. Let us not waste time by trying to challenge these figures; they are quite clear. Moreover, the rolling stock necessary is also cheaper to acquire because it is already manufactured in production lines for systems all over the world, unlike the special design required for the Dublin Luas system. There would also be a significant improvement in safety levels and in the levels of atmospheric pollution.
Furthermore, I find it difficult to comprehend that any person with an understanding of Dublin's position as a tourist destination could possibly welcome a system which would mean the visual intrusion of a spaghetti-like network of street furniture, electric paving, tramlines and passing vehicles. Indeed, one cardinal question must be asked: why was this possibility of an alternative, i.e, a combined overland and underground system, never considered before we reached this late stage? However, I must emphasise that what we are proposing is not the total abandonment of the existing proposals with their concomitant EU funding but a revision and expansion to include a more appropriate system for the city centre.
I will state one premise upon which I am sure we can all agree; traffic management and the general traffic situation in Dublin is a complete disaster. As was predicted by many of us at the Dublin crisis conference some years ago, the development of modern highway systems feeding traffic into the city took no account of either parking or circulation problems. There has been a massive increase in single occupant motor traffic entering the city. Buses are allowed to park, and indeed double park, in totally inappropriate and narrow city centre streets while the development in recent years of many private bus companies running services from the capital to the provinces has further complicated matters with the development of hit and run, casual parking in streets off the city's main thoroughfares.
The response to this by the Dublin Transport Initiative is to add to the chaos by turning the clock back nearly half a century and reintroducing a surface tram system to Dublin. I was five years old in 1949. I loved the trams. I bitterly regretted and resented the actions of the then civic authorities in removing them from the streets of Dublin. However, the argument made then, which convinced the city authorities nearly 50 years ago, was that the existence of such structures and such a transport system was already beginning to lead to traffic gridlocks. Does anybody seriously believe that 50 years later with the addition of car transport, the system can be reintroduced without causing disaster?
I raised the question of providing an underground system for Dublin as far back as 1981. I was then met with a series of objections. I was told there was something distinctly problematic about the soil structure of Dublin city. I can now categorically say this is untrue. There is no geological problem whatever impeding the development of an underground railway system for Dublin.
I was also told when I again raised the matter at the Dublin crisis conference eight years ago, that the demography of Dublin would not lend itself to such a network. Only cities with high density skyscraper dwellings were suitable. This is also nonsense. I point to the example of the city of Newcastle in northern England, a provincial town with a population of 250,000 people less than one quarter the size of Dublin and a population that is at least as dispersed as that of the capital city of Ireland. Ten years ago they put in an underground railway system. Not only has that now paid for itself, it is in profit. Are we such a race of pygmies in Dublin that we are unable to emulate the example of a British provincial city?
The great mistake that has been made was to move from the perfectly reasonable proposition that Dublin needs a state of the art transport system directly to the option of a light rail transport system with no consideration of any reasonable alternative. I urge the Minister and his advisers to open their minds and not to commit themselves irrevocably to a system that will prove disastrous for the city. I would take no joy in five or ten years time in coming to this House, or into any other public forum, and saying "I told you so".
The Minister will, I am sure, accept that I have a proven track record in terms of the city of Dublin. I have backed unpopular causes before. When I spoke about bringing life back into the north inner city I was told it was impractical; restoring 18th century houses and opening them to the public was impractical; cultural tourism was impractical and the development of Bloomsday as a national holiday was impractical. Therefore it would not come as any great surprise to me to be told that a metro system for the city of Dublin is also considered impractical.
It is not possible within the confines of this debate to deal with all the technical aspects involved. If we look at Germany in the 1960s we observe the way in which they initially investigated the possibility of light rail transport and then turned their backs on it. The city of Vienna in 1965 was two thirds of the way through the development of an overground tram system. Realising the consequences of this the city authorities went back to the drawing board and built a metro which is now working with considerable efficiency.
If one looks at comparative figures for capacity as between an on-street tram system, a bus system and a subway system, in the on-street tram system the minimum interval is 2.5 minutes with 180 passengers per train. The capacity if you make this calculation is 180×0.7× 60÷2.5 which is 3,000 passengers per hour. Using a similar calculation the subway system produces a figure of 28,000 passengers per hour and the DART at peak times can transfer 7,000 passengers per hour. I do not need to tell the House that at those peak times passengers are frequently left behind at suburban stations. International reports demonstrate that the introduction of a light rail transport system into an existing bus system leads to a decrease in overall passenger take up.
Let us look at the consequences of proceeding bullheaded with the LRT system for Dublin on the principle that my proposal, right or wrong, should be adopted. There will be a minimum two to four year period of maximum disruption during the building and development works for the system. In other cities this has led to a blight of inner city business. Public transport should not be seen as a social service to be provided for the under-privileged and others who do not have their own transport, but should be regarded as a commercial stimulant, protector of the environment and one of the necessities of civilised urban life. The unified proposal for Sandyford, Tallaght, Dublin Airport which I am sponsoring this evening covers exactly these criteria.
In 1975 the Dublin rail rapid transit study reached a conclusion that a rail based public transport system on its own right of way was the only public transport system that could provide the desired user benefits. Again, this dovetails neatly with the proposals under examination tonight. The transport consultative commission in 1980 re-examined these conclusions and upheld their findings. In terms of a timescale, there are less protracted procedures for environmental impact studies, simpler legislation, the timescale for implementation would be far less and the impact upon business would be considerably curtailed. I am grateful to be provided with this opportunity. I will make my concluding remarks at the end of the debate. Thank you.
I second the motion and welcome the Minister. He will discover that this House puts down motions with no other purpose than to achieve a very worthy end. Senator Norris has proved that by the enthusiasm and commitment with which he has spoken. I would not support this proposal if it meant going back to the drawing board, but it does not. This proposal is simply to put parts of the existing light rail proposal underground rather than on the streets. By doing so, the promised benefits of light rail will be fully delivered and its serious disadvantages minimised. In effect, the proposal is not an alternative to light rail but rather a modification. I am anxious the Minister understands this point because there was a fear the proposal involved bringing everything back to square one. This is not the intention; the idea is to modify it.
The proposal is fully appropriate to the consultation process the Minister announced before Christmas. If that process is to have any real meaning and not just become a rubber stamp, it must be open to consider alternatives to the original scheme. If this is not the case, the consultation process will be empty and pointless. The process has already shown that businesses operating in Dublin city centre, as Senator Norris said, are profoundly worried about the scheme in its current form. There is major concern in business circles in Dublin that, as it stands, it will do more harm than good.
There is abundant evidence from other cities which developed light rail systems that the benefits are far less than promised and the disadvantages much greater than originally feared. The disruption during the construction phase can send many businesses to the wall and, for those which survive, the phase means increased costs. There is also evidence that the disruption during construction could seriously affect tourism and that, after construction, the expected transfer of passengers from private cars does not take place.
Most interestingly, there is evidence that the main business for light rail comes from people who use buses, in other words, people who use buses switch to light rail and it does not reduce traffic. There is evidence that the reduction of traffic congestion promised by light rail will not be delivered. As a result of the space the light rail system will take up on existing streets, it may even increase congestion rather than reduce it. This would be a tragic outcome if it occurred. Everybody wishes to reduce traffic congestion in Dublin and the question is, how do we go about it?
We should learn from the experience of other cities and not repeat their mistakes. When the time comes for Brussels to approve the investment funds earmarked for light rail, it will expect us to have learned the lessons of experience and not ignored them. I appeal to the Minister to take an open minded pragmatic approach to his responsibilities in this matter. I urge him to examine fully the proposals put forward as part of the process which will lead him and the Government to make the final decision.
In particular, I ask the Minister to factor in the complete costs of alternative approaches, including the cost of disruption to businesses. If the alternatives are properly costed, the comparison will be quite different from a comparison based on construction costs alone. I investigated the positions in three cities. I was in Lancashire today and I had the opportunity to visit Sheffield yesterday. The position there is a horror story of business failures; it is exactly what we fear will happen in Dublin. It did not succeed in reducing traffic; its objectives failed.
A second example is Strasbourg. The system works there, but it is a different city with large boulevards. One statistic is most interesting: Strasbourg is one quarter the size of Dublin but has five times the number of car parking spaces. The number of available parking spaces per citizen is a multiple of 20 times per capita. There is no comparison.
The city of Nantes also introduced a light rail system but, unlike Dublin, it has boulevards. In contrasting the position, one should picture Dawson Street — which is featured in the current proposal — if a light rail system is built there and traffic is reduced to one lane. I could not confirm the figure but I understand an expert in the corporation worked out that, if an articulated truck broke down in the centre of Dublin, traffic jams in a 15 square kilometre area around it would develop within 40 minutes. This horrific figure demonstrates what would happen if we disrupt Dublin's traffic on its narrow streets, which are not geared for the kind of development that is proposed.
The new methods of tunnelling referred to by Senator Norris are much more efficient in that they make it possible to proceed in a faster time and at much less cost than hitherto. Given this, there is every likelihood that they have not been costed correctly.
There is an abundance of evidence here which must be taken into account. I am pleased that the Minister has given us the opportunity in putting forward proposals for consultation. It gives the city of Dublin the opportunity to tell the Minister that it welcomes them and is delighted he has provided an open hearing, which we hope is genuine. We also hope that minds have not been fixed and that a flexible approach has been taken to the investment in transport in the city of Dublin that will give the twenty first century a system from which we will benefit, rather than discovering we have damaged our future by taking short cuts, the consequences of which we will never overcome.
I call on Senator Doyle. Are you moving amendment No. 1?
The amendment will not be moved.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
I have sympathy for the motion. I live in the city of Dublin but am at a disadvantage as I am not a member of the local authority that is represented on the DTI. However, I have carefully watched this development. I am delighted the Government is proposing a light rail system for Dublin. It is badly needed and to be welcomed, although it is selective in the areas it serves, which is an important issue.
I enjoyed the trams a little longer than Senator Norris. They served a network of every village in Dublin and extended to Rathmines, Terenure, Rathgar, Donnybrook, Sandymount, Clonskea, Dún Laoghaire and Dalkey. Senator Hayes will be pleased to note that there was one line to Clontarf.
Do not tell the House about that.
I had an interest in the trams as my father was an employee of the Dublin United Tramway Company and I still live in one of the houses built by the company for their employees. The tram network was different to what is now proposed. In addition, since then there has been a tremendous increase in the car population.
Senator Quinn expressed concern about what would happen to Dawson Street. It is proposed that the street will have two lanes for light rail with one lane remaining for buses and cars. While the light rail system must by its nature be selective with regard to the area it serves, people from catchment areas — for example that of Donnybrook — will continue to want to travel to the inner city by bus or car. The proposal that they will be facilitated with one lane on Dawson Street, the main roadway into the city, is not feasible.
If the system proceeds as proposed it will cause problems of this kind. I therefore welcome the motion. I do not fully agree that it should be a metro system, rather it should be a light rail system which should go underground on reaching the inner core of the city.
Absolutely.
In this way it would not cause the destruction to the city that would arise if the present proposal is implemented. This is my main concern and it is shared by many of my colleagues on Dublin City Council. Dublin is a vibrant and prosperous city at present. We do not want to set back the progress made over the last few years in developing the city. The financial cost will be serious and we have asked for a meeting with the Minister for Finance to see what compensation can be provided for the difficulties which light rail will cause the business sector. We can be certain there will be difficulties; for a period it will close a number of businesses in the centre of Dublin.
This will be compounded by the new developments on the ring road. People who cannot get into the city will have the choice of driving to the new shopping centres in the outer city and when the light rail system is in place, they might still want to go to these centres, having lost the habit of shopping in the inner city. It is important that centre city businesses are protected while the light rail system is being put down and there is no better way of doing that than through the system proposed for consideration.
All the motion asks is that the Government should carry out a feasibility study on an underground system in the context of the proposed light rail system for Dublin. I spoke today to officials in the traffic department of Dublin Corporation who say the cost of an underground system would be about £100 million — it is hard to estimate because no studies have been carried out. The real cost would be the building of underground stations. It is only reasonable that a feasibility study be carried out before we progress further. As Senators have said, when factors such as disruption and loss of business in the city are included in the cost, an underground system might work out more expensive but it would be in the best interest of commercial life in the city and would leave enough road space for people who still want to bring their cars into the city or come by bus.
Business life in Dublin depends on people having a choice. They may want to come by light rail, bus or car. When my wife wants to shop in Arnotts, she likes to bring her car because if she buys any goods she can put them in the boot and bring them home. That is not possible with a light rail system. Shoppers must be facilitated in the carriage of goods and I am glad to see that a number of off-street car parks have been or are in the process of being built to meet that demand. I ask the Minister to consider the reasonable motion before the House.
Like my colleagues I welcome the Minister, Deputy Lowry, to the Upper House. It is a pleasure to have him here. This motion is timely in raising serious questions about the proposal to proceed with a light rail rapid transit system for Dublin and I compliment my friend and colleague, Senator Norris, on his initiative in placing it before the House. It is significant that the Government side has withdrawn an amendment to the motion. The Senator's motion was accommodating rather than adversarial and the withdrawal of the amendment, coupled with Senator Doyle's comments, indicates that the question asked by Senator Norris has been answered to some degree. One hopes the Minister will elaborate on his thinking as regards the provision of an efficient internal transport system for Dublin.
I read with great interest recommendations which appeared under the title "Dublin — a Unified Proposal", which suggests a mix of an overground and underground system for Dublin. If implemented, the underground would run through Dublin city centre and provide a valuable rail link to Dublin Airport without adding anything to the costs already estimated for the recently announced Luas transport system.
I fail to understand why the Government has not proceeded with a rail link between the airport and the city centre. The lack of this link diminishes our capital city in comparison with our European partners and leaves a glaring gap in our infrastructure which has implications for the wider economy, especially tourism related activities. Senator Doyle is right to interpret this as a Dublin issue but in the context of the provision of a rail link to Dublin Airport, it becomes a national matter.
The background to the Government's decision to proceed with the provision of an LRT for Dublin originates with a recommendation of the Dublin Transport Initiative. As far back as 1975, the Dublin rail rapid transit study concluded that busways could not provide a viable alternative to rail rapid transit. It reached the conclusion that a rail based public transport system on its own right of way was the only public transport system which could provide the desired user benefits. However, due to budgetary constraints, the Transport Consultative Commission which reexamined and upheld the conclusions of the DRRTS recommended bus priority measures rather than the bus-rail integrated approach which is at the heart of Senator Norris' motion.
It is interesting that, as some staff members of the original DRRTS were also principal consultants for the Dublin Transport Initiative study, it could be reasonably assumed that both studies would agree on recommendations. However, surprisingly enough, this was not the case. The Dublin Transport Initiative recommendations for an on-street LRT in the city centre are contrary to both earlier studies and seem to have emerged only recently in the thinking on the provision of an efficient rail system.
I would say to Senator Enright that I do not often get the Minister's ear——
It is St. Valentine's day.
I listen to the Senator regularly.
That is very kind of the Minister. I know he listens and I greatly appreciate it. The DTI phase two published work adopted by the Government did not provide detailed technical costings. It is almost certain that modification of its light rapid train on street centre recommendations will have to be considered. It will be a rather serious matter if, as has been suggested is the case, modifications will have to be made to the decision taken by the Government in this regard. If these modifications are not made, the much hyped concept of an LRT system for Dublin will fail dismally to achieve its transport objectives.
The recommendations published by the group known as Unified Proposal have reopened the debate on the optimum public transport system for Dublin and the suburbs. I fully take on board Senator Doyle's point. I am not old enough to remember the trams. However, I was born in Dublin and because of medical problems — which, I am glad to say were finally resolved to everybody's satisfaction — I had to spend much time in the city during my first two or three years and I have a faint recollection of being carried on the tram to Rathgar.
The main recommendations of the Unified Proposal's policy document can be summed up as follows. Public transport to and within the inner city would be provided by three radial DART-LRT rail routes, namely, Sandyford to Liffey Junction, Tallaght to Connolly Station and Dublin Airport to Liffey Junction. The three proposed DART-LRT routes would dovetail to the existing Blanchardstown, Clondalkin and DART suburban rail networks. Therefore, optimum use could be made of existing rail transport infrastructure. This would maximise the use of the proposed £198 million of EU and Government funding for the Dublin light rail system.
The time scale for the implementation of this proposal is estimated to be shorter than that of the current Luas on street proposal for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, as my colleagues said, widespread support has been declared for this proposal by the environmental and business communities. Has the Minister given any consideration to the document prepared by Unified Proposal?
In case I am accused of opposing a policy decision taken by my colleague, the former Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Séamus Brennan, I wish to put on the record that as far back as 7 April 1991 the then Minister invited proposals from the private sector to "take part in the upgrading of the transport system". At the same time, the then Minister invited potential contributors to show "how they can play a part in developing a more modern transportation system for the city and county". On 23 October 1991, at the national transport conference of the Chartered Institute of Transport in Ireland, the then Minister once again invited the private sector to "take an active part in the development of the modern public transport system for the Dublin area".
Since 1991 Unified Proposal submitted a document on the DART-LRT to the Department of the Environment and to all relevant agencies. In October 1994 clarification of issues raised by the relevant Departments was submitted to the Department of the Environment and to the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. A response is still awaited some 18 months later, although I appreciate there was a change in Government.
While I am always reluctant to single out senior civil servants because they cannot defend themselves and the Minister is responsible for policy, I question the role of the Department's advisers over the past ten years. Unless I am persuaded to the contrary, I conclude that a mindset against an underground system for Dublin developed in the early stages and advice to successive Ministers has closed their minds to an alternative to an overground light rail system. I am interested in the Minister's response and I welcome his clarification of the role of civil servants in pursuing their policies, with which the public does not always agree.
I fail to understand why the Government did not sanction and continues to refuse debate on the provision of an underground rail link between Dublin Airport and the city centre. According to the Unified Proposal recommendations, cost would not be a factor and the disruption in the inner city which could be caused by an overground light rail system could be avoided and the project completed in less time. These serious questions must be addressed; they cannot be ignored by the Civil Service, the Government or those appointed to the DTI. The long term future of this city and its environs cannot be treated like this. Will we repeat the same mistakes made in the 1950s when branch lines were closed and the tram system disbanded? We should not ask future generations to clean up the mess we leave by pursuing questionable transport policies without listening to alternative arguments.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I welcome the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry, on his first visit to the Seanad.
I thank you for your warm welcome. This is my first time in the Seanad as I have never been elected to this House.
There is still time if the Minister loses his seat at the next election.
A number of colleagues in North Tipperary would welcome the opportunity for me to take a seat here.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important subject. I thank Members for their contributions, particularly Senator Norris, whose speech was informative, enlightening and constructive. I acknowledge his deep understanding of Dublin and its requirements. I will take into account the views expressed because they have been put forward in a positive and constructive manner. I want to show how the questions raised can be further addressed in a structured and objective way.
The provision of high quality, fast and dependable public transport is critical to the future prosperity of Dublin. As a modern European capital city, Dublin requires a mass transit system which is capable of transporting large numbers of people along the main transport corridors in comfort and with the assurance of fast and reliable journey times. The need for a mass transit system for Dublin has long been recognised. The first and, until recently, the only detailed study of the subject, the Dublin rail rapid transit study, was commissioned by CIE as long ago as 1975.
Almost 20 years later, a new study of the capital's transportation needs was undertaken in a renewed effort to find solutions to Dublin's traffic and transport problems. That study developed into the Dublin Transportation Initiative or DTI. The DTI final report, published in August 1995, is the product of more than four years of detailed analysis and extensive and local consultation. It involved all the organisations responsible for transport in the city — commercial and business interests, public representatives, community and environmental groups and the public.
The DTI final report recommends an integrated transport strategy involving an extensive programme of investment in roads, public transport and traffic management, complemented by improved enforcement. There is a real commitment to the implementation of the DTI transport strategy. The Government has decided that the transport strategy recommended in the DTI final report will provide the general policy framework for the future development of the transport system in the greater Dublin area.
DTI was carried out with the active encouragement and financial support of the European Commission. As a result, major elements of the DTI transport strategy have been included in the Operational Programme for Transport, 1994 to 1999. This provides for an investment of over £600 million in DTI measures over that period. The Government has established the Dublin Transportation Office to oversee implementation of the recommended transport strategy and to ensure the continuity of the land use and transportation planning process.
In the case of public transport, DTI has recommended a number of major investment projects including the development of a light rail network; the introduction of quality bus corridors; improved public transport interchange facilities in the city centre; extension and upgrading of the DART and suburban rail services; provision of secure park and ride facilities on the public transport network and an integrated ticketing system for all public transport services. In arriving at its recommended strategy DTI examined a range of possible options including the construction of a comprehensive DART network similar to that envisaged in the Dublin rail rapid transit study.
That study envisaged the rapid rail system being completed in stages, the first of which would be the electrification of the Howth-Bray suburban railway line. The Howth-Bray DART service began in July 1984. However, the remaining elements of the DART network were never implemented due to funding constraints. The extensive DART netwrok evaluated by DTI comprised lines to Tallaght, Blanchardstown, Leopardstown and the airport, with significant underground sections in the city centre. It would have meant a very high capital cost of almost £600 million, or almost exactly what we plan to spend on all DTI measures over the six years from 1994 to 1999.
On the basis of its examination, DTI concluded that an extensive DART network was not viable in economic terms and would have a very large negative rate of return. It also concluded that the distance between the city centre and the western new towns was too short to permit the economic operation of an underground system. DTI also found that an underground would be less accessible than an on-street light rail system. However, it did recommend the inclusion of the existing rail lines to Greystones and Malahide in the DART system and I have already announced the Greystones extension.
DTI found that a comprehensive light rail network could be put in place at a far lower cost than a similar DART system. It concluded that a light rail network represented a sound investment in cost benefit terms and would be able to cover its operating costs from fares revenue. Light rail is not a new idea. It is the modern form of the Hill of Howth tramway and other street running trams which operated in Dublin in the earlier part of this century. However, light rail has evolved considerably in the decades since trams disappeared from the streets of Dublin.
The modern equivalent comes in the form of quiet, attractive, streamlined, single deck vehicles which fit well into the modern city centre environment. Unlike conventional heavy rail or metro systems, light rail is flexible. It can run through most city streets, sharing the road space with general traffic and even pedestrians. It combines the reliability, speed and comfort of the traditional railway with the flexibility and efficiency of the bus.
The evidence from around the world is that light rail is helping to reverse the decline in public transport in urban areas and this has been responsible for the rapid growth of light rail systems in the last ten to 15 years. Since the 1975 Dublin rail rapid transit study, light rail has been successfully introduced in many countries. Indeed, light rail is now the most common way of upgrading public transport in cities around the world.
Throughout Europe there are many examples of light rail systems. Some cities like Amsterdam have upgraded their existing tram systems, while many French cities — such as Grenoble, Nantes and Strasbourg — have built completely new systems. In the UK, light rail systems have been implemented in Manchester and Sheffield since 1992 and plans for further light rail lines in Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Croydon in London are at an advanced stage of development. Even the United States, hardly a mecca for public transport, has been won over. Cities like Portland and San Diego have built good LRT systems. What was new and unproven in 1975, is now a proven and successful public transport system.
The advantages of light rail over conventional rail or metro systems are numerous. Light rail offers a system of transport which uses less power, produces less pollution than either DART or buses. Light rail is also much more accessible, particularly in the city centre where stops on the street are more accessible for people with reduced mobility than underground DART stations. In addition, light rail has a proven capacity to support the economic development and regeneration of urban areas by delivering passengers directly into commercial areas. The recommended network in Dublin has been chosen with this in mind.
The core light rail network recommended by DTI provides for lines to Tallaght, Cabinteely — via the old Harcourt Street railway line — and Ballymun at an estimated cost of £300 million in 1993 prices. The operational programme for transport 1994 to 1999 provides for a total expenditure in the region of £200 million on light rail during that period with substantial European Union support.
The DTI final report endorsed this expenditure as about the limit of what could be physically implemented during that time. An expanded network of lines to Finglas, Dublin Airport and Swords has also been recommended for future implementation.
I launched CIÉ's public consultation programme on the planned light rail links to Tallaght and Dundrum on 12 December 1995. This gives people a real opportunity to express their views and have them fully considered by the project team. The target is to get phase I of the core light rail network in operation by the year 2000. Phase 2 is planned to follow immediately afterwards.
New legislation will be introduced shortly which, among other things, will provide for a mandatory public inquiry into all aspects of the proposed light rail network. In particular, it will enable people who believe that light rail is not the appropriate solution to Dublin's transport problems or that other routes should be given priority, to put forward their views and challenge the DTI recommendations and detailed planning work of CIÉ's project team.
As the Minister responsible, I will be obliged by the legislation to fully and objectively consider the inspector's report on the public inquiry and the submissions made by interested people before making any legally binding, final decision on this issue.
Some concern has been expressed about the likely extent of disruption in Dublin city centre during construction of the light rail system. Clearly it would be impossible to implement a major construction project on the scale of the light rail project without disrupting traffic. However, I wish to assure Senators that CIÉ, as the implementing agency, is committed to ensuring that construction of the system is done on a basis which minimises inconvenience to people and businesses as far as possible. This will require careful planning, effective traffic management and enforcement, extensive public consultation and the co-operation and goodwill of the people of Dublin. I must also say that an underground system could not be built without significant disruption.
A great deal of valuable time and effort, and not inconsiderable expertise, has been invested in the DTI process. As I mentioned earlier, we are fortunate to have access to significant funding for DTI-related developments in the greater Dublin area through the operational programme for transport. Our priority now must be to ensure that the opportunity to make a substantial and lasting improvement to the capital's transport system is fully availed of during the current Structural Funds round. We cannot afford the luxury of more studies to re-examine the fundamental basis of the DTI strategy, which we recently adopted.
We are fortunate that we can afford to improve our public transport services. However, the current favourable financial circumstances carry with them a great onus to get things done. We cannot afford to spend all of the available £600 million on just one element of the DTI strategy, whether that is on major roads or on an underground system. If the strategy is to work properly, we must achieve a balance between investments in roads, light rail, quality bus corridors, traffic management and so on.
Most people think Dublin's traffic and transport problems have been a source of discussion, debate and argument for too long and that there has been precious little to show in terms of progress and concrete results. That is about to change. We have reached the point of no return. The time for talking is coming to a close — it is time for action.
I would like the final agreement on the project to reflect the legitimate concerns raised in the House and through the consultation process. I invite Members who have raised concerns to convey them to the project team through the consultative process which I established. I know the views raised here are firmly held and legitimate. I hope the project team, when it reaches a final conclusion, will reflect the views of Members.
I compliment those who tabled this motion and I thank the Minister for listening to Members. I have travelled to many countries over the years, yet Dublin must be one of the last cities in the western world which does not have an underground or a light rail system. Sydney has the successful monorail, but there was public outcry about the disadvantages to that beautiful city which would result from that rail system. However, it has become almost a tourist attraction.
An easy flow of traffic and the ability to get from place to place quickly is a priority for those living in or visiting a city to do business. I welcome anything which will free up traffic in Dublin. Dublin Airport is the only airport in a European capital which does not have an underground or a light rail service. Dublin urgently needs a light rail system to the airport given its population and its rapid expansion. There are considerable traffic jams on Drumcondra Road each morning and evening; people sit in traffic for 30 to 45 minutes. This makes a nonsense of existing traffic plans and regulations.
I congratulate those associated with this proposal. The opportunity has been given to those who oppose it to express their views. I hope it reaches a speedy conclusion and that the Minister and his officials will be enlightened by the views of the people of Dublin.
I was interested to hear the contribution made by Senator Doyle who represents a Dublin constituency. Most Members live outside the Dublin area. Senator Ross, Senator Quinn, Senator Norris and Senator Hayes have first hand knowledge of Dublin's traffic problems.
I have made a reasonable contribution to providing employment to people in the north inner city of Dublin. However, I am disappointed that Parnell Square, which is easily recognisable for people from rural areas who visit the city, is not being fully utilised. It provides a natural U-turn for transport travelling from one part of the city to another. I understand it is proposed to halt the light rail system midway through O'Connell Street. Dublin does not end with O'Connell Street.
The Minister, in his distinguished career, has shown great commitment to rural communities and has achieved a great deal for a man so young. His contribution to the Gaelic Athletic Association and Semple Stadium is unequalled. However, I must impress upon him the importance of addressing the issues of the north inner city, the expansion of Croke Park and the proposed development from O'Connell Street to the airport. This is a magnificent opportunity which must be grasped before land and property values on the north side of the city reach levels similar to those south of the River Liffey. This matter must also be addressed following careful consideration.
The citizens of Dublin's northside have a greater need for this type of transport than those who live south of the River Liffey. Employers, car owners and those in need of such transport are being victimised. The opportunities afforded to people living south of the River Liffey should be afforded to those who were born and bred in the city of Dublin. This opportunity should be availed of.
Having listened to all sides of the argument, I am sure that the Minister will not waste time bringing this matter to a conclusion. The possibility exists to create much employment and everyone can benefit from the work opportunities on offer. At a time when people are availing of all opportunities, I look forward to the day when the light rail system comes into operation. I hope this will be in the not too distant future.
I am glad that the Minister, Deputy Lowry, is responsible for this project because he has a track record of cutting through reports and bureaucracy and achieving results. I am confident that he will obtain the best results for the people of Dublin as a result of this initiative. I congratulate Senator Norris and the Independent Members for tabling this timely motion.
This is, I believe, the first opportunity the Oireachtas has had to look at this issue since the DTI released its report in August. It is an important issue for Dubliners and, indeed, for those who are looking at an integrated transport system for the entire country. Senator Norris is to be congratulated on bringing this motion before the House, as is the Government side for ensuring that the motion will be passed.
As Senator Norris said, we are not looking to throw out the DTI report. Members who represent constituencies in this city and county realise that, unfortunately, there are defects in the proposals of the DTI, particularly as they relate to light rail. There were many expectations for light rail and many of them were connected with the grandiose exaggerations of EU funds which were voiced in 1992. The £8.6 billion suddenly became £6.2 billion and, as a result, we have had to reduce the number of rail lines from three to two. Fintan O'Toole wrote a column for The Irish Times last year under a headline which put this issue in context. The headline read: “Transport initiative offers most to those who have”.
I am a representative on a local authority in south County Dublin. While my colleague, Senator Doyle, has aptly described the situation in Dublin city, I wish to talk briefly about the south and south-west of our city. Despite the comments of the last speaker, it is not a question of a conflict between northside and southside. The issue is far too serious to look at it from that point of view. The DART, unfortunately, was caught up in that argument.
The south-west of this city has the largest number of young people in the country and one of the lowest rates of car ownership. It is an area with new facilities but those facilities are not connected to the services which should be available in any community. That is the problem in the south-west. While we welcomed the extension of the light rail to Tallaght there are huge tracts of that community which have been pushed aside as a result of the findings of the DTI. They have been forgotten. I am referring in particular to west Tallaght, a community with up to 70 per cent unemployment, huge numbers of young people and a poor provision of services, including leisure services. We have forgotten them which is why I am reminded of Fintan O'Toole's article which stated that those who have, have gained most as a result of the decision of the DTI.
There is great disappointment in the community I represent because areas which were headlined through LRT because of their social disadvantage have been forgotten. I am delighted to have the opportunity to make that point in this debate. I am also delighted the Minister has welcomed the consultation stage and to hear that small changes can be made during that stage before the proposal goes through the Houses to become law. This debate is the first part of that consultation process and I welcome that.
I have a number of questions with regard to LRT. Why is it that where the report refers to a park and ride facility, there is no such facility for the community of Tallaght beside the new town centre? Second, why did the DTI exclude the possibility of using underground? Following consultations I had today, I have been made aware that the DTI excluded that possibility. Third, why are there such discrepancies between official figures for the cost of creating a mile of underground tunnel and those quoted in other countries and by other people in this country?
There are many unanswered questions following the DTI report. I hope they will be answered as we go through this consultation stage. We have a chance to get this matter right. The Minister is known to be a man who cuts through bureaucracy and achieves results and I am sure he will achieve a good result for the people of Dublin when the consultation stage is over. I am grateful that he has taken this opportunity to hear our points of view.
Listeners to this debate might wonder what a Donegal man might have to say about a light rail system in Dublin. However, I am very interested in this matter. I join other Senators in welcoming the Minister. I hope my contribution will be of some value.
I am not concerned with whether the rail system goes underground or above ground or where it goes. However, I am concerned about the cost of the system and, according to the Minister, the estimated cost is £600 million. I am a public representative for the north-west. Whether I am classified as a Border county representative or as a representative of the west, I like to think I come from an area which has been deprived of funding from every national development plan and from EU contributions.
I want to be crystal clear about spending under the national development plan and from the £7 billion that has come to Ireland from the EU. We have a straightforward option — we can call in the monitoring committee. We will do that; we will ask the EU monitoring committee to check that funding provided by the EU is fairly spent on this island taking into consideration the major disadvantages in the west. There is no point crying with crocodile tears at the bishops' conference, appointing a Minister of State for the West and wearing all the outward trappings of concern to indicate that the west will receive funding when, having started to build a prison in Castlerea, it is discovered that there are not enough funds to continue it. I am not criticising that decision as it will probably rectify itself. Nevertheless, it is an indication to those who are concerned and who have been watching the situation unfold that the west has received the worst of all deals. The only fallback available to us is to ask the monitoring committee to ensure that the Border counties and the west will not be excluded once again.
Taking funding that is provided by the EU to provide a light rail system for Dublin will be very expensive. Anybody of average intelligence knows it will cost a huge amount of money. There will be a new rail line from Belfast to Dublin and the roads between the two cities will be upgraded to a dual carriageway. In addition there is air transport between the two cities. Although all the facilities are already there, the Government continues to build more. That will leave the west and the Border counties even more isolated.
I can offer another example. I have spoken about the natural gas industry and its development. I wish to deal with it again in the context of the expenditure involved because that is my main interest. That development cost £1,200 million. Some time ago Shannon Airport was complaining about losing traffic because of the decision to allow transatlantic flights to overfly Shannon and fly direct to Dublin. A Government of which I was a supporter gave £5 million to Shannon to secure a link to the natural gas pipeline. That shows the benefit of natural gas.
Although we are not discussing natural gas, it is related to funding and expenditure. The west and the Border counties did not receive a single penny of European funding; they were conned. Representatives of Bord Gáis came to Cavan and Monaghan and informed people of the company's plans to bring natural gas to Belfast, Cavan, Monaghan, Sligo and Letterkenny. The company received EU funding for this plan which was a con and from which the west and the Border counties were excluded.
A light rail system for Dublin is necessary. All people on this island know that Dublin must deal with its serious traffic and transport problems. I attended a conference in Brussels at which a solution to serious transport congestion was highlighted. All heavy freight lorries were not permitted to enter the centre of the city. I support measures to tackle transport problems in Dublin but I ask the Minister to recognise that there are people on this island who feel they are excluded from every expenditure proposal. The fact that a Minister from Clare will be responsible for the Border counties clearly indicates that there is no focus on and recognition of the needs of people in the west and the Border counties; crocodile tears are shed for them. I hope the EU monitoring committee will not find that the Minister has done another injustice to the people of the west who expect a fair share of funding.
Senator Quinn is a man for whom I have great respect because he has made money. It is a great mark of a man to be able to do this honestly, as he seems to have done. He recommends the proposal for a unified transport system for Dublin, including an underground railway element. I am not sure from where the funding for this will come. If the Minister could announce in the morning that there will be an underground railway system in Dublin he would love to do so, as would have the previous Minister and as would the next Minister. However, this project would be expensive. We should aim for such a system eventually and I have no problem supporting the motion, which the Government has agreed to consider.
With regard to toll capping on roads, there is a toll on the West Link bridge but I would hate to see it extended further along that road. It has been stated that 45,000 cars a day use this road but I think this will increase to about 70,000 cars a day. I would be worried about too much tolling on roads because this would probably have the effect of traffic spilling back into estates from which we are trying to divert it.
If Senator Quinn thinks this project can be completed economically I am prepared to go along with him. I would like the Minister, in looking at the light rail system, to consider two proposals. The Harcourt Street line is being developed as far as Crazy Prices in Dundrum. I suggest that it be extended further to the Sandyford industrial estate, where there are about 7,000 workers; I do not know how much this would cost. Dún Laoghaoire-Rathdown County Council passed a motion asking the Minister to consider this proposal. The old line is still there and another station would not cost much and would have a large catchment area. The terminus at the Harcourt Street end of the line should be brought closer to the DART terminus. I do not know if there is already a plan to do this.
The proposal for an underground system is good and Dublin could benefit from it. We could have a part underground and part overground system as many cities have. I do not know from where the money for this will come. A sum of £600 million was mentioned; Senator Norris may have the exact figures. If the Minister could provide such a system, he would do so. I hope that some day not too far down the line this will be possible. European funds will dry up shortly and I am not sure where we can go from there. Perhaps private enterprise could help fund this project.
Absolutely.
The Minister is a good man to make a deal and he may be able to consider some of these options. I would like him to extend the light rail system to the Sandyford industrial estate. This would make a great deal of sense and would not cost that much extra because the old line still exists and has not been built on and no compulsory purchase orders would be required.
I thank all those who spoke in the debate, particularly Senator Quinn. It takes a good deal for Senator Quinn, who is in business in a big way and does not take these issues lightly, to make the profoundly certain and deeply researched speech he made tonight. In point after point, in a concise way, he nailed our colours to the mast and I ask the Minister to look again at this speech.
This Government and the previous one supported the DTI so we cannot make a political football out of this. If anybody was wrong, everybody was. I would say that everybody was only partially wrong. The brief given to the DTI was too narrow and restrictive. It specifically restricted the notion of an underground system and this is why it is not part of the DTI's proposal.
There are many inconsistencies, even in the Minister's speech. However, I was profoundly relieved that he modified it while he delivered it. This shows that he is a Minister who can think on his feet. He said that he would be open during the planning consultative process. His script stated that the time for talking was over and that now is the time for action. I am glad he modified that by saying that the time for talking is coming to a close. This leaves a window of opportunity and it is through that window that we propose to look at the vexed problem of the DTI.
The DTI found that an underground system would be less accessible than an on street light rail system. This is not true and the DTI must rethink this. Every study done has shown that the underground system is the most accessible according to the scientific criteria applied. The Minister said that, unlike conventional heavy rail or metro systems, light rail is flexible and can run through most city streets sharing road space with general traffic. It could not be less flexible. The point was made brilliantly by Senator Doyle. It will dislodge traffic and confine cars.
It is said that evidence from around the world shows that light rail is helping to reverse the decline of public transport in urban areas. This is simply not the case. The Simpson local public transport systems traffic engineering control survey of May 1988, quoted in this document, directly contradicts that assertion. I can give fact after fact to challenge the conclusions and methodology of the DTI. The Minister said an underground system could not be built without significant disruption. That is true but it would be much less significant than the disruption that would be caused by the proposals of the DTI.
Senator Quinn and others mentioned Strasbourg. A report from the Strasbourg Chamber of Commerce said:
The composition of shops along the route of the trams changed. Many of the traditional shops dealing in durable or bulky goods, such as furniture etc., moved away. They were replaced by boutiques, sweetshops etc. This development seemed to fly in the face of EU and Government national policy for protecting the diversity of inner city areas.
I am quoting a chamber of commerce report from a city mentioned by the Minister which clearly challenges what he has been advised.
Another point made against having an underground system was the expense involved. Modern technology has advanced along lines which make tunnelling much more efficient, rapid and much less costly than the Minister assumes. Developing the light rail transport system will, for example, dislodge services like gas, light, electricity and sewage, along the street. Will that not be expensive and a disruption? It will be a huge and major disruption.
Of course people do not like to toll roads; who does? Who likes to pay for anything these days? However, there is no doubt this is the direction in which we will move. We are talking about tolling the ring system. If that was done, a proportion, say 10 per cent, of the estimated tolls ploughed back into the system would underpin the European Investment Bank funding built into this proposal and fund £170 million worth of it. If one looks at the arguments, one can see that our arguments are strong on an economic basis.
Senator Quinn passed me a note to tell me he forgot to mention one point; I am glad he did because it allows me to say it. Strasbourg also had to pay massive compensation to those businesses that were disrupted. They were able to take Strasbourg to European legal institutions and secure compensation. Dublin city will have to pay compensation for this——
I hope the Department of Finance will have to pay for it. Dublin city will not pay anything.
Perhaps, but we should ensure it does not happen. We can go forward together.
This is an open minded Minister and I hope he will be kind enough to invite us to make our submission to him. I will be writing to the Minister to see if I and my advisers, who are really responsible for this plan, can meet him and his officials. In a totally uninformed and amateur way many years ago, I felt there should be an underground system for Dublin. I was contradicted many times and was given technical arguments; they all proved to be specious.
I agree with speakers on this and the other side of the House who wistfully said that if this Minister could produce an underground system for Dublin, would he, his predecessor or his successor not have done it? That is precisely my point. The Minister now has the opportunity not to abandon DTI but to incorporate this element as part of it. All we want is to send the network underground roughly at the point of the two canals. We are still using the Harcourt Street line and the various infrastructural reserved busways that already exist but are obviating the clear difficulties that exist when one gets into the inner city.
Senator Quinn has just come back for this debate from Sheffield. He described its transport system as a horror story and the same is true of Manchester. However, their city layouts are different. They have infinitely fewer points of conflict available, between road traffic on the one hand and light rail on the other, as does Dublin, which is an 18th century city with little, narrow and riddling streets.
I had a busy day yesterday. I had to cross and recross the Sandymount Avenue level crossing. I was stuck half a dozen times waiting for the DART to pass. On one occasion one train came from the Dún Laoghaire direction but I also had to wait for another train to pass from the other direction before the barriers came up. My frustration mounted. I could understand the people in Los Angeles who take out a rifle and shoot people who hold them up on the roads. I would not do this but there will be bloodshed on the streets of Dublin if we have this type of light rail system and the dislodging of traffic in the Dawson Street area. I hope the Minister will maintain an open posture, welcome us in and listen and not say the time for talking is over. We must have a parallel investigation into this modification of what is otherwise an excellent plan.
The average passenger distance to stations under this new system will be approximately half of what it is between the two DART routes. Travel times will be half what will be expected on the LRT. The average distance for a commuter to walk to or from a station from anywhere in the city centre will be 350 metres. The estimated operational revenues for each new radial route will be four times that of the two existing DART routes, Bray and Howth. There is an absolutely unbeatable case for at least a re-examination of the situation to allow the possibility of the incorporation of this element in the Dublin inner city area.
I noticed you were trying to stop me, Sir.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I would be loath to interrupt, Senator.
I, like everybody in this House, love Dublin. As Senator McGowan said, one does not have to come from Dublin to feel that it is important as the nation's capital.
I have been involved in tourism in Dublin for up to 30 years because I love the city. Does anyone seriously think that Japanese, Australian, American or British tourists will stand in College Green and take a photograph of the light rail infrastructure while the train goes past? It will destroy the visual amenities of Dublin as well as further complicating and worsening our existing transportation mess.
I very much welcome the Minister's change of mind; he continued to think on his feet. I hope the Minister continues to do so and meet with us, where I hope we can convince him and his hard working officials that there is a case along the lines of what we proposed here this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.