I propose an amendment to the Order of Business: "That statements will terminate at 4 p.m. and a questions and answers session will follow until 4.30 p.m."
Light Rail Project: Statements.
Is that agreed?
The Minister has to leave early.
I was requested to be in the House for two hours, from 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m., and I am very happy to be in the Seanad. However, I made my next appointment for 4.30 p.m.
My problem is that other Members do not realise the question and answer session will conclude at 4.30 p.m. but I presume they will be here at 4 p.m.
I have to leave at 4.30 p.m.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I thank Members who requested this debate. I have always been agreeable to come to Seanad Éireann, where my political life began, and I have many happy memories. As Minister for Education, I attended the House frequently but I have not been called on very much in my new capacity. I hope that changes as I have only been here for one Adjournment Matter on rail safety. I am glad to have such a democratic forum to set out my stall on Luas. I am most grateful for the opportunity to come before the House and set out the decision the Government took to re-energise and refocus the Dublin light rail project.
The Seanad debated the light rail issue on a number of occasions. I will, therefore, be brief in setting out the background to Tuesday's Government decision. The Government programme An Action Programme for the Millennium contained a commitment to an independent study of the option of putting the light rail system underground in the city centre. Upon taking up office, I obtained Government approval to go ahead with that study. W. S. Atkins were subsequently appointed to do the job and produced their report at the end of April. It is salutary to note if I had not honoured that commitment I would have been hauled before the Dáil and the Seanad to explain why we were not fulfilling it.
The Atkins report was a very valuable piece of work as it set out the facts in a clear and unambiguous way. It dealt with the issues which concerned Members, such as disruption during construction, the long term passenger capacity of the system and the impact of light rail operations on the traffic system generally. It provided objective factual information, whereas previously we only had claim and counterclaim. However, we are back to claim and counterclaim of another nature now. The Government gave long and serious consideration to the report before making a decision. Ministers received a presentation from the consultants on their findings and held a question and answer session with them. The Cabinet debated the issue on two separate occasions.
This emphasises the Government's concern to take a decision in the best long term interests of the capital city and its citizens. Everyone loves Dublin and wants the best for it. On Tuesday the Government decided the first phase of the Dublin light rail network would comprise two lines. The first is a surface line from Tallaght to Connolly Station based on the CIÉ preferred alignment from Tallaght to O'Connell Street and which is consistent with the surface option recommended by W.S. Atkins. Myths grew that everything in the consultants report was thrown out but we have added to it because it made sense even though it is more expensive. The second is a line from Sandyford to Ballymun and Dublin Airport using the old Harcourt Street and Broadstone railway alignments with an underground section in the city centre linking these alignments.
It is also the Government's objective to proceed without delay with the construction of the Tallaght — city centre and Sandyford — St. Stephen's Green sections. This is, of course, subject to the relevant statutory procedures and to the necessary detailed technical confirmation on the Sandyford — St. Stephen's Green section. This first phase should be seen as part of a longer term vision for the development of an extended light rail network for the city serving destinations such as Swords, the Docklands, Cabinteely and Clondalkin. This extended network is consistent with the DTI strategy and the expanded network considered in the Atkins study. While the Government took no formal decision on this wider network, it was most anxious to ensure its decision on the first phase would facilitate the longer term development of the network on these broad lines.
I wish to explain briefly some of the key considerations the Government took into account in reaching its decision. The underground section in the city centre is proposed to run from St. Stephen's Green to Broadstone. It is designed to address two important issues raised in the W.S. Atkins report — disruption during construction and potential longer term capacity constraints in the central area as the network is extended. The report set out a very vivid picture of the scale of disruption which would occur over a two year construction on many of the capital city's principal streets — Lower O'Connell Street, Westmoreland Street, College Green, Nassau Street and Dawson Street. The proposed short underground section will address this.
People think I caved into business interests or succumbed to commercial pressures but I have no aspect of commerciality in my life. I shop like everyone else and go about my business. I noted the comments of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, IBEC and others and I make no apology for listening to everybody's opinion in coming to a final decision. I have great respect for commercial interests but my part in commercial life is that of a consumer not a practitioner.
The Atkins report also clearly identified the potential for capacity problems as the network expanded, particularly on that part of the route which is now going underground. While Atkins suggested options such as a loopline through the docklands to provide some relief, the Government decided to take a long-term view. What we build now will serve this city for many generations to come. Because this will take some time to sink in, debate on this subject is very welcome. The Government will not make a rushed decision. We need a properly integrated transport system.
Hear, hear.
The needs of the city of Dublin and not of the Government are most important. I am amazed to hear misgivings expressed about the cost of this project. The Government intends, over a period of years, to spend the necessary money. I was asked in Dáil Éireann yesterday if the cheque was written and signed as though the new transport system should be in operation immediately. The Government's decision on Luas is now part of the public capital programme. It is built into the public capital budgetary programme for each year and will be called down as it is needed. The amount, £400 million plus, is part of that programme. I wish to make that very clear lest it be thought that I am plucking figures from the sky. My Department, and the Government subsequently, very carefully adopted the figure of £400 million plus. I was asked yesterday what "plus" means and I answered that it means extra.
How much extra?
This is the Minister for plus.
We therefore decided to address the capacity problem now by building a tunnel on the city centre section. This is a much more sensible approach than attempting patch-work solutions along the way as traffic grows.
It is also important to understand — and I welcome the opportunity to stress this — that the tunnel now proposed is not the short tunnel considered in the Atkins study. The Atkins short tunnel went from St. Stephen's Green to O'Connell Street and then westward to Smithfield, serving both the Tallaght and Dundrum lines. One of the major drawbacks of that option, which I assume was the reason for its rejection, was its limited flexibility in terms of extending the system in the longer term. The Government decision proposes a south-north tunnel from St. Stephen's Green to Broadstone on the Sandyford to Dublin Airport line. This overcomes the constraint on extending the network identified by Atkins.
The first phase network now proposed also provides for much greater integration with the rest of the public transport system as I laid down from the beginning. Heuston and Connolly Stations will be directly linked by a light rail line. This will leave only a short walk to Busáras connecting the rail and bus networks. There will be a direct interchange between light rail and the DART and suburban rail systems at Connolly Station. The airport will be directly served by the light rail network and will have much improved links with the mainline and suburban rail systems.
The Dublin Tranportation Initiative placed much emphasis on making the best possible use of existing assets. This is now being achieved by bringing both the Harcourt Street and Broadstone disused rail alignments back into play.
One thing which becomes very clear when you read the Atkins report is that light rail on its own will not solve Dublin's traffic problems. I spent nine months going to chamber of commerce dinners and residents' and community groups' meetings and I found a common misconception that Luas would, like a magic rope, solve traffic gridlock in an instant. Luas will accommodate 1 per cent of the present private vehicle traffic. However, the integrated approach to Dublin's traffic problem will lead to a much greater usage of public transport than we have seen heretofore. As the lines are extended and more loops are incorporated into the system more people will be served. Luas is not a panacea for all our traffic ills. Traffic management is the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment but he and I have discussed the importance of an integrated approach.
In this regard the Government took particular account of the Atkins view that traffic management had to be addressed whatever light rail option was chosen — surface or combined surface and underground. It was with that in mind that the Government gave the go-ahead for environmental traffic cells and for three road projects identified as essential for effective traffic management in the city. These are the Macken Street Bridge, the Cork Street/Coombe relief route and a minor scheme at Mercer Street. This will involve a total expenditure of about £30 million.
When deciding on the development of the light rail network for Dublin the Government also noted that the cost had been estimated to be in excess of £400 million. Some people have been demanding instant precise figures for the cost of the project. This is both unreasonable and irresponsible. The next stage is to carry out the evaluation work which will lead to a firm cost estimate. This will require much detailed technical work on the development of the underground section including the drilling of boreholes along the corridor to determine the precise geology. I do not intend to be drawn into a debate on figures until that work is done, except to say that my Department and the Government have consciously and carefully said that the cost will be £400 million plus. I can assure the House that appropriate funding arrangements will be put in place to deliver on the Government's commitment to the project. As is the usual practice the precise funding commitments for the project will be addressed as part of the normal budgetary process when the Government is preparing its annual public capital programme.
The possibility of private financing for infrastructure projects is being addressed by the Department of Finance. This is of a general nature across a range of Departments. I expect that this general issue will be considered by the Government in the near future. It would therefore be prudent to await the outcome of Government deliberations on general policy in this area before taking any decision on the scope of private financing of the light rail project. Unlike some previous Government decisions, the figure was actually included with the decision. I have seen Government decisions on capital projects which included no projected costing. I stress the importance of including the actual projected sum on this occasion.
I wish to refer to EU funding. I have always made it clear, from the first interview I gave on this subject in July 1997, that EU funding would not be the determining factor in making a decision on Luas. My primary concern has always been to ensure that Ireland does not lose the EU funding involved. This objective will now be achieved through the timely transfer of this money to other suitable projects.
I will be working hard to ensure that a reasonable proportion of the £114 million decommitted from the light rail project will be used to address public transport requirements. The Atkins report has highlighted a number of areas where investment is needed in transport infrastructure in Dublin. My Department has also been working for some time with CIE to identify projects on suburban rail, including the DART and Maynooth line, where work could be undertaken by 2001. We will now be entering into urgent consultations with the Commission on this issue.
The light rail project, as decided upon by Government on Tuesday, will also be submitted for EU assistance under the next round of EU structural and cohesion funding. When Commissioner Monika Wulf-Mathies came to see me last October we discussed EU funding and I explained that funding was not my priority; it was to establish a planned transport system. She was emphatic about the provision of the Ballymun line for equality and a more cohesive system. Some of her staff had also asked for a link to the airport. We will draft our proposals to achieve EU approval in that regard.
I do not intend to tie myself or the Government to an implementation timescale at this stage, when the project is still subject to statutory approval procedures and to necessary detailed technical evaluation work. Decisions in relation to the public inquiry are a matter for the inspector. His is a judicial role, and I have no role in relation to the inquiry. All county councillors know this.
Senator Glynn and I served on Westmeath County Council. All politics is local, but there are implications. As you, a Chathaoirligh, and Senator Finneran know, we sat through discussions for years about where the Athlone bypass would go. Various routes were suggested and it took a long time to make a decision. Motorists now think it is great to whizz around Athlone into south Roscommon and east Galway as quickly as possible. However, those of who served on the relevant authority at that time know the judicial processes which have to be gone through. The will of the people must also be respected, if they wish to object to, or support a proposal.
People will laugh and ask why I am talking about a relief road to Athlone. However, everyone who now travels that road thinks it is a great idea. The people of Athlone think it is a wonderful idea because the town has been revitalised and people can go about their business because there is no more heavy traffic.
We are talking about Dublin.
I am entitled to make an allusion to my experience.
It is a grand illusion.
The Minister must be allowed to proceed without interruption.
The Senator is one of those who laughs at my experience — he can laugh away. Life is full of experiences, which are not just related to those living in Dublin.
As regards the timetable, the Government decision has cleared the way to get on with the project. It has dealt with the major issues of capacity and disruption which had been bedevilling the project, quite literally, for years. The Government has also set the project planners a clear objective of proceeding without delay on the Tallaght to city centre and Sandyford to St. Stephen's Green sections. The Government is confident that these elements of the project can go ahead quickly and that the detailed planning of the St. Stephen's Green to Dublin Airport, via Ballymun, section can proceed in parallel.
My Department met the CIE light rail project team yesterday morning to brief them fully on the Government decision. I will meet them tomorrow morning to make a political input to that urgency. The project team will now get on with the technical work programme necessary to give effect to that decision.
On Tuesday, the Government took a far-sighted decision on the development of Dublin's transportation system. I have no doubt that the passage of time will demonstrate the wisdom of that decision. For too long the light rail project has been the subject of a contentious debate. The Government commissioned an independent study which objectively addressed the issues raised in that debate. It acted quickly and decisively once it had fully considered the consultant's report.
We now need to focus our energies on delivering the light rail network to the citizens of Dublin without delay. I look forward to everybody working together to find solutions. That is the real challenge. We should work together, not fight each other. I do not wish to upset Latin scholars by quoting Horace, who said "carpe diem”. If we do this together, Dublin city and county will have what it deserves. I hope I can rely on the support of the Members of this House in that endeavour.
I welcome the Minister to the House for this important debate. It is important, not just for citizens of Dublin but for the entire country as we are deciding the future of our capital. In my secondary school "carpe diem” meant “Seize the Day”, which is what the Minister has not done in the decision taken by her and the Cabinet.
I am glad the Senator is a Latin scholar.
I am more a Gaelic scholar than a Latin one. However, I remember some of what I learnt from my good teachers.
Tempus fugit.
"Gather ye rosebuds while ye may, Old Time is still a-flying".
Senator O'Dowd has ten minutes to speak and should be allowed to proceed without interruption.
It is a major issue for our citizens that pollution is increasing in cities and towns. We are spewing carcinogens and toxic fumes everywhere and the number of deaths from respiratory causes is rising. This is an environment issue and we should be looking at a reduction in traffic in our cities and towns. Luas will not make any appreciable difference in the volume of traffic in our cities. We should follow the lead of the Fine Gael spokesperson on transport, Deputy Olivia Mitchell, who said the Minister's decision has no timeframe, no precise costings and no technical design.
As a result of the Minister's decision, we will lose £114 million of EU funding, which was specifically provided for Luas. That money is lost to Luas because we are not going ahead with it within the allocated timeframe. It may be provided under a new tranche of EU funding. The Minister said it will be used for other purposes.
I said I will be working to get it for public transport in Dublin.
It will not be specifically for Luas.
It cannot be used for that.
Exactly — I said that last October.
It is reasonable for me to expect to make my statement without being interrupted by the Minister.
Statements must be allowed to proceed.
Commentators are saying that if the tunnelling option goes ahead, there is an absence of specific plans, viability studies, geological surveys and detailed budgetary layout. None of those has been given to us today to support why the Government has taken this decision. We do not know what the cost of the tunnelling will be, yet the Government is committed to taking this route. It is saying the cost will be £400 million plus — plus what? Queries have been raised about the wisdom of introducing a one mile stretch of underground and twenty miles of overground rail line, on the basis of the enormous extra cost and the inevitable delays in completing the project.
Dr. Adrian Phillips, an associate Professor of Geology in Trinity College, Dublin, said that if the Government goes for the tunnelling option, the tunnel will have to run through bedrock where available and then across deposits of sand, gravel and boulder clay, or it will have to go deeper into bedrock below the original 45 metre deep Liffey riverbed. It is not a simple tunnel. Both options present problems and will put the Luas tunnel under sea level. Excavation will be liable to water seepage or possible flooding, particularly when cutting through gravel.
What about the Channel Tunnel?
These channels are deep down, well below sea level, and are in effect, very large water mains. A professional geologist has said we do not know the cost of these proposals and we cannot quantify their impact. However, what we do know is that Luas could start immediately if we went for the completely overground option but under this proposal it will not. Judging by The Irish Times today, the Taoiseach is unsure when it will happen — he thinks there will be delays and it will not start before 2002. In the same newspaper Dr. Garret FitzGerald wrote that the only advantage to be gained from tunnelling as opposed to digging up city centre streets would be a slight improvement in bus times, because they would not be slowed down by trams. On this ground he questioned the logic of the Government's decision. A better authority than any I have quoted is Mr. Frank McDonald.
Another independent, unbiased, objective expert.
Perhaps the dogs would not bark when I am speaking. I am entitled to the courtesy I have always shown in this House so I ask you, a Chathaoirligh, to remove that gentleman if he proceeds to disrupt my speech.
Senator O'Dowd has the floor and is entitled to be heard.
I am sure Mr. McDonald would be interested in the Senator's remarks.
Who is inviting comment now?
We are all terrified of Frank McDonald.
I must insist that the debate proceeds in an orderly fashion.
Mr. McDonald is our most important journalist on environmental matters. As I am sure Senator Norris will acknowledge, his stand on the demolition of Drogheda Grammar School was first class. If I am looking for an authority on environmental issues I will turn to Mr. McDonald because he has tremendous credibility in this area. He wrote that the Government's decision demonstrates there is no political will to take the hard and potentially unpopular decisions now required to begin sorting out Dublin's traffic problems. It demonstrates that Ministers lack the courage to tread on the toes of vested interests.
The Minister should reconsider what she has decided. The newspapers reported that the Cabinet was split — the PD Ministers held one view and Fianna Fáil Ministers held another. Luas will not now go ahead, which is a major catastrophe for the people of Dublin. The dynamics of traffic management in the city have been put back by many years. The Government should look again at this matter in the interests of the people of the city.
I heartily welcome the Government's decision. A senior and long-established environmental journalist has criticised the Government for lack of courage but I take the opposite view. When the Minister took office nine months ago she was faced with a proposal for a phased overground rail system which discriminated against many parts of the city. She realised that many aspects of the proposals needed to be considered. She decided to look at it carefully and call in consultants to evaluate it independently and objectively so that she would have more independent information to address her deep seated concerns. I commended her action at the time and do so again today.
I am baffled by the anxiety of some spokespersons to see the main recommendations of a consultant's report agreed by the Cabinet and approved for implementation within an hour. This country is littered with major reports on the economy and the environment — this applies to all Governments We had the Culliton report and a report on the implementation of Culliton. These reports were studied and the Governments of the day wisely pulled back from rushed implementation. Many of the proposals and suggestions in these reports were meritorious and successive Governments have taken on board these objectives. However, the major recommendation of one report on house prices was that mortgages should be taxed and if the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, had adopted that policy it would have been daft in the extreme. He was wise enough to state on "Morning Ireland" that the proposal was a non-starter, and rightly so. When asked to elaborate, he said that more properties needed to be released in an orderly way on the private house market. In another report consultants concluded that the State examination system was basically sound at a time when boxes of examination papers were falling off lorries. That knocks on the head the idea that we should rush to implement a consultant's report without due deliberation. I congratulate the Minister for taking time to consider it. This is a far bigger issue——
Did the Minister not put it on record that she would implement the report's recommendations?
The Minister should not implement something because it is the pet project of a particular party. The issue is far bigger than any environmental journalist's ego. The Minister recognised this and addressed the matter in a far more holistic and integrated fashion in the best interests of the nation. The result of this is her decision, which I commend. She did not go for the short-sighted populist option of grabbing the money while it was there.
I commend her for extending the system on an integrated basis to Dublin Airport and Ballymun and for connecting Heuston and Connolly railway stations and Busáras. If any system is to be worthwhile and to have a chance of being feasible in the medium to long term, it must be a fully integrated plan. No one thought Luas would be the be all and end all or a panacea, it would be one element in an overall package of measures. If it was to be workable it would have to be built into the existing network, as recommended by the report.
People have said that Dublin has lost out because we did not follow the original proposals and Dublin people should condemn the Minister and the Government. That is patent nonsense. The decision to ditch the phased version of Luas — the manner in which it was originally proposed for implementation — is in the long-term interests of Dublin. The implications of proceeding with it would have been horrific in the short term and it would have been a national albatross in the long term.
It is not going ahead at all now.
A decision to proceed with phase one on the southside of Dublin was blatantly unfair to the northside. I challenge Labour Senators to state whether they agreed with it. I never did and never will, so I am glad that provision has been removed. I look forward to the comments of the Labour Party Members. The first phase of Luas lacked co-ordination and integration. The absence of an underground system whereby work overground carried out exclusively in the inner city, would have had a massive disrupting effect.
The Minister considered it necessary to respond to the criticism that she gave in to vested interest groups in commerce and industry. The heart and soul of Dublin in terms of its social integration and inclusiveness and its culture, sport and other aspects depend on a structure that facilitates not only these but also some of the elements that give them vibrancy — the industrial and commercial life of the city. If these fail or are seriously damaged then, inevitably, integrative Dublin will suffer and eventually become seriously damaged. If the Minister took the view that the industrial and commercial implications for the inner city were a serious consideration she was right. We should not accept a policy because it was fully prepared or because £114 million of EU funding was available. If we perceived that it would seriously impact on inner city Dublin and perhaps return us to the kind of blight and decay that preceded what is now — Senator Norris will confirm this — a thriving, if unfinished, rejuvenation, we should not condone and endorse a system because somebody's super ego wants it put in place immediately.
There has been much talk about finance and questions have been raised about how the Minister can justify losing £114 million. It has been amply proven from her office, the Government and commentators that there are many projects within Dublin and throughout the country, adverted to in this House yesterday, where this money can be drawn down quickly. The Minister is confident, and was from the outset, that we would not lose it.
I hope Dublin will not lose it.
No.
Dublin will not lose it. We are concerned with a network that will serve the citizens of Dublin and Ireland and visitors from abroad. If we do not have a plan and a system that looks after the deprived and the communities suffering from social exclusion across the north and west of the city and give them the same right — I am sure Senator Costello agrees it is a right — to contemporaneous access to an integrated network, the Senator is doing them a terrible disservice.
I welcome the opportunity to place my heartiest congratulations to the Minister on the record. She has shown courage, clarity, foresight and determination. We were nearly there before. We managed in this House to turn two Ministers——
The Independent Group is reduced in numbers.
Senator Norris without interruption.
——whose minds were nearly closed by some grey advisers from various areas. I am glad that the Minister held her courage; I congratulate her.
One fewer Member in the Independent Group.
On a number of occasions she referred to the fact that she carefully read the Seanad Official Report because they did have a certain importance. In 1996 I put this matter down for my Private Members' time. In the same year, the Dublin Transport (Light Rail) Bill was introduced when the Independent Senators held the balance of power. An amendment in my name, supported by my colleagues, sought the specific inclusion of consideration of the underground option and was accepted. That was a significant factor. The practical consideration of this matter started in this House and I hope there will be a public record of this because frequently we hear that the Seanad is redundant and does not do anything. Here is something very clear and practical which will affect the well being of the citizens of Dublin which did. At that time I said we would defeat the Government on this matter if the amendment was not accepted and if an independent arbitrator was not established, and we got both.
Unlike many of her critics, this clear sighted Minister has read the Atkins report. When I first heard the reports on this matter I thought we had lost because what the media printed were the conclusions. I believe Garret FitzGerald was right to describe the report as fascinating but whose conclusions were vitiated by the timidity that was displayed. All the evidence went on our side of the argument, but for short-term financial reasons the authors of the report felt constrained to make its recommendations because it expected the Government to be pennypinching.
Frank McDonald is a dear friend of mine. He is a superb journalist and has done tremendous work for the city of Dublin. One of his headlines in The Irish Times referred to the underground option for light rail: “Tunnelling CIE's light rail project through Dublin would have a devastating impact on city centre streets”. I hope he reads the Atkins report because, on balance, it comes out unquestionably in favour of the underground option.
He had not read it when he wrote his article in yesterday's paper.
Exactly. With regard to disruption, the Atkins report says:
The surface scheme is likely to have a more general impact over a wider area of the city centre. There will be lane closures of some roads, increased delays at junctions and temporary bus routes, bus stops and footpaths.
The financial appraisal is the only criteria in the report in which there is a decision in favour of the overground option. It states: "In the long-term economic analysis, the underground option is significantly better.". It goes on to say: "over the life of the scheme the underground option provides net benefits (economic NPV) of £1,136m compared with £980m for the surface option.".
In terms of development, the report states: "The underground option is likely to provide beneficial impacts for land use development at a small number of key sites, for example, Tara Street in the city centre.". In terms of capacity and comfort the report is clear:
The underground option will be able to carry more people in greater comfort than a surface scheme and because of the benefits it brings to road users, the underground will almost certainly provide a better rate of return in terms of the wider social costs and benefits, though both options are viable in economic terms.
This is what ordinary people are interested in — speed, safety and comfort. The report comes down unequivocally on the side of the underground option.
In Seanad debates we demonstrated, with the assistance of people like Garret FitzGerald, that, given the length of the vehicles, the capacity of the proposed Luas could not possibly cope with the numbers of passengers it was claimed it would deal with. It was then suggested that the length of vehicles would be increased from 30 metres to 40 metres and then almost doubled to 50 metres. Try to imagine 50 metre long vehicles passing across O'Connell Bridge approximately one every minute. Even allowing for this, the Atkins report admits that there would be a possibility that they could miss a time slot, requiring their storage in Abbey Street and Dawson Street. What a lovely prospect to have gigantic 50 metre behemoths of trams whizzing across the city — they cannot get across because there are so many of them — and stuck in Dawson Street and Abbey Street. It is astonishing that people seem to think this is a good idea.
In terms of the construction in the city centre, the Minister has not been warm enough in her self congratulations. She was told she was gutless in bending to economic pressures from vested interests. There were plenty of vested interests on the other side, including the shrill voice of Tom Coffey and city centre business people.
According to the Atkins report, the construction of the LRT will involve enabling works and demolition, utility diversions, excavations, earthworks, formation, trackbase and roadbase, tracklaying, surfacing and carriagway finishes, and overhead electrification and installation of operating equipment.
There will be further disruption. The report indicates that the level of impact on general city centre road traffic after the system is put in will be broadly similar to the impact of the scheme in operation. In other words, we will suffer through for three or four years and the net benefit will be disruption forever. How lovely. That must delight Mr. Frank MacDonald. I know he is devoted to his bicycle and, although I cycle myself, I do not see why we should all have to follow along regardless of our physical capacities or ages.
According to the Atkins report the underground option offers faster journey speeds to the city centre than the surface option and a higher capacity. It also indicates that the underground option offers a potentially higher level of comfort. Speed, comfort and road safety — the advantages that Independent Senators were decried for setting out. The Atkins report states:
The underground option has clear advantages over the surface option in terms of reducing conflict between LRT and road traffic and pedestrians within the City Centre, and the associated risks of accidents.
We were right again.
As the Minister said, either scheme will reduce the proportion of those travelling by car by 1 per cent, but at least with the underground system one has the option to go underground through the creation of a different level. Senator Quinn telephoned me and asked me to make this specific point, citing the experience in Chicago. Again the underground option wins out. The report points out that the operating efficiency of the underground option increases with growth in demand.
The argument was made that people, in particular women, are afraid to go into underground stations. The Atkins report states:
The findings suggest that the experiences that make people feel intimidated could apply to either surface or underground options. Indeed it could be argued that encountering the intimidatory effect of rowdy behaviour by young people is more likely to be experienced at an on-street stop particularly if it is located close to a public house, club etc.
Dublin has many such premises. Once again, we win out.
The report then turns to considerations of the environment, so beloved of Senator O'Dowd. I apologise for interrupting the Senator, but in undergraduate university debates one is only protected by the chair when one is a maiden speaker exercising one's rights.
Senator Norris is not a maiden.
The report states: "The surface option is more environmentally intrusive as a result of the noise of the light rail vehicles and the visual intrusion of the overhead wiring." I recommend that the opponents of the Government's courageous decision read this report. I am reminded of a day I spent in the High Court before Mr. Justice McWilliams arguing the case for the decriminalisation of homosexual behaviour between consenting male adults. The judge accepted our argument point after point, but in the end told us we had lost nevertheless. There is a similar tendency with the Atkins report. However, we are lucky to have had a courageous and far-sighted female Minister, who ran with the inevitable logic of the case that had been made and, despite criticism, implemented what was necessary.
We need to be reassured that this is not an attempt to derail the project. We must show commitment and get the project implemented. We must not penny pinch. The Atkins report refers to the costs involved in the stations and the level of decoration. This is a capital city and we should seek the best, like Paris or London, where Irish workers have slaved. Let them come back to work in their own city, to beautify it and to make it fit for decent people to live in.
What about the rest of the country?
I am sure the Minister is not big headed but she may be forgiven for having such a tendency given the plaudits she has received, particularly from Senator Norris. Time will tell and the Minister will be justly proud of her decision in years to come.
I cannot think of a major project in the State's history which has generated as much controversy as the Luas proposal. Unfortunately, for much of the time the debate has been waged with more heat than light. The proponents of the fully on-street option have been almost messianic in their zeal to run the system overground through the city centre. Among them is a certain journalist who has abandoned any pretence of objectivity on this issue. A prominent Labour Party politician asserted that running any part of Luas underground would rule his party out of participation in a future Government.
He is out for 30 years in that case.
Given that the Government is committed to digging a tunnel, is the Labour Party committed to "undigging" it? The Government has made a wise and courageous decision to proceed with a comprehensive and city-wide light rail transport network that will benefit all the people of Dublin.
He was misquoted.
He was not.
I congratulate the Government, the Minister in particular, on this decision.
It is worth highlighting the major advantages of the Government's plan compared with the proposal of the previous Government. This new plan serves the north and south sides of Dublin; the previous proposal served only the south side. The new plan is fully integrated with the DART; the previous proposal allowed for no integration with the DART. The new plan provides full integration with the mainline and suburban rail network; the previous proposal allowed only limited interconnections with mainline and suburban rail. The Government's plan will mean that Heuston Station, Connolly Station, Busáras, Dublin Airport and Dún Laoghaire ferryport will be linked by a single rail network for the first time in the State's history. That is what I call an integrated transport system.
There are great advantages for Dubliners. In a few years it will be possible to travel by fast and reliable rail service from Sandyford to Dublin Airport, from Tallaght to Malahide and from Bray to Ballymun. The new network will revolutionise public transport in the capital.
When?
It would never have happened if the Senator's party had its way.
The Government has been criticised by some commentators and by the Opposition for not taking on board the findings of the Atkins report. However, as we have heard, an examination of the new plan indicates that the Atkins findings have been taken into consideration. The cost benefit analysis undertaken in the report showed that the underground option would deliver more social and economic benefits to Dublin. Sections 14.8 and 14.9 of the report have received little attention from the media and the Opposition. They deal with the issue of extending the original and limited Luas proposal into a citywide network.
Section 14.8 states:
The underground option is not expected to experience any difficulty in accommodating the increased demands associated with an extended network until well after 2030.
Section 14.9 states:
[When the on-street option is extended to the whole city] the system becomes increasingly complex to operate, with a number of merging routes causing potential delays as vehicles [that is, trams] become delayed through waiting at junctions
This section indicates that demand starts to approach line capacity, particularly on the city centre sections where the maximum number of vehicles per hour is effectively constrained by changes in the traffic lights. Dubliners would not thank the Government for building a system that replaced car congestion with tram congestion, or "carriage jams" as Senator Finneran called them. That would hardly be a solution to the city's transport problems.
It is clear from the Atkins study that if there was a serious political intent to construct a city-wide network the city centre section would have to be run underground. The Government has taken that message on board.
The question of the timescale is very important. It is assumed by opponents of the Government's plan that it will be held up for years with public inquires and that legal objections may cause lengthy delays. The same people assumed that the existing Luas proposal would sail through the same process without a hitch. Neither assumption can be made.
Mr. Justice O'Leary is free to make his own decisions. Any company or individual along the route has recourse to the courts to have their grievances addressed. The possibility of legal objections to any part of the system cannot be ruled out, as everyone knows. Another key component of the DTI strategy, the Southern Cross Motorway, was held up for years by a small group of objectors to the intense annoyance and inconvenience of south side motorists.
The issue of personal safety has also arisen in this debate, and Senator Norris quoted the section I was about to quote. There had been an argument that underground stations were dangerous and that on-street stations would be inherently safer. The Atkins report states that people would be more intimidated by those coming out of pubs late at night.
Senator Keogh and I have read the report.
As a woman, I failed to find any solace in the argument made by advocates of an above ground system. They argued that women would feel insecure on an underground section. I have travelled on many underground rail systems around the world, including London, which has more than 100 underground stations. I felt safer there below ground than over ground because of the security measures in those stations. It is easier to monitor and police underground stations, though Luas will probably have only two such stations in any case.
The Minister dealt openly with the red herring of EU funding. The Opposition knows that proceeding with the Government plan will mean no loss of EU funding, so that argument is gone. If the £114 million originally committed to Luas is no longer available for that project, as a Dublin person I feel it could be spent on other Dublin transport projects. However, that money has already been drawn down all over the country. There will be no loss to Dublin or the country.
Which?
Either. There are several worthy public transport projects which could get the go ahead. Extending the DART from Connolly Station along the Sligo line to Maynooth should be a priority because it would improve the transport links between Dublin and the rapidly growing north Kildare region. Part of the money could go into upgrading Dublin's bus fleet. There are still 17 and 18 year old vehicles in service which belch fumes all over the city. How is that for pollution? Those vehicles are neither customer friendly nor environmentally friendly. The Luas plan gives us the chance to explore innovative ways of financing major public transport projects. I was particularly gladdened by the Minister's reference to the possibility of private financing for public infrastructure. The Government should encourage private sector provision of such services. We have already seen the benefits of this approach with the West and East Link Bridges, and private financing initiatives could be feasible for all or part of the new LRT network.
The Minister has taken a bold, imaginative step that will provide Dublin with a state of the art integrated light rail transit system to serve the needs of the city well into the next millennium. Of all her political decisions, this may be the lasting tribute to her; it may even outlast her.
I hope so.
After years of dithering, no practical or realistic proposals are yet in place to address Dublin's chronic transport problems. The President of the Royal Institute of Architects stated in a recent letter to The Irish Times that the suburban rail system is one year behind schedule, the quality bus corridors are two years behind and the port tunnel and completion of the C-Ring Motorway are four years behind. The Government's Luas decision means these have been put back indefinitely and it is unlikely that I will see the completion of this proposal in my lifetime. I doubt there will be any Progressive Democrats at the launch of the underground system either.
The Progressive Democrats are alive.
Dublin suffers from traffic congestion, but there are implications beyond congestion for efficient business and frustration for shoppers. Continued dependence on private cars results in noise and air pollution and causes significant damage to the general quality of the environment.
It is hard to understand how the Government is opting for a short tunnel in the centre of Dublin which has been rejected by the principal recommendations of the Atkins report. The Government has decided to go along with a scheme specifically rejected by the independent consultants in their £200,000 review. The Government has come up with a nightmare proposal which many will never see. The Minister is on record as stating that the city centre underground section linking Stephen's Green with Broadstone was intended to address the scale of construction associated with the on-street system and the potential long term road capacity constraints in the central area. However, the Government was committed to the implementation of the full DTI strategy, including the traffic management elements planned by Dublin Corporation to reduce the level of traffic in central areas. The Atkins report lays heavy weight on Dublin Corporation's proposals and I feel that that body's traffic plans had a big influence on the final decisions reached in the Atkins report.
Even with an underground system there will substantial disruption, as stated by Dr Adrian Philips, Associate Professor at the Department of Geology in Trinity College. There is no way of determining tunnelling costs, though to get information one needs to drill holes. This would be very difficult and expensive. To bore holes successfully, drilling must be done in the streets, which will cause serious traffic problems. The tunnel would be unlikely to follow the line of the street on the proposed route from Stephen's Green to Broadstone, which means drilling on private property.
There is also a problem with building underground stations. I was sympathetic to an underground system at one stage and spoke in the Seanad in favour of it. It was then brought to my attention that drilling bore holes and building stations would cause further disruption, because a station would have to be built from the roadway down. One can imagine the disruption this would cause in O'Connell Street.
I welcome some of the Government proposals, such as the decision to proceed with the original Tallaght-O'Connell Street line and to extend this to Connolly Station is particularly welcome as it will ensure the integration of Luas, DART, the mainline rail stations and the interprovincial bus services. Dublin Corporation is undertaking the regeneration of Ballymun, and the extension of the LRT line to the area underpins that regeneration. I also welcome the extension of the light rail line to the airport; this addresses a major deficiency in the transport infrastructure serving the airport. As a member of the Dublin Docklands Authority, I welcome the further extension of Luas to the docklands area and hope that development of the line can proceed without due delay.
The revised Luas plan will lose £114 million allocated by the EU under the 1994-99 National Plan. The Minister has said that that money will not be lost completely to Ireland——
No.
——and that it can be used for other transport projects. When news broke yesterday that £114 million was to become available, my fellow Senators were quick to indicate where they felt it should be spent.
I know that.
I told them to keep their grubby hands off the money. It is Dublin's money and it will be spent in Dublin. I explained that Luas was only one of the many components that is meant to solve Dublin's traffic problems. If the money was lost to Luas, initiatives aimed at tackling Dublin's chronic traffic problems should be considered. Many of these initiatives are in train and if others were put in train they would go a long way to solving Dublin's traffic problems in the short term.
The introduction of quality bus corridors is one such initiative. One such corridor exists from Lucan to Dublin city centre, and a recent survey showed that 53 per cent of motorists are using that service and leaving their cars at home. If that happens with the other ten corridors that are proposed, there would be a huge effect on Dublin's traffic. Infrastructural funding should be given to Dublin Corporation for the other quality bus corridors; I understand it would cost £10 million. In order for the quality bus corridors to be successful Dublin Bus will have to invest heavily in rolling stock. As Senator Keogh said, there is no point in having quality bus corridors without having efficient, clean rolling stock. Such provision would cost in the region of £30 million, which would be a very good investment to help Dublin's traffic problems in the short term.
Dublin City Council is also engaged in creating six environmental traffic cells, two of which have been completed, at a cost of roughly £10 million.
What are they?
Traffic cells. It is also essential to get new buses for the quality bus corridors.
Dublin Corporation is also committed to the early implementation of various measures which the Government has accepted as essential to the successful implementation of the Luas development. These include the construction of the Macken Street bridge, the Mercer Street link, the Cork Street/Coombe bypass and the North King Street route, together with the development of the network of environmental traffic cells. As a member of Dublin Corporation, I welcome the Government's approval of these projects and I hope the necessary financing, estimated at £45 million, will be available from the Luas fund.
Dublin Corporation has also invested heavily in traffic signalling, including the SCAT system which cost £5 million. We have also invested in cycle lanes. Many people will cycle to work if they have a safe place on the road. I ask the Minister to finance the provision of such lanes.
If that £114 million, or the best part of it, was invested in Dublin it would go some way towards relieving Dublin's traffic problems. I ask the Minister to make funding for Dublin traffic a priority.
I congratulate the Minister on a job of work well done yesterday and the day before. The decision which she and the Government made is courageous and farseeing and its benefit will continue to be realised long after she and I have departed the scene. I am very glad someone at last has a visionary transport policy for this city. The old streets and infrastructure have been unable to cope with the rapid expansion and development of the city over the past 20 years. As Senator Costello knows, we have been waiting in the north east inner city for North King Street to be widened for 35 years; Senator Costello has probably been working on it for much longer than I have as he is much older than me.
We might be waiting that length of time for Luas.
It was never going to be possible to come up with a concept which would address this problem in four or five years. However, I do not take issue with the people who felt the need to oppose this decision because people have a democratic right to voice an opinion even if it is the wrong one.
We must remind ourselves how long this process has taken. We received EU approval for the funding in 1993 but not a sod has been turned since then because of public inquiry mechanisms and democratic objections by small groups. It was nonsense to say the old Luas plan was going to be completed by 2002. Anyone who knows anything about public transport will recognise this plan is a long-term strategy.
Traffic in Dublin has grown at an unprecedented rate and more rapidly than was anticipated when the Dublin Transport Initiative prepared its policy framework. This is mainly due to our unprecedented economic growth and slower infrastructural investment than was anticipated. The Dublin transportation office is nearing completion of a review of the DTI strategy and is examining what interim measures can be taken to address this difficult transport situation, with the primary focus on the management measures which can be implemented quickly. A considerable amount of important work is currently in progress in the city on the existing public transport network which, we hope, will contribute towards easing the current chronic traffic congestion.
The Minister announced yesterday the Government had decided to proceed with the first phase of the light rail network for Dublin. There will be a surface line from Tallaght to Connolly Station, which is based on the CIE preferred alignment from Tallaght to O'Connell Street and is consistent with the surface option recommended in the Atkins report. The other line is from Sandyford to Ballymun and on to the airport, using the old Harcourt Street and Broadstone railway alignments. It will have an underground section in the city, linking the three alignments.
The two proposed lines are part of a longer term vision for an extended light rail network serving, as the Minister mentioned, destinations such as Swords, the docklands and Clondalkin. This is similar to the extended network considered by Atkins and is consistent with the DTI vision. I am delighted the Government has an objective to proceed without delay with the construction of the Tallaght, city centre, Sandyford and St. Stephen's Green sections, subject to relevant statutory procedures.
The decision taken by the Minister yesterday clears the way for the light rail project. It addresses key public concerns about disruption during construction and the longer term passenger capacity of the network. Yesterday was a good day for Dublin public transport. The decisions taken by the Minister will be seen to have been in the long term interests of the capital's transport system and economy.
The city centre's underground section of the Sandyford-Ballymun-Dublin Airport line will address two important issues which were raised in the Atkins report — the scale of disruption during construction on key city centre streets and the potential longer term capacity constraints in the central area when the city is uprooted. The proposed network will also provide a direct light rail link between two mainline railway stations, Heuston and Connolly. It will also integrate with the DART service at Connolly Station and provide for easy interchange with provincial buses at Busáras. It revitalises two disused rail alignments, Harcourt Street and Broadstone, and provides a direct rail link to Dublin Airport. The Minister is to be commended on all those measures.
In keeping with the conclusions of the Atkins report, the Minister also reaffirmed the commitment to the implementation of the DTI's transport strategy, particularly the traffic management elements. In this regard, the Minister gave the go ahead for environmental traffic cells in the city, which Senator Doyle mentioned. She also approved three road projects which were identified as essential for effective traffic management in the city. These are the Macken Street bridge, the Cork Street/Coombe relief route and a minor scheme at Mercer Street.
The decision taken by the Minister on Luas shows she is determined to take practical and effective steps to deal with Dublin's traffic problems, for which we thank her as Dublin councillors and Senators. However, the light rail project is only one element of the Dublin transport strategy recommended by the DTI. The proposed light rail system will account for only three of the public transport corridors in the city, the others being the 11 quality bus corridors and the three DART suburban rail corridors.
We must recognise the contribution quality bus corridors can make to the overall public transport system. Bus services will remain the backbone of the existing public transport network, notwithstanding the development of the light rail system. The implementation of quality bus corridors is being pursued by Dublin Bus and the local authorities, with the active support of the Dublin transportation office. Dublin Bus is also upgrading its fleet and working on the suburban rail development programme, which is also compatible with the DTI strategy and will ensure the best use of all existing rail assets. On the DART line, this includes the extension to Greystones and Malahide, the acquisition of new rolling stock, the improvement of existing stations and the development of new stations.
The Dublin traffic situation presents us with a major challenge. The DTI strategy provides the policy framework within we must work. Through its membership of the consultative panel of the Dublin transportation office, the Chamber of Commerce has played an important role in the review of the DTI strategy. However, it is important to make progress on all fronts. The recent Luas debate has shown us that no one item of investment will provide the solution. We have to improve our transport system. We also have to tackle traffic management in a more effective way. The challenge is for all of us — public authorities, businesses and local residents. We have to work together to solve this common problem. We should seek to find a solution rather than be hung up on the enormity of the problem.
The Minister has put a great deal of energy into this plan and it looks brilliant on paper. However, there is only one issue which concerns me. I once worked for a man who said: "If you ever want to block something, you say it is so good it must be made even bigger and you expand it so much that eventually it is impossible to do".
The Minister and Senator O'Dowd have been throwing Latin phrases around. Perhaps I could throw in some French. The Minister may remember the Edith Piaf song "Je Ne Regrette Rien”. I am afraid that we are going to regrette rien and nothing will be done. The scheme is extremely imaginative but it is so big that there will be a temptation for enormous delays. I am relying on the Minister to deliver on the objectives she has put forward.
The Minister is an expert at kicking to touch.
I am an expert at getting things done.
It is unfortunate that this issue has become party political. We have appalling congestion in the city and the pollution problem is terrible. Every day the EU standards on car emissions are broken. We have a serious problem on our hands and the faster we deal with it the better. Party political in-fighting is not going to get us far.
There has been a huge amount of debate on whether the Luas should be underground or overground. However, the underground section is pathetically small — only 2.5 kilometres. My colleagues in Trinity — Professor Adrian Phillips of the Department of Geology and Professor Simon Perry of the Department of Environmental Engineering — have made public their concerns about the tunnelling problem. It will be possible to build this tunnel. It will be difficult and expensive but it will be possible. However, while we are tunnelling north-south, we are left with the situation where the east-west section is overground. While I concede that the disruption may be halved there is still going to be a considerable amount of disruption.
We are not building the Washington underground even though I would like to see us building such a state of the art system. We have a problem in that we are building two different systems — one going north-south and one east-west. These systems will be on different levels and there will be escalators and lifts to bring people up and down. However, will we need different types of rolling stock? Rolling stock required for underground is not the same as that for overground. There does not seem to be a physical link between the north-south and the east-west axes. Will we need different servicing depots? It is important to take these cost implications into account.
The problem in Dublin is that the transport system is not integrated. This is not the Minister's fault and I appreciate Senator Doyle's comments on bus corridors, cycle lanes etc. If Dublin councillors can do anything to quell the resistance to these measures they would be doing us a great service.
The Minister must do her utmost to ensure that work on the Tallaght to Heuston station line begins as soon as possible. The grand plan is there and pessimists like me will question when it will be completed. However, pieces of that plan can be brought on stream as soon as possible. There is no problem regarding legislation for the Tallaght to Heuston station line. There would be very little disruption involved in getting people as far as Heuston station and buses could be used to complete the journey from there. People are buying cars and increasing congestion so that they can work on the Sandyford estate. It is ridiculous that there is no public transport servicing this route.
We can also proceed easily with the Ballymun line. The grand plan is great and the Minister will not have to deal with it as it is a long way down the road. However, while she is Minister, she should go full speed ahead so that we do not paraphrase Edith Piaf. She should try to ensure that work on the various links begins as soon as possible. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me if the north-south and east-west lines will meet?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I wish to advise Members that there are 35 minutes left before the conclusion of this matter. Five more speakers are offering and it is the intention to have a question and answer session.
On the Order of Business we agreed that the question and answer session would start at 4.15 p.m. and continue until 4.45 p.m. That question was specifically put to the Leader of the House.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It was agreed earlier that matters would conclude at 4.30 p.m.
I do not wish to cut across your business, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, but when the Leader asked me to attend this debate I willingly agreed to two hours — 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. I have departmental business to attend to at 4.30 p.m. When I came into the House I cleared this with the Cathaoirleach. How that time is broken up is a matter for Senators.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Costello will get an opportunity to speak but it may be that questions are more useful to the debate at a certain stage.
There was a specific question asked at the end of the Order of Business——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Order of Business was formally amended so that matters would conclude at 4.30 p.m. Time is precious.
That was not decided on the Order of Business. The Order of Business was different.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Order of Business can be amended during the day. It was amended with the agreement of the House.
This is an important issue on which we agreed. We went through it specifically this morning and we did not expect it to be changed.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator should not delay proceedings any longer. I call Senator Fitzpatrick. Other Senators should indicate if they still want a question time or perhaps it could be discussed between the Whips.
I wish to share my time with Senator Ormonde.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the Minister to the House. Once again she has proved that she is not lacking in courage when it comes to taking large and difficult decisions. The main entrances to Dublin city are Connolly and Heuston stations, Dublin airport and the ferry ports. However, there are no fast connections between any of these sites. New York is the only other major city that does not have a rail connection to its airport — JFK.
We need to do something about our traffic problem and the rapid, safe and comfortable movement of people around the city. As proposed, Luas was one of the more lunatic schemes which was to be visited upon the long-suffering and unsuspecting citizens of Dublin. No one could overplay the disruption which the original plan would have caused.
Many of the points I wished to make have already been made by other Senators. Senator Norris painted an horrific picture of cycling to the House and being passed by a 15-metre long tram travelling at speed. As a cyclist, I can empathise with that feeling. The only way to get around the city is on a bicycle, which I use on a daily basis. It is only when riding a bicycle and one is passed by a 40 foot lorry that the pull it exerts is realised. If the cyclist is not already blinded by a shower of rain from the lorry, it will splash the cyclist instead. A cycle lane is only safe if it is physically separated from other traffic, something which is not being done with many of the cycle lanes being built in the city. The lane outside the Four Courts is two feet wide and the traffic passing by is so fast it can pull cyclists towards it. The only consolation is that if a cyclist knocked down in front of the Four Courts, there is sufficient legal expertise to prosecute his or her claim before they even reach the casualty ward in the hospital.
As regards quality bus corridors, it drives the citizenry mad to sit in their cars and see an empty quality bus corridor beside them. If Dublin Bus is serious about quality bus corridors, it must put buses on them to move the people around quickly.
It first needs money for the buses.
I thank the Senator for that and will bear it in mind. It is not realised that Dublin Corporation does not have accurate maps of the underground services in the city, so it is not unusual for a JCB operator to drill into a major water main which was not mapped or for a telecommunications tunnel or gas mains to be broken because they were not mapped either. The old city streets are not properly mapped.
I would like the Minister to answer one question when she replies. She said the Government has set the project planners a clear objective of proceeding without delay on the Tallaght, city centre and Sandyford to St. Stephen's Green sections. Does that mean work will begin on those as soon as possible while the planning for the other sections of the line is proceeding?
In conclusion, I was told the standard of debate in the Seanad was high and I can well believe it. We have gone from Horace to Edith Piaf in one fell swoop with no "Luas" talking and not a tram in sight.
I am delighted the Minister is present and congratulate her on this announcement. I was confident when she took on this role that she would make it her own and that she was "not for bending". She allowed the Cabinet consider the matter and to come to a decision. It is the best one which could have been made given the circumstances.
The integrated approach is welcome. The utilisation of the asset of the Harcourt Street line, the link with Connolly Station and the DART and the future link with the airport are welcome. No one denies that there will be problems with the underground option but it is better to have it underground, causing less disruption and allowing it to last for generations to come by giving it the capacity to expand rather than the short-term, piecemeal approach adopted previously. It is the only way to go.
I spoke with many people in my area of Dublin south and they were grateful it was going underground. I am pleased that decision was made. If the Southern Cross and the East Link routes, which complete the ring road around Dublin and which are under way, are integrated with the bus corridors and the new light rail system, the public will see that we are implementing a programme which, although it is long-term, they know we can make work. I congratulate the Minister and the Government for taking this decision.
I welcome the Minister to the House and thank her for attending at such short notice. The Minister painted a rosy picture. It was as though a new, improved, bigger and better brand had been presented instead of the grandiose scheme which was presented. The Minister is almost like a fairy godmother who will wave her wand for it all to fall into place. She has not given us any indication of costings. She stated it would cost £400 million plus. The plus is defined in terms of additional funding, which is not a scientific definition. She has given us no timescale and has described it as irresponsible to seek such until test drill holes have been made in the geological strata. Only then will there be a timescale. No planning has taken place for the new measures. In many ways it is back to the future. These are the proposals of the DTI which were published in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The plan may look lovely, but because it is so much bigger and better, it may never be started.
The Minister is a practical woman who stated she would accept the recommendations of the Atkins report——
Which I have.
——but she did not accept them. The report recommended a certain approach. I did not mind whether the line went over or underground. However, the Minister introduced just about everything into her proposal and the danger is that nothing will be done because it contains so much and because there is something in it for everyone in it, but no money, timescale or plans. This is a political cop out.
There is enormous gridlock in the city and, as a result, Dublin Corporation has appointed a Director of Traffic to deal with it. There is huge emphasis on quality bus corridors, cycle lanes and traffic environmental cells. The towaway and clamping functions have been taken from the Garda so that the overall traffic plan will be integrated when it is implemented. The corporation has a mainframe computer to collate data from traffic cameras which have been located throughout the city. The last thing needed now is any further delay or controversy. The greatest danger is that we could now be entering a new period of delay and controversy. It is not known whether the public inquiry can continue because it is not known whether the terms of reference of the ministerial order are applicable to the new plan. We must wait for the presiding judge to determine that because it is a judicial function to decide whether it can proceed.
The Minister has come up with various suggestions for financing the project. We heard yesterday that the semi-State sector might be sold to pay for it. Now we hear the private sector could be involved.
The Labour Party wants to privatise it. Deputy Stagg is promoting the idea.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Costello without interruption.
I am reminding the Senator of the fact. He has a selective memory.
The idea of privatising semi-State companies was shot down by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, who made commitments under EMU that any extra money from the sale of State assets——
Would go to infrastructure.
——would go to reducing the financial debt or towards budget surpluses. There is no way it can be spent on this project and that is a statement of fact which is on the record. That leaves the private sector.
The main fact is that the £114 million which was promised is now lost to Luas. Will that money be spent on traffic improvements in Dublin, such as new buses and new rolling stock for railways, on improving the suburban rail lines and on improving the corporation's traffic plans?
Does the Senator want this project? Is he at all pleased with it?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Costello without interruption. Senator Cassidy will have an opportunity to ask a question shortly.
My worry is that the Minister has presented such a large package which is so unspecific and lacking in detail, planning, timescale and funding, there is no indication if it will ever be implemented. We may be here in ten years time, which will be well into the new millennium, waiting for Luas.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We will move on to questions. Perhaps the Minister might take a few questions at a time. I ask that questions and answers be reasonably brief.
I am disappointed the debate cannot continue, but I understand the reasons. The Minister said the £114 million funding which is lost to Luas will be spent in the greater Dublin area. This will be the death knell for the western railway line. The Minister was a member of a previous Fianna Fáil Government which did not include the western route from her own town, Athlone, to Westport and from Manulla to Ballina in the Structural Funds for 1994-5. Will the Minister give a commitment to give £40 million of the £114 million lost to Luas to upgrade the western railway line from Westport to Athlone and from Ballina to Manulla? It takes four and a half hours to travel by train from Ballina to Dublin and vice versa. This is a major issue.
I congratulate the Minister and the Government on taking this courageous decision.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is not a question.
In the morning when all the traffic is coming into the city, it is commonsense that there should be an extra lane inward bound — three lanes inwards and one outwards. In the afternoon at 3.30 p.m., will the Minister consider three lanes outward bound and one lane inward bound? This has been successful in most cities of Dublin's size. The problem with Luas will go on for another year or two until the lines are laid. As a person of the north inner city, I agree with Senator Norris. I know Senator Costello in his heart is pleased this has happened. I thank the Taoiseach and Senator Kett for the great work they have done in getting the Minister, her team and advisers to agree to this. I would like to see three lanes inward bound on all major routes in the morning and three lanes outward bound in the evening. Is this possible?
I understand there is the possibility that a Japanese consortium is interested in tendering for this on the basis that it would be very advantageous for this country were it to take into account a 30 year franchise. Is this being actively explored and will it go out to tender? We would not have reached this stage without the wonderful work of Cormac Rabbitte and Rudi Monaghan. I will not say they were exactly hungry but any time they were in the House to brief me and I offered them lunch, they jumped at the offer. W.S. Atkins shrewdly varied the proposed underground part which cut them out of the copyright. I hope that as a reward for this extraordinary work and because of their acknowledged expertise, a role will be found for these remarkable people who selflessly dedicated themselves to promoting the interests which the Minister and I agree are essential for the city of Dublin.
I welcome the Minister and Mr. Mangan, with whom I have served for six long years on the DTI, which is now the Dublin Transportation Office. I preface my brief questions by referring to my genuine sense of disillusionment as a native Dub. The Taoiseach said he would not let this happen to his city; it is not only his city, it is my city as well.
On the disbursement of the funds which will not go to the light rail project, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government has approved money for the servicing of land in south Lucan for 5,000 houses. There is a railway station in south Lucan and it needs to be opened. I am not being parochial in this matter but am trying to face up to reality.
Is the land serviced?
Yes. There will be about 12,000 new houses and the same road will be used. As we will not see Luas in the immediate future, will there be a realistic assessment of how public transport could take cars off the road?
On accessing the proposed new underground system, neither I nor the Minister are engineers so I will not talk about boring blind tunnels. Will we have to use elevators to get to the second level line in O'Connell Street? I am disappointed because the principle behind light rail was to provide accessibility for the mobility impaired, women with prams and the elderly. I maintain that nobody in their right mind would go down a tunnel to get on a train or bore a hole in Dublin. Will the Minister offer support to those who have been waiting — for example, the mobility impaired — to be able to access public transport? This is a grave need and I do not know how it will be accomplished in the new plans which will have to be supplied instead of the Luas. The benefit of Luas was that everyone could access it even if they were in a wheelchair, wheeling a pram or on a stick. It was a wonderful system from that point of view. I have been on the DTI for six years and I expect to be on the old age pension before I access anything at the rate this is progressing.
I thank Members for contributions to the debate and for their intense interest, which has served as a fulcrum for proper debate on this and many other matters. I also thank those who were unable to contribute, but who are interested in this matter.
Senator Burke asked about the line from Athlone to Manulla, Ballina and Westport. I travelled on that line recently and it requires much money to be spent on it.
Some £40 million.
Those from Dublin who spoke said the decommittal money should go to Dublin and it was interesting to hear another point of view.
I did not refer to it.
I do not have this money. Over the past two days Deputies and Senators have telephoned and waylaid me and asked for money for various projects. I do not have that money which would fall to be drawn down through the Department of Finance and the Commission. The mid-term review will be on 20 June and also the decommittal of that money to worthy projects. There are approximately four times more projects than those for which there is money. There is a huge demand for that money and I repeat it will not be lost to Ireland. Last July I said on television and radio that no matter what the outcome of the Atkins review and that as time was constrained, it would be better to act in time and put the money to other projects rather than wait until it was too late and lose the money to Ireland.
On Deputy Burke's point about the north western line, Europe did not give money for the cofinancing of that route or the Longford to Sligo route.
It was not included.
It was refused. It was included and I have the documentation in the Department. That is not to say we could not ask again. I said earlier that I will my utmost to ensure that the money is used for public transport.
In Dublin.
However, numerous sewerage, water and road schemes and other environmental projects have been proposed. Approximately three times the number of projects have been suggested than can be carried out with the available money. I will fight with the Department of Finance and the European Commission to ensure this area gets its share of the money. Dublin was to receive £260 million but the figure is now £400 million plus. If any money is secured from these funds, it will be a further bonus. This is a happy position in view of all that has happened.
Senator Cassidy mentioned three lanes of traffic coming into Dublin each morning.
He said he was a northsider.
He is a northsider. He is also, as I know well, a north Westmeath man.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I ask Senators to refrain from making off the cuff comments.
I apologise but I was overcome when I heard it.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister without interruption.
Senator Cassidy asked if there would be three lanes of traffic coming into Dublin each morning and leaving each evening. The officials will consider this matter and I will come back to the Senator on it.
I thank the Minister.
I thank Senator Norris for his contribution and also for his open expressions about the project over the last nine months. I am duly appreciative of his comments. The Senator asked about Mitsui. It has not made any formal written or verbal approach to my Department. The Senator also asked about Rudi Monaghan and his colleagues. They have put a huge amount of voluntary effort into this matter and I hope I will be in a position to meet them soon. I said during a previous debate that I would meet them and that meeting took place.
Senator Ridge mentioned the funds and the areas in which they might be spent. She also mentioned south Lucan and said that money had been provided to service land in the area for new houses. She said this development will cause increased commuter traffic and she asked if the south Lucan railway station could be reopened as it would be of great benefit. I will consider the Senator's suggestion. People are concerned about Dublin traffic but in many cases commuting traffic to Dublin causes much of the disruption.
Many Senators are either members of Dublin Corporation or the county councils and they are aware that the cause of the delays in road schemes and the port tunnel project is that people want their say. I note the strong support for the quality bus corridors. However, the will of the people is also holding up the opening of more corridors which would make a huge difference. If all the corridors were in operation, they would far outweigh the benefits of Luas.
In relation to the east-west link between Heuston and Connolly Stations, I am glad the service will run from O'Connell Street to Connolly Station and will be linked with the DART, Busáras and the mainline rail service. In the city centre there will be an underground north-south link but there is no underground element in the east-west service. Enormous difficulties have already arisen regarding that proposal because it means all the houses in Arran Quay Terrace must be demolished and the entire road will be eliminated. Mary's Abbey will be set back by eight or nine metres.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I ask the Senator to put a question to the Minister.
There will also be huge disruption to the nearby market. Is an alternative route possible, such as the proposed route along North King Street? Will the Minister consider this suggestion because the proposal will involve massive disruption to residents and the business sector?
There is a problem with the timescale because the project is so large. Another speaker mentioned the issue of phasing. Is it possible to start the suburban elements of the project immediately so that the work can be seen to have begun? If work commences and it appears progress is being made, at least people will feel there is some light at the end of the tunnel.
The Minister said the £114 million might be spent on sewerage and other projects.
It is all listed.
The money should be confined to transport projects and to improving services in Dublin city.
Will there be any stops underground? Will there be a stop in O'Connell Street?
Will the Minister reply to the question about elevators?
I omitted to reply to that question earlier but I will do so later.
The Minister said the £114 million will be saved for public transport.
I said I would make a real effort to keep it. However, it is a matter for the Department of Finance and the European Commission.
Will the Minister prioritise the issue of the western rail line at Government discussions?
Senator Costello mentioned Arran Quay Terrace, Mary's Abbey and the Smithfield market and asked if an alternative route could be considered. He also mentioned the link to Connolly Station. These matters will be examined. I accept the Senator's reservations but I do not know what will be the outcome. Senator Costello spoke in The Irish Times on Tuesday morning about the needs of north Dublin. I appreciate his comments and I reciprocate them because I am aware of the constraints he faces in terms of his party's position and the practicalities of the matter.
Senator Henry asked about the two lines. They will be separate and have two separate maintenance depots. Interchange will be provided in the city centre and it is important to ensure that this is as efficient as possible. The precise location of the interchange section will be decided as part of the technical evaluation.
Senator Ridge mentioned elevators to the underground section of the service. The Atkins report contains a section about mobility which deals with the right of access of disabled people. The report makes helpful and open suggestions about how that might be achieved in regard to the underground part of the system. I am happy this element is covered in the report. The Atkins report also deals with women using the underground part of the service. The Senator said she did not think women would travel underground. However, any time I was in London I saw thousands of women using the underground system. This is also the case in Paris and many other cities.
I disagree with the Minister with regard to Dublin late at night.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister without interruption.
We live in an age of equality and I do not understand why a woman cannot use an underground service if a man can do so.
Dublin is hardly more dangerous than New York.
I do not understand Senator Ridge's point. Women all over the world use underground systems.
My point about women travelling alone is obvious.
I know women who travel alone in cars, trains and buses. Are women in Dublin special?
Senator Burke again mentioned the western rail line and I acknowledge his tenacity. Many other Members share the Senator's point of view. However, I am not responsible for dishing out the £114 million. The Department of Finance and the European Commission will have that task.
However, we are making a strong case for public transport and commuter routes into Dublin. We will put forward a proposal for a western line but how that is received is another matter.
Senator O'Dowd asked about the number of underground stations and it is anticipated that there will be three. The length of the track will be 2.5 kilometres, so we are not talking about the Channel Tunnel. Legitimate concerns were expressed in this House by Members of all parties during the previous Seanad about the city centre and the possibility of it remaining out of order forever. These proposals are similar to the original ones and we are continuing with them. There are enhanced additions to Connolly Station, Ballymun and North Dublin and we have allowed for a reawakening of Harcourt Street and Broadstone. We have allowed for a rounded, comprehensive light rail system. Quality bus corridors and other issues raised are part of making Dublin more traffic free. This is only one small element and I hope the other House will acknowledge how a good debate can develop. I thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, and all Senators who contributed.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow. I thank the Minister for the openness of her approach and the consultative style of her administration.
I also wish to thank the Minister.
I thank the Minister for Lucan south railway station.