I understand the NRA considers itself to be in the process of providing these services, but it has been saying that for several years. Will they be available this year? No location is available at which the Road Safety Authority can check tachographs, for example, to ensure that heavy goods vehicles comply with the law. Figures supplied by the Garda suggest that such vehicles are not in compliance with the law in the vast majority of cases, thereby presenting a significant road safety risk. It is completely unacceptable that there is no place where vehicles can be tested. People on long journeys need a place where they can pull over. It is becoming problematic to get petrol, for example. I recently worked out that seven or eight petrol stations in my constituency have closed down. The need to ensure that service areas are available on our motorways is becoming an important issue within the transport system. The Minister will have to be much more proactive in ensuring that such facilities are delivered quickly. It is not good enough to say they will be rolled out over time, because they are needed now.
The Minister mentioned that many dual carriageways will be redesignated as motorways. Other than facilitating people to drive at 120 km/h, what will be the implications of that change? Will there be implications in terms of the constitutionality of deeming to be motorways, roads which were planned as dual carriageways, when they were the subject of public inquiry? If a farmer disposed of land in the belief that it would be used for a dual carriageway, but now finds that the road is to be a motorway, he or she might be concerned about access issues or development issues. Is the Department concerned that constitutional issues in this regard could lead to court cases? I am in favour of the redesignation because the standard of many of our dual carriageways is better than the standard of some motorways in other countries. While I do not oppose this change, I wonder whether it will have implications like those I have mentioned.
The Minister referred to barrier-free tolling. I am not sure of the capital costs associated with that. Is it in the region of €100 million? That is an enormous sum of money to create a bureaucracy to toll a single point on one road. The question should be asked whether it provides value for money or if there is a better way of collecting that money. This major project will take three years to install and create a significant annual bill. Perhaps the Minister can offer a better way of collecting that money.
It was also stated that barrier-free tolling represents wonderful benefits to the taxpayer. If I was the Minister, I would not say that out loud. Nothing relating to the M50 could be considered good value to the taxpayer. However necessary it may be, buying it out represents the least good value for taxpayers.
According to the Minister, the port tunnel is a wonderful success. I find it difficult to agree with that statement. I appreciate the tunnel has resulted in traffic improvements on the quays, which I hope will be capitalised on in terms of public transport provision. However, I see no sign of that yet. Benefits have also accrued to parts of the north inner city, but nobody has carried out any appraisal of whether the benefits are outweighed by the costs borne by people travelling on the M1, for instance, where there is a traffic jam at some times of the day from the portal of the tunnel as far as Balbriggan. I doubt whether people who use the M50 consider it good value for money.
The port tunnel cost almost €1 billion and has a significant capacity. A total of 12,500 vehicles use it daily but the capacity is a multiple of that. I accept it is not desirable for roads to reach capacity on the day they open, but where is it expected the growth will come from? There are no predictions of significant additional numbers of trucks going in and out of the port, especially as the port is currently at capacity. I do not know from where the additional use will come. Can one really say this offers value for money? For instance, not a single bus is using the tunnel.
In spite of the long period when the tunnel was under construction, it is still not fully open. It was closed today due to a single electrical fault. When I inquired about that, I was told we can expect electrical faults as there are 18,000 different electrical components involved. If one can expect faults, surely there should be a plan in place to deal with them? Not a single garda was available. Total gridlock resulted from a simple electrical fault. If one invests €1 billion in infrastructure, surely one has to make that extra investment in Garda traffic corps patrols to ensure total gridlock does not result when a fault occurs in the system?