As the Cathaoirleach and Leas-Chathaoirleach are unavoidably absent, I now invite nominations for a temporary Chair.
Vote 31 - Transport (Revised)
Clerk to the Committee
I propose Deputy Matthews.
I second that.
Clerk to the Committee
I invite Deputy Matthews to take the Chair.
Deputy Steven Matthews took the Chair.
I note that we will suspend the meeting at 1.50 p.m. to allow Deputies to attend the Chamber and we will resume again at 3 p.m.
Today, the Select Committee on Transport and Communications meets for consideration of the 2024 Revised Estimates for public services, Vote 31 – transport. I remind members that the committee has no role in approving the Estimates; rather it is an ongoing opportunity for the committee to examine departmental expenditure to make the process more transparent and to engage in a meaningful way on relevant performance issues. I thank the Department and Minister for the briefing note provided in advance of the meeting. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and his officials.
I will read a quick note on privilege before we start. All witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity.
Therefore, if a witness's statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or identity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative they comply with any such direction.
Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
For anyone watching this meeting, Oireachtas Members and witnesses now have the option of being physically present in the committee room or joining the meeting remotely via Microsoft Teams. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member participating via Microsoft Teams that prior to making a contribution to the meeting, they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.
I invite the Minister to make his opening statement.
I thank the committee for the opportunity to present the 2024 Revised Estimates for the Department of Transport. Transport is a vital enabler in our economy and society. Our ambition is to support a transport system which will keep pace with our growing economy and population and provide sustainable, accessible, safe and secure transport options across all modes of travel.
The budget is set out in six programmes: programme A, sustainable mobility - active travel and greenways; programme B, sustainable mobility - public transport; programme C, road safety and road networks; programme D, civil aviation; programme E, maritime safety and transport; and programme F, information technology, engagement and research delivery.
The set of Revised Estimates before the committee provides an overall gross allocation to the Department of €3.574 billion, which consists of €894.322 million in current expenditure and €2.679 billion in capital investment. The allocation will support our ambitions in delivering on the transport-related objectives in the national development and climate action plans, delivering safe, sustainable and accessible transport options in urban and rural areas. It will also support our ambitions in maintaining and enhancing road, aviation and maritime safety, security and connectivity.
The advance brief before the committee highlights many of the achievements of 2023, including the growth in public transport passenger numbers and the retention of the 20% average reduction in fares, to name but two. However, it also highlights many of the challenges that we face going into 2024, from the immediate - the concerning rise in road fatalities - to the long term - the challenge of rapidly reducing carbon emissions in the transport sector and the increasingly expected, but unpredictable, damage caused by extreme rainfall events.
The budget continues to focus on the Department’s strategic priorities and we are seeing the ambitions of this Government start to bear fruit on the ground in different transport sectors. 2024 will see, for example: a steadily increasing number of the new electric double-decker buses on the streets of Dublin; the new intercity rail cars entering service; the large pipeline and high quality of active travel and greenway networks continuing under construction; an increasing density of public electric vehicle charging infrastructure; more progress on the Cork commuter rail project; more major public transport projects exiting the planning system; and the continued progression of the roads programme agreed under the national development plan, NDP, with contracts signed in 2023 for Ballaghaderreen to Scramoge and funding support for the Cork to Ringaskiddy road and the Adare bypass in place.
Turning to programme A, sustainable mobility - active travel and greenways, €358.668 million is allocated. My Department continues to deliver on the programme for Government commitment of providing €360 million per annum to invest in active travel. Strategic programmes, for example, the safe routes to school programme, will support the design of integrated networks that will greatly enhance safety and accessibility and make active travel an attractive alternative to the private car. The pipeline of active travel and greenways projects under construction will proceed apace. As the outturn for 2023 demonstrates, the demand for the investment is there and we will continue to deliver.
Meanwhile, €1.636 billion has been allocated to programme B, sustainable mobility - public transport, for public transport infrastructure investment and services. This funding will continue to protect existing networks, modernise our transport networks and fleets and provide new connections. It will provide for the existing range of transport services and facilitate the ongoing delivery of BusConnects, Connecting Ireland and new town service plans, providing better connected, more frequent services and building a real alternative to use of the private car.
Some €613.463 million is allocated in PSO funding. The 20% discount on public transport fares is retained for this year. The funding provides for the extension of the upper age limit of the young adult travel card from 2023 to 2025. The NTA will continue to roll out new services in line with the BusConnects, Connecting Ireland, and new town services plans, so we can build on the achievements of 2023 in growing passenger numbers on our networks. I am delighted to see the steady growth in passenger numbers, which demonstrates the success of our investment to date.
The sum of €971.056 million is allocated to public transport investment. Plans for this year include the ongoing protection and renewal of the rail network; the progression of Cork commuter rail; the expansion of bus fleets, with the addition of 70 electric buses for Dublin and 60 zero-emission buses for deployment in regional fleets; and the continued progression of public transport projects. Now that these projects are starting to exit the planning system, 2024 and onwards should see real progress on them.
A total of €1.365 billion is allocated to programme C, road networks and road safety, including electric vehicle, EV, grants and infrastructure. This funding will maintain and renew the national, regional and local road surfaces; undertake safety works and bridge maintenance and rehabilitation; meet our contractual obligations under public-private partnerships that delivered parts of our motorway network; fund the construction of new national and regional and local roads; fund vital safety-related services; and progress the electrification of our transport networks.
The sum of €158 million has been allocated to the construction of new national roads and €70 million for regional and local road improvement schemes. Construction is continuing on a number of major roads, including completion of the Dunkettle Interchange and the Listowel bypass. Projects with planning approval that will continue to progress towards construction phase include the retendered Ballaghaderreen to Scramogue road, the Cork to Ringaskiddy road and the Adare bypass.
Some €286.750 million has been allocated to the protection and renewal of national roads, with €553.667 million for the protection and renewal of regional and local roads, while an additional €97 million is provided in PPP operational payments.
A total of €115.800 million is allocated to EV grants and infrastructure. This year will see progress towards finalising and implementing a national en route electric vehicle charging strategy, which will facilitate the installation of banks of electric vehicle fast chargers at key points on the motorway network, in the first instance.
With regard to road safety, €7.47 million has been provided to the Medical Bureau of Road Safety to support its vital work in detecting drug and alcohol misuse by drivers. My Department will continue to work closely with the Road Safety Authority, RSA, on all matters related to road safety.
I will turn now to programme D, civil aviation. Some €35.614 million is allocated to aviation. The regional airports programme provides targeted supports to regional airports that handle fewer than 1 million passengers per annum. The funding facilitates operational grants and PSO funding as well as investment in a wide variety of safety, security, and sustainability-related capital projects. For the first time since 2020, emergency Covid supports are not required for the aviation sector and this funding has now ceased. Some €11.171 million is allocated to fund services such as air accident insurance and membership of key international organisations.
A total of €128.533 million is allocated to programme E, maritime transport and safety. Most of that funding is directed to the Irish Coast Guard. This includes delivery of the helicopter contract incorporating search and rescue and air ambulance support to the HSE and the island communities. This year will see the transition from CHC to Bristow, as the search and rescue service provider. The funding also includes investment in the Commissioners of Irish Lights and marine casualty investigations.
The sum of €49.528 million is allocated to a new programme F, information technology, engagement and research delivery. Given the central importance of IT infrastructure to how the Department conducts its operations and delivers front-line services, such as licensing services and motor tax collection, a new digital hub has been created, bringing these services and their funding under one structure for the first time.
The Department has also introduced two new additional subheads: F4, climate engagement and F5, research programmes. This will support information campaigns such as Your Journey Counts, which highlights how individual choices can make transport more sustainable, and vital research into areas such as sustainable fuels.
I am pleased to see how the strategic direction of the Department has developed over the past few years: with real progress on investment in regional cities, not just Dublin; investment in rural areas, not just urban; in all transport modes, not just the ones we traditionally use; in modernisation and electrification to build the transport networks of the future, not just in settling for what we already have; and always with an ambition to improving connectivity across all modes. This year promises to be an exciting year for new public transport infrastructure as BusConnects exits the planning system and DART+ and Metrolink get closer to decisions, with the oral hearing for Metrolink commencing this month. I look forward to the pace ramping up for 2024 and I will seek to ensure that we maintain the real momentum that we have built up in delivering safe, secure and accessible transport networks that serve all the needs of all our citizens.
I am now happy to take any questions that the committee may have.
I thank the Minister. It has been agreed that the meeting will suspend at 1.50 p.m.. We are only four minutes off now so rather than bring in a member, I propose to suspend now and resume at 3 p.m if that is agreeable to everyone.
Sitting suspended at 1.46 p.m. and resumed at 3.07 p.m.
I thank the Minister for his opening statement. I have the first speaking slot and I propose that each slot be ten minutes to make up for the suspension so that we can finish in a timely manner.
In the Minister's opening statement and the briefing document we received earlier, there was mention of the road traffic measures Bill 2023 and, in particular, that an aspect of road safety be included in that, which is the restriction on how manage speeds are managed in this country. Is he in a position to give us an outline of the Bill and when it might be before us?
My Minister of State, Deputy Jack Chambers, will bring the legislation to the Dáil first and we are aiming for the end of this first quarter, roughly. The legislation will have to get through the Dáil and the Seanad. Like with all these traffic Bills, there probably will be some additional elements included. I do not have all the final details here but I absolutely agree. I understand the concern that we need to deliver on the reduced average speed limits as well as do a whole range of other measures to address the increase in road fatalities. I hope and expect that the Bill will get swift passage through both Houses. Then it has to be implemented by the local authorities and that will be later this year. The local authorities have to amend the regulations in their own counties and then go through the process of designating roads. The legislation would set the default speed at lower levels and if a council wishes to change the speed upwards or downwards, it can do so but that will take some time. There is absolute urgency because the legislation will save lives.
I agree with the Minster. We want the legislation brought in as soon as possible so we will support him on that.
On the increased use of public transport, it is welcome to see the real leap back post Covid. I have no doubt that usage is a result of the continued investments in public transport. Connecting Ireland, in particular, has been quite successful. A total of 65 new or improved routes were introduced last year, which is really significant for connectivity in rural Ireland.
I get great feedback on those routes. Is this reviewed each year and are more routes planned to come on stream next year and the year after?
There were 65 new and enhanced routes last year. Some of the routes were enhanced with new services and additional frequency. There are also a significant number of new routes, which have been hugely successful. There has been a roughly 115% increase in patronage year on year. There are 280,000 people with new and enhanced bus services and it is intended to further expand that. It was started as a five-year programme, so we are halfway through it. There may not be the exact same number of new and enhanced services as were introduced last year, which really was exceptional but, yes, the proposal is to continue to expand and deliver. The real constraints in this regard will be with the budget and the availability of drivers. The budget is an issue across all our public service operations.
I thought the briefing document was very useful, in that it provides a very good summary. It shows on the current budget that we are winding down some of the non-core measures. During the height of the Covid pandemic, we had to provide more than €1 billion, when we include core and non-core, in public transport support to get through it. That figure of non-core, in other words, emergency support, has reduced to about €154 million this year and will have to decrease again next year. This presents a real challenge for us as to how we meet the current expenditure support for the public service obligation in particular, because that is the largest current component. We have a real challenge to do so and to maintain some of the fare reductions which have been introduced in the last two years.
I am glad the Minister mentioned fare reductions because I fully support them. It is another reason we have seen quite a return to public transport. Admittedly, it was a cost-of-living issue that the Government addressed by bringing in the 50% reduction, as it is now, for people under 26, and 20% for everyone else.
In relation to the NTA's work on the fare strategy recently, it is really welcome to see that equalisation whereby people are paying roughly the same fare, regardless of where they are travelling in the country. There has been a long legacy of historical issues in respect of how fares were applied over the years. It is good to see this being done countrywide. It is a complex issue and one of the key parts is understanding and fairness. I want to ask the Minister about a particular aspect of the fare strategy that was introduced but before I do, I will outline what the NTA's objectives were on the fare strategy. One was to ensure that all public transport passengers pay a fare that reflects the distance travelled. Rail fares should increase in a relatively uniform manner in line with the distance travelled. The cost of travel should not vary unduly depending on the route taken. Moreover, the cost per kilometre travelled should not vary unduly. Those were some of the objectives of the NTA for fairness.
It was not in the opening statement but some of the other documentation supplied noted that one of the objectives of the Department is this notion of equality in public transport. The fare that somebody pays from Pearse Station to Maynooth, which is 17 miles by track, is €2. Someone travelling from Pearse Station to Greystones, which is also 17 miles of track, pays almost double that at €3.90. How does that stack up against the objectives of the NTA? How is that fair or equal or how are those people paying the same amount per kilometre of journey travelled?
I understand the concern. My understanding of the reason for that divergence is because they are not necessarily setting the zones by rail track mileage, but rather by distance as the crow flies, so to speak. This is something for which NTA has core responsibility. The organisation went to public consultation last year and the realignment of both rail and other public transport fares has been agreed at this stage. I can understand the case made for the commuters in Greystones.
The only ameliorating thing I can say is that if they are under 26, it is half that, with lower fares for youth with the youth travel card. For general passengers, it is 20% lower than it would otherwise have been. I can understand the concern the Chair has in that regard but the only rational answer I have is that it was based on distance. At some point, a limit or a parameter had to be set and there would always be one location in or outside the two zones that are now in place. The farther zone goes out to 52 km and the inner one goes to 23 km. By dint of that, Greystones finds itself with that fare increase.
I understand the complexity and difficulty in trying to set fares. Where it falls down is where one tries to set these concentric circles. Dublin and the greater Dublin area did not develop in a grid like New York city or something like that. We have population centres such as Skerries, which is just outside that concentric circle, Maynooth, which has just slipped into that concentric circle, and Greystones, which has just been left out. The NTA applied a strategy as the crow flies from O'Connell Bridge. That is where it worked out its distances from. Rail track miles have nothing to do with how crows fly. I can understand how that might have something to do with buses, because buses take a meandering kind of route or try to pick up in places as they go, so as a crow flies is probably a good metric to use for a bus journey. All rail track in this country is measurable, however. Rail charts will show the exact distance between stations. It is much easier to work out the distance between rail stations than it is on those bus routes. I do not understand why O'Connell Bridge was taken as the datum point for that.
It does not matter if somebody travelling is a Greystones resident or a Maynooth resident. I am not doing this on a constituency basis. If I am a tourist who gets on in Pearse and travels to Greystones, I am charged €3.90 if I have a Leap card. I am only charged €2 if I go to Maynooth and I travel the exact same distance. There is not even a variation in that. Those services start from and terminate in Pearse, which is the central Dublin station. I really do not understand. I think the NTA has not lived up to its objectives that it set, which were that rail fares should increase in line with distance travelled. They clearly do not. Does the Minister have power, within his ministerial duties, to go back to the NTA and say it has not delivered on these objectives for the fare strategy and that we have people travelling the exact same distance who are paying twice the price? I do not think that is fair at all.
I can understand the frustration. To answer the two substantive points, firstly, my understanding is that the reason for O'Connell Bridge being the point from which distance is measured, and it being as the crow flies rather than rail track distance, is that there was a desire to have an integrated system where it would be the same for both bus and rail. One would be looking to set concentric circles that, in a sense, recognise that we need to interconnect. On many occasions, one might want to get the bus to the railway station. If we had two different circles for different transport modes, whether bus or rail, that would not give that level of interconnection. That is my understanding of why Irish Rail went for that integrated approach.
Secondly, as Minister, one ultimately takes responsibility and has oversight and, in the end, power of direction of the agencies. I think it is also important to respect and support the independence of our agencies, to resource them and to set policy directions. I felt in this that it was really important that we got fares realignment. I understand the case the Chair makes for Greystones versus Maynooth, but there were also extensive and much more widespread disparities and injustices in the previous fares system. My direction to the NTA was to deliver a new, more coherent and integrated fare structure system. It has done that. It is not just Greystones, as the Chair says, that may feel this. Skerries, Straffan, Kill and other locations are just on the outside of the inner circle. Further west, Athboy, Edenderry and Monasterevin might all have a similar case if we did it on a rail-based system versus bus. There will always be some anomalies. The key issue in my mind is that we invest now in the upgrade of the Greystones to Bray track, which we are going to invest significantly in.
The other issue for the Deputy's constituents using the rail system in Greystones, as I am sure they would agree, is the long time journeys take and the infrequency of the service. I commit to investing to improve the rail experience on the DART south line - extend and improve it and increase frequency. It is not just about the fares issue, but whether we can improve and increase the level of service. I am committed to delivering that.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. I do not have speaking time in the Dáil, so I take this opportunity put on record my deepest sympathies to our colleague Deputy Richard Bruton and all of the Bruton family on the passing of iar-Thaoiseach, John Bruton.
The Minister's presence and contributions are always valued by this committee. My first question is about the Dublin Airport expansion. Mr. Kenny Jacobs of the Dublin Airport Authority was before this committee not too long ago. He presented the expansion plans. He spoke about the cap. The cap is unworkable, whether we like it or not, and something has to change. However, I will outline my concerns in detail. The Dublin Airport Authority is trying to outpace the review of the national aviation policy, which is to happen this year. That looks at the all-Ireland approach to aviation. The Dublin Airport Authority submitted an application early this year that will go through and conclude its planning process possibly by Easter, yet the national aviation policy review will not happen until the back end of the year. I feel it has outpaced the Government on this. What it proposes certainly deals with problem relating to the cap, but it is seeking to expand to such an extent that this would be to the detriment of other airports. Dublin holds a dominant position. While nobody imagines that being flipped - it is unrealistic - the expansion being talked about will only further strengthen this dominance. I would like the Minister's thoughts as to whether Dublin Airport Authority has outpaced Government in terms of the national aviation policy review.
The national planning framework is our guiding light in many different ways, particularly in the context of transport. It states we need to get better balanced regional development, more compact development and low-carbon development. When it comes to aviation, as is the case with every other sector, it serves the interests of our country to see more balanced development of aviation services, in particular in the main international airports in Knock, Shannon and Cork, as well as Dublin. That benefits Dublin. Again, if Dublin generates and brings in all of the traffic and passengers, the city will not be able to cope as it is growing so fast. We absolutely require better balanced regional development, including in our airports. That is obviously a key policy objective. Delivery of that is not as easy. I do not believe we should turn back to the days of the Shannon stopover or other mechanisms whereby one airport is restricted in order to try to advance another. However, we have to be careful that we do not see what might be called predatory pricing or other trade effects to try to make sure that Dublin gets business ahead of Shannon, particularly if Shannon is close to closing a deal. I would not like to see Dublin Airport coming in and scooping it at the last minute. There has been some experience of that in the past. I say that with regret, but it is something we now need to avoid at all costs.
The issue of the cap in Dublin Airport in truth does not relate to aviation policy, but to ground transport. The cap was introduced in 2007. There were similar concerns in previous planning permission for terminal 1. However, in the provision of planning permission for the development of terminal 2 in 2007, An Bord Pleanála was concerned about congestion on the M1, the M50 and the access roads to the airport. This was with good cause because in the previous year, An Bord Pleanála had given permission for the widening of the M50. The analysis presented at that, which I happened to attend for the full three weeks, was clear. Even with the widening of the M50, it would have been at full capacity by, I think, 2015 or 2018.
Any additional traffic brought onto it would have led to a significant deterioration in the performance of the road infrastructure. That was the reason the cap was put in place. There are various moving parts to this, depending on how many people access the airport by bus versus road, taxi and so on. I am confident we will see the metro being delivered, which will have an impact on that. In the first instance, it is up to Fingal County Council, and an Bord Pleanála if called upon, to assess the cap. My expectation is that their assessment would be based on land transport issues rather than aviation or the national policy.
I hear the Deputy's concern. I do not think the cap materially impacts on things one way or the other. There is a wider issue as to how we see the progression of development for the likes of Shannon Airport. The latter has had a successful year. It was not just the airport that was successful, it was also the industrial estate. That, too, has been incredibly successful in attracting business and providing employment. It is not as if in this current environment Cork, Shannon and Knock are not performing - they are. They are coming back from Covid with significant growth.
We are pre-empting matters by inferring that the national aviation policy will have some strong statements, just like the national planning framework and Ireland 2040. I am sure there will be strong statements in there about the other regions of Ireland and other international airports. It strikes me that if this gets a green light through the planning process - it has entirely circumvented that process, which is also important - it will happen some time this year. I think Dublin Airport Authority has got ahead of the Government.
I have another question on aviation. The regional airports programme review has been mooted for some time. We were expecting there might be an outcome to that in the days before Christmas. That did not materialise. We are again heading quite rapidly towards the bumper summer aviation season. The authorities at many airports in the west of Ireland, including Shannon in my constituency, are worried about what lies ahead thereafter. Is the Minister considering raising the ceiling?
A PSO application has been before the Department since 2021 with regard to having a continental European flight service in and out of Shannon, especially in light of Brexit and how geographically peripheral the west of Ireland is. That application has been before the Department for three years now. If it is to happen, that would be wonderful. We would all love that. If it is not to happen, it needs to be moved off the desk because there is a belief that it is becoming a barrier to commercial airlines considering routes to continental Europe. There is this "Will they or won't they?", suggestion about the PSO application on the Minister's desk. It ideally needs to be signed off on. However, if there is some fundamental block to it being agreed the Minister needs to come out and say it, and allow commercial activity to flow in a more natural state rather the state of suspense we have had for three years.
On the Deputy's final point about the application for a PSO service to continental Europe, I had not realised that might have been a potential factor in other commercial aviation interests looking at a route out of Shannon. I will look at that or liaise with the Minister of State, Deputy Chambers, because I do not believe we will able to get a PSO service out of Shannon into continental Europe. At the height of Covid we were looking at all sorts of mechanisms to try to support and develop the airport and the region. We looked at that and there was clear advice that it would be in breach of European state aid rules, and would not be justified. I think that case is all the more certain now. If it is a factor in hindering any contractual arrangements with other airlines, I will liaise with the Minister of State, Deputy Chambers to see what can be done.
The Deputy is correct that the review of regional airport programmes was out for consultation last year. My understanding is that officials are briefing the Minister of State, Deputy Chambers. I expect it will be considered and concluded shortly.
I want to squeeze in a few questions about the rail network. I missed the 10.50 a.m. train from Limerick to Dublin earlier. I was on time but the car park was chock-a-block. I know the Minister believes people using bikes. I do too. I brought the bike in the boot, I got the train and I cycled off, but you have to park the car somewhere. I come from rural County Clare to a train station. I cycle off at the other end. I make a conscious decision every Dáil sitting week to avoid a 180 km one-way journey in the car. So many people this morning at Limerick station missed trains because they drove laps of the car park and had to exit it. They then drove down into the city.
I am parked in a car park about 15 minutes' walk from the train station. I missed my train and got the second one. It is a simple thing. It is a brand new car park. It only opened about three weeks ago. It costs €3.50 for the entire day, which is incredible value. I have had chats with Jim Meade of Irish Rail - this needs to be segregated from general parking in the city. It should remain €3.50 if you are going to get a train and travel out of that station. It should be linked to your travel ticket. If you are not going to take a train, if your intention is to go shopping in Limerick for the day or to work in an office in the city, there should be a higher tariff. It might decouple the malpractice going on there at the moment. When I eventually got on the train I met a guy sitting across from me from Cork. He too had missed his train because of the same problem in Cork. It is a problem that the Minister needs to get to grips with. We all want a modal shift. We are all embracing it but little things like that irk people. It could be solved quite easily with some ticket changes.
That is a fair point. My officials and I will talk to Irish Rail to see what might be done. Integrating the ticket with car parking seems to make sense if it is being used, as the Deputy said, for other non-public transport-related parking. There is a lot of sense in that.
The trains to Dublin are very successful. They are full most mornings. It is great to see. The Cork to Dublin service picks up passengers from Limerick at Limerick Junction. It is really successful. There are two early morning direct services from Limerick to Dublin and there are only three carriages on that service. It is fine. I get on that service every Wednesday morning and I have a seat. When you get beyond Thurles, every station, such as Portarlington and Portlaoise, all the way along takes on hundreds of passengers. You get to a point on the second half of that rail journey when passengers are not just standing at the end of carriages - that has always happened back through the years when trains are busy - but also down along the carriages. You are sitting in your seat, doing a few emails and someone is holding onto your seat for an hour and a half of the journey, swaying over and back. They are standing down the middle of the carriages. On any morning, there could be 200 people standing down along that three-carriage train. It is devastating when you arrive into Heuston Station and you see rolling stock parked up from Inchicore works all the way in. There is not a huge number of carriages parked up, but there are certainly enough carriages that should be brought down to the likes of Limerick, Galway and Cork last thing at night. People should be going home on those trains so that on the early morning services, there is a fully-loaded, five- or six-carriage train going up to the capital. I would like the Minister to take that up with Jim Meade. I do not even know insurance-wise if it is right for so many people to be standing on a train doing 80 mph for an hour and a half on the line to Dublin.
I agree with the Deputy. There is a resolution, I hope, for the immediate issue. We have delivery of some 41 new ICR carriages. They will start coming into operation this spring, in the next month or two. Where there are particular pinch-points in service capability with people standing for long distances or any clear demand which needs to be met, Irish Rail will deploy those carriages. They will start to make a difference in the coming weeks.
I wish to conclude with a final question. The bike to work scheme is not strictly under the Minister's Department; it is more the Department of Finance and Revenue. I found out recently that a lot of people are locked out of the scheme. It works in a lot of employment centres but, for example, Members of the Oireachtas cannot avail of the scheme, as far as I know. People who are unemployed are also not entitled to avail of it. I know it is a paradox if you are not working - it is a bike to work scheme - but surely in this day and age the title of the scheme needs to be changed. People who are retired are also not entitled to avail of it. I love the bike. Today was my first day back on the bike after surgery. I could not wait to get back in the saddle. The scheme was wonderful when it came in. I think the Minister was its architect, if I recall correctly. The title needs to change. The "work" part might need to be taken out. Why not broaden the scheme to include people attending education and retired and unemployed people? It would be wonderful. It kind of falls under the remit of this committee. I would love for the Minister to advocate for that within the Government.
I do not disagree with the Deputy. This is a tricky one because the scheme was always based on a tax model. We have been talking to the Department of Finance to broaden it so it could, as the Deputy said, cover someone who is unemployed or a student who does not pay tax and is therefore not able to accrue the benefit. That is a matter for the Department of Finance and my Department. It has been a difficult issue to resolve but I hope we can do so in the upcoming budget. I will try to. In the interim, there are a number of other measures such as the bike library scheme we are introducing in colleges so people can have access to bikes.
The roll-out of bike-sharing schemes has been remarkably successful. Sligo town is one of the most successful developed recently. I agree we need to provide wider access to bikes. I would like to extend the scheme to include other non-taxpaying citizens. We do not have the mechanism yet but I am trying to get that in time for the budget. Separately, the bike library and bike-sharing schemes help to go a long way.
Will there be an opportunity to come in later, Chair? Will there be a second round?
I was trying to cut the slots to ten to 12 minutes. They were down for 18 minutes. Are members agreeable to that? I can give the Deputy another three minutes if he wants 18 minutes. I will offer Deputies Kenny and O'Rourke-----
I need three minutes and I will be out of here and will not disrupt.
We will revert back to the original 18 minutes.
There is a road in Limerick that is finally being built again. It is the Coonagh to Knockalisheen road. It is a local authority-led project. It goes between counties Clare and Limerick but Limerick is the lead local authority on the project. Construction began on that road about three years ago and faltered. The contractor left the project. It is going back into construction in the summer. The problem with that road is that it goes from one roundabout to another. It ends in my home village of Meelick. It is a dual carriageway that will end at a roundabout and then you go not onto a primary or secondary road but a rural, tertiary road. The problem is it ends in the middle of nowhere. I said the last time I brought this up in the committee that it is like the Road Runner cartoon where you go to the end of town, it just stops and you drop off the edge. It will be like that. We have had battles on the routing and where it should and should not go. It has been contentious. You cannot have a road going to no place. There is congestion there every morning. If you listen to "Morning Ireland", you will hear about traffic on the Athlunkard road, in Meelick and in Caherdavin. This is the road to relieve that. What is the Minister doing to ensure it does not become the road to nowhere and there is a part 2 to the project that might see the light of day during his tenure in the Department?
We were agreeing on so many things. It was going in a direction where we were like-minded but on this matter we have different views. Deputy Crowe lives close to Sixmilebridge, I think.
That is correct.
That neck of the woods. There may be some hope because we are also going to build a new railway station in Moyross. Rather than having to drive into Limerick city, the Deputy may be able to cycle down to the Moyross station and be whisked into town and on from there to wherever. I have a different view on this matter. It was not that the company left the scheme. The company, unfortunately, went out of business. There is no blame on anyone for that; it was just one of those things that happened. We are back building it now. I am convinced the future of Limerick is best served by major investment in public transport, not just in the station in Moyross but the reopening of the Shannon-Foynes line and the station in Ballysimon, which could radically improve the city. Going back to our earlier conversation, if there was money for investment and we were very tight and short of money, I would build a railway connection to Shannon Airport first before I would do anything else. That would provide a transformative connection between Shannon and Limerick as well as for people going to the airport. I do not agree that it serves Limerick to spread into County Clare and it does not serve County Clare either. It would undermine Ennis as well as Limerick. Sustainable, compact, public transport-oriented development is the future. Moyross station will be built in the next two years and will transform that whole area. It must be only 300 m or 400 m from that roundabout. Watch that area change when we put in public transport with the train station. That has always proven a major development and boon for an area.
I thank the Minister and the Chair for his latitude.
I thank the Minister and his staff for the presentation. An issue at the forefront of all our minds after the tragedies in the past month of road deaths is investment in roads. Some of the accidents happening are on roads with stretches that need work.
That road in County Carlow is one of those where applications have been made numerous times for works to be carried out on stretches of it that have become quite dangerous and that have a great deal of traffic. I do not wish to discuss that road in particular, given the tragedy that occurred on it in the past week, but there are similar roads around the country. While there is some funding in the Minister’s programme for work of that nature, it will not go far enough to make such roads safe. This is not to discount the personal responsibility that road users have to drive safely, but in many cases, the roads they are driving on are not safe to use because they were built for another age, and we need to acknowledge that. In the context of road safety, how much additional funding or emphasis can be placed on this issue in the budget for the coming year?
The Deputy is right. The number of recent instances involving fatalities has been tragic. The tragic accident in Carlow last week was possibly the worst of those. We need to invest in the protection and renewal of our roads and in addressing some of black spot areas where the risk of accidents occurring is higher. Protection and renewal are the cornerstone because, if there is a solid surface and so on, it helps safety. In the past four years, there has been a 34% increase in spending in this regard. It is never enough, given that we have also had inflation in that period, but the increase was made to try to maintain safe road surfaces. We are also investing in our allocations to the local roads programme and to TII’s work. In recent years, we have been investing approximately €40 million per year in trying to find places to make road realignments, changes to junctions and improvements to black spot areas. Recognising the increase in that budget over the past two years, we increased it by a further €26 million this year to encourage TII and the local authorities to do exactly what the Deputy suggested, namely, to see whether we can address particular black spots. We will continue doing that. It is an important part of the response to the road safety programme. Other initiatives include reducing speed limits, increasing enforcement and investing in education.
There is also a body of work to be done on traffic calming measures, particularly near towns or other areas where people move from a lower limit to a higher one. The foot goes down and people start driving fast. Often, this is happening in areas where there are quite a number of houses and junctions. There needs to be a re-emphasis on installing mechanisms to calm traffic in such areas. I would like to get an assurance that, when local authorities look for funding of this nature, they will get a positive response from the Department.
If the Deputy looks at our expenditure on local roads in particular, he will see that the vast majority goes on smaller works. As I set out in my opening statement, I believe we are only expending €70 million or the like in respect of new roads. Most of the expenditure is on simpler measures that can make a profound difference, for example, introducing footpaths and traffic calming measures.
Speed limits are critical. Most of the fatalities we are seeing do not tend to be on motorways and other primary roads. They are occurring on secondary, regional roads. The reduction in speed limits will play an important role in that respect. Many roads have 100 km/h limits that should be 80 km/h, many have 80 km/h limits that should be 60 km/h. In many of our villages and towns, the limit should move from 50 km/h to 30 km/h. This will not be popular and, when it happens, it will be controversial but these reductions are an essential part of the mix.
It is a question of getting the balance right. I agree with the Minister that, in some cases, it will not be popular but there are many local roads with limits of 80 km/h where you would be taking your life in your hands if you tried to drive that quickly. It is ridiculous that they have those limits. A common-sense approach needs to be taken to limits, but the main thing this comes down to is enforcement. Unfortunately, most of the enforcement we are seeing is on motorways and larger roads when it is actually needed on the other roads.
I wish to ask about active travel funding, particularly as regards the safe routes to school programme.
In many places, especially rural parishes and villages, school buses bring children to school and there is a certain distance that a child has to live away from the school to qualify. A child living just inside that limit would not be able to walk to school, though, because there are no safe routes to do so. I acknowledge that funding is being put in place to address this issue, but how much additional emphasis will be placed on it? There needs to be additional funding to ensure that we can create safe routes to school for the many children who require them. This is probably one of the main issues. In many cases, people who cannot get school transport for their children end up having to drive them because there is no other safe way to bring their children to school.
I agree with the Deputy about the safe routes to school programme being the centre point of safer transport for all our communities. The great advantage of schools, particularly primaries, is that they are at the centre of our communities, so they are a way of providing better and safer transport systems for every town and village across the country. The programme is very popular, with 930 schools having applied. We were only able to fund 167 in the first phase and 108 in the second phase. We have completed 25 of those projects, with 33 under construction, 31 at the detailed design stage, 64 either at the preliminary design stage or in a statutory consultation process, and 11 at the development phase. They are all being developed, although it is taking longer than I would like, often because a project is contentious. Creating safer spaces outside schools often means slowing down traffic, redirecting it or regulating parking. While some of these measures may be popular initially and everyone wonders who could be against safe routes to schools, it can be contentious when it is actually done in front of a school. We can overcome that, though. A demand management study is on the way and I hope it will go to the Government in the coming weeks. In that context, we will look for local authorities to play a stronger role and combine what we are doing on active travel with demand management. We will also look to create safer spaces and scale up the investment.
The Minister can understand the frustration. Did he say 960 schools had applied?
It was 930.
Few of those projects have been completed or funded, though. There is frustration. I understand that the programme is now closed to applications. Action is required if there is to be enough traction to move this along.
Work is under way on BusConnects and other bus projects in Dublin, but many people are frustrated and feel that they are not getting the service they used to. I know that there have been some changes to routes and that there are teething problems from time to time, but many people find themselves waiting at bus stops and watching as the times displayed go from two minutes to six only for their buses not to come at all. This is a frustration for many. There are issues with getting bus drivers as well as other staffing issues, but we need to get a handle on this. If we want to get more people using public transport, it has to be reliable. To date, it has not been. What will be done to change this?
The Deputy is right, but we need to recognise that it is changing. The number of public transport users last year was up 25% compared with the previous year. That is phenomenal. Included in that figure is Dublin Bus. However, the Deputy is right, as we need to go further and faster. He is also right that access to drivers has probably been one of the biggest constraints. Getting mechanics for the garages has also been a major problem. Dublin Bus and Go-Ahead are going flat out recruiting more staff.
After these, the main impediment has been congestion, which is crippling for everyone. It means that we have to build the BusConnects network. The corridors are already working. We have rolled out five or six, starting in Howth and Lucan and now with the southern orbitals and Clondalkin. We will do the south inner city or the variety of other orbitals. The real test will be the building of the BusConnects corridors.
This will give a very high-quality environment in which the buses will turn around very quickly and drivers can do more routes more quickly. The first two projects in Clongriffin and Liffey Valley have come out of planning. Subject to them not being judicially reviewed in the next few weeks, we will go to construction straight away. I do think it is about delivery of the entire plan. It is not just for Dublin. It is really important that we deliver the same for Cork, Galway, Waterford and Limerick. As I said earlier, balanced regional development is critical.
It is also for towns, as town buses are incredibly successful. We introduced a town bus in Carlow and saw a large increase in patronage. It was the same in Kilkenny and in any town we have put them into. Earlier we mentioned Connecting Ireland, which is the rural bus transport service. Buses will be the workhorses of our public transport system and at the forefront of decarbonising our transport system. We are on track to do this. I absolutely understand the frustration of someone being at a stop when the bus does not come on time or the real-time information is not accurate. This is something we absolutely have to address. To go back to the independence of the NTA which I mentioned earlier, one of the benefits is that we can hold it and the operators to account to make sure we deliver the service levels we expect. We will be pushing this.
I thank the witnesses for attending today and for their presentations. I also thank the Minister. Will the Minister give us an update on the roll-out of Connecting Ireland? We discuss it on an annual basis. Where it is happening it seems to be a significant success. In its first year in 2022, there was a commitment of €5.6 million and €3.88 million was the actual spend. I understand that last year, €8.35 million was the committed spend. What is the update on what was spent? What is committed in 2024?
Last year we launched 65 new or enhanced services. Of these, 24 were new routes and 41 were enhanced services, which usually means much more frequent journeys. Approximately 194 towns and villages benefit from this.
My understanding is that expenditure last year was on budget and we spent the full allocation. This is very complicated because often we start a service at the end of the year and the cost does not kick in until the following year. We have not concluded the exact allocation. We are going through the process of agreeing the overall budget. Today we made the allocation for active travel. We will do similar for local roads and national roads. My understanding is that it will be in the order of just under €10 million this year. It is ramping up each year.
It is just under €10 million. The Minister thinks the €8.35 million for last year was-----
Yes, our view is that the full expenditure was used. Having had a difficult couple of years because of Covid and the planning system, we spent all of our budget last year. There was not an underspend on the capital or current side. We had full use of all our budget.
I am looking at public transport and the commitment for this year, 2024. I see current expenditure will be down by approximately 10% and capital expenditure is increasing by 26%. How does this sit with the recruitment of drivers in particular? I presume this is current expenditure. How does it fit with an expanded roll-out of Connecting Ireland?
I apologise I was distracted at the very start of the question. I ask Deputy O'Rourke to repeat it.
No problem. I am trying to get a picture of this. My understanding is that Connecting Ireland is a €56 million programme over five years. It began in 2021 and we are now into 2024. I am trying to get a sense of where we are at the minute and where we intend to be at the end of the year. I recognise the challenges we have had in rolling out these services. I understand that in particular it is with regard to current expenditure and getting drivers and the services up and running. How will this look in 2024, particularly at a time when we are seeing a 10% reduction in current spend?
It is going to be tight. With regard to current expenditure, as I was saying earlier on, in Covid we had significant non-core one-off emergency funding to get us through. This is unwinding as we continue to come out of Covid and come to more normal times. The current side will be particularly difficult. It is always the area where it is most difficult to get commitments from Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform because current expenditure typically involves entering into multi-annual commitments. Capital spending is one-off by its very nature.
The most contested side is always current expenditure.
With regard to the overall funding the total funding for TFI Local Link rural services under the PSO was €20 million. My understanding is that we on track for the €56 million spend. It depends on the exact configuration as it is a five-year programme. It is a very good programme. Our entire transport system is bedevilled by annual accounting systems. We need to switch to multi-annual funding. In the writing of manifestoes for the next election one thing we all need to make sure is included is that we move away from annual budgeting to multi-annual budgeting particularly when it comes to transport. It does not work. We are forever caught having to make do from year to year.
Tell me about it, Minister. This is what I am trying to get to the bottom of. We are on the other side of it. It is trying to follow this five-year programme.
My officials are wisely informing me of the fact that Deputy O'Rourke is seeing, which is correct, a reduction in the budget. This was a reduction in the overall figure year on year. The figure increased last year because we introduced a supplementary budget. Because of the year-on-year accounting system halfway through the year we found ourselves not being able to deliver all of the services we committed to. We got a supplementary budget. If I recall rightly it involved transferring from other public transport sectors or other aspects of underspend in the budget, with some additional funding. We were able to apply a Supplementary Estimate. The actual reduction in the end is not quite-----
I get that.
The basic point is that the benefit of the Connecting Ireland scheme's five-year approach is that it gives us certainty. There is a difficulty in how we match it to the annual budgetary process, which by its very nature is stop-start. We need to switch to multi-annual funding. This will not be easy. The Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform will agree to it with a tight hold on what we do.
How many new routes are expected or intended in 2024?
They are being developed at present. It will not be as large a number as last year.
I thank the Minister. Will the Minister point us towards the fare restructuring? It is a significant issue of importance in my county and in many regions. The expectation is that the first phase will kick in-----
We expect it mid-year this year.
September?
Summer.
To go back to the Minister's point on the need for multi-annual budgeting, at a wider level the budget plugs into the national development plan.
Is there an update on how negotiations are going or when we might see an update of the national development plan? We have consistently raised the need for additional funding to 2030 and there are challenges in that regard, as the Minister has said. How are the negotiations going?
I think the reference document to read to give some background is the summer economic statement of last year, which set out what additional capital expenditure will cost the Government in each of the years 2024, 2025 and 2026. Roughly, if I recall correctly, it will be €250 million in 2024, €730 million in 2025 and €1.3 billion in 2026. Obviously, we, along with other Departments, are looking for as much of that as possible. If I could spend it straight away, some of the first things I would use it for would be EV charging infrastructure, more active travel and improving the digital technologies. When you go to other cities, you see contactless payments with credit card or other systems and we need to invest in that type of technology. I am keen to get as much as possible of the 2024 budget, in particular, enhanced.
The reality in the Department of Transport, however, is slightly different from that in other Departments, although perhaps every Minister would say that, because the investment we need to scale up is a multiple of their figures. We have a very useful €35 billion allocation for the full ten-year period. On the graph presented in the briefing document, if we continue on the €2.6 billion a year trajectory, to fully spend the €35 billion we would have to dramatically ramp up spending post 2026. To a certain extent, there was scepticism in some quarters as to whether we would be able to spend our budget and whether projects would come through the planning system, and people were waiting to see whether we would really get the projects through. I am convinced this year that we will and this relates to the likes of the metro, the Navan rail line, Cork metropolitan rail, BusConnects, DART+, the cross-city service in Galway, the Moyross-Ballysimon-Limerick-Shannon Foynes upgrade and the western rail corridor, which will not go to planning this year but we have started on it. So many projects are about to come into the view of being ready to be built, not least on the public transport side, and the scale of investment we will need to make is way beyond anything being considered within this broad NDP discussion. That is where we are going to have to really look at ways of being able to deliver, because I do not think we will want to stop any of the projects I just mentioned. Everyone has to be honest.
I could go on with examples. There is also the extension of the DART to Wicklow, investment in the electrification of the DART to Balbriggan, the new charging station in Drogheda, which we will fund, and putting in that new charging station in Wicklow in order that we can run the DART to there. I am only warming up here. We have a challenge on the public transport side that is beyond compare, and we need to look at various ways of making sure we will not do what happened in the past. If I were topping up money this year, I would put it into the EV charging infrastructure first. We have a real issue in transport. We are going to have to have a significantly greater capital budget and that is not going to be an easy ask, but we will do it.
Is it a question of additional funding or does the Minister see a role for other vehicles? Is it literally a negotiation within the Government between party leaders and the Department of public expenditure or how will he get something like this over the line? Will the new climate and infrastructure fund play a role in that? How does the Minister square all this?
It is the infrastructure, climate and nature fund and most of the climate bit has been clearly indicated towards the retrofitting of public buildings, expanding anaerobic digestion, rolling out district heating and increasing support for solar panels in various sectors and so on. I could go on. The same is true of the nature part of the fund. The climate and nature bit is certainly allocated, or at least in my mind it is clearly designated as to where it is going to go.
The infrastructure part is an issue we should and will look at. It has been designed such that there will not be a repeat of what happened in the past, such as when we pulled the metro in 2012. In hindsight, we should not have done that.
The IMF was correct that in our response to the financial crisis, we should not have cut capital as much as we did. We are suffering infrastructure shortfalls in housing, energy, transport and water because of that. We do not want to make the same mistake again, which is the case I will be making to officials in the Department of public expenditure and reform. They will rightly come back and ask us to show them the project pipeline, and we do need to set that out. There is a lot of debate about the Planning and Development Bill, in which the Acting Chair of this committee will be centrally involved. To my mind, that is key.
I will go back in time. I was involved with the metro. We nearly had it built. We were so close to getting it built in 2008 or 2009. There is only one reason it was not contracted and built. We could have built it for one third of the price we are going to have to pay for it now, and it had EIB funding. Planning issues in north Dublin at the time, whether archaeological or otherwise, delayed us for two years, which meant we missed the window. We are not going to let that happen again.
Coming back to Connecting Ireland, the Department will not do as much this year as it did last year. Is that related to constraints on current spend? We hear from providers that this is going to be a tighter or more difficult year. As I understand, we have changed the critical skills list and opened other avenues for drivers and mechanics. What is behind the reduction?
There is a combination of reasons, and if we can suddenly overcome them, we will go back to what we did last year and put in a Supplementary Estimate. The shortage of drivers and mechanics is a significant issue, if I am being upfront and honest, but if you think of it as a five-year programme, you can perceive it slightly differently. In December, we introduced 21 new services. These are only starting; they are really only going to kick in this year. The great thing about a five-year timeframe is that we get away from it all being about what number it is one year versus another. There is a steady stream of projects. Most of those that were introduced last year will really only kick in during the first months of this year. They have started and are scaling up.
I take the Minister's point, but the figure was €3.88 million for the first year, €8.35 million last year and just under €10 million this year, which is year three. Of a fund of €56 million, we have spent in the region of €23 million. Is that correct?
Yes, we are on track. We are there or thereabouts.
It is going to be a big final two years.
Yes, but projects scale up. We are roughly on track.
That is what the Minister said last year. He said projects scale up. This year, however, he is saying he is going to do less than last year.
Hold on. Passenger numbers grew by 120%-----
I am not disagreeing with that-----
Show me another example of any public service that has doubled in one year.
I take the point, but these are fair questions. It is a five-year programme, and there is political support across the board. They are the types of projects we want. We recognise that there are challenges. I am trying to understand the assessment of the Department and the Government as to how they will grow the projects.
I accept the point. If we can deliver this faster and further and get both the budget and drivers, I will go further.
The Minister would get a Supplementary Estimate.
Yes.
There is now an assembly in the North and the Minister’s portfolio crosses two or three Departments in the North. Does he have plans to meet his counterparts?
Yes, and I am looking forward to that. John O’Dowd and I met last year in the hope the assembly would come back. We discussed a number of infrastructural projects but it was a very short meeting. We talked about the return of the North-South Ministerial Council and our sectoral ministerial meetings. I had a very good relationship with his predecessor, Nichola Mallon, and I look forward to restoring it. We have urgent work to do on the all-island strategic rail review and a range of other projects. I am looking forward to developing that working relationship.
No other members are indicating so I will wind up by thanking the Minister, his officials and everyone who works in the public transport system. We provide the budgets but the Minister is correct to talk about drivers, maintenance teams and right across to the work the NTA does. The capital project team of Irish Rail was before the committee recently. The three bus providers and the NTA were also here recently. There is no doubt that there is an absolute desire, demand and ambition for better public transport. We are starting to see the result of it in the presentation we heard today, but it is an ongoing battle considering there has been a lack of investment over the years. We are starting to turn that around now and to see the results. I thank them for their time today.