Deputy Richie Ryan to move the motion. The Deputy has not more than 40 minutes.
Private Members' Business: Dublin Bus and Rail Services: Motion.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann, noting the increasing inadequacy of the road network and the steady deterioration of rail rolling stock, calls on the Government to implement the CIE proposals for the Dublin Rapid Busway and rail system as a matter of urgency, thereby providing an effective commuter service whilst also creating much needed employment.
I thank the Chair for allocating the time for this discussion. The topic that Fine Gael have chosen for discussion today is one that concerns over a million people who are living in this congested city of ours and in its environs. It is very ironic that Dublin, which was once noted for having the most efficient tramway service in Europe, should now have the slowest and most inefficient public transport service in Europe. This is due not to any lack of dedication or efficiency on the part of the public transport authorities but to the accumulation of neglect on the part of other authorities in this region for several decades past. A crisis has now been reached which requires an immediate solution to cater for the movement needs of our people for several decades to come.
Public transport is required in any modern city to answer a human need. The purpose of a public transport system is to assist people in moving from their places of residence to their places of work and as they go about their business. But the congestion in Dublin is now so great that for many hours every day public transport is unable to move at all. Journeys that are scheduled to take, say, half an hour may take an hour-and-a-half or two hours. Buses which ought to be collecting passengers, receiving revenue from them and operating efficiently are often forced to remain stationary in the street within sight of potential passengers who are unable to get on them because the buses are unable to move towards the stops where the people are waiting.
This matter has not been overlooked by the transport authority. They have made many requests over the years that greater facilities be given to the public transport vehicles in the public streets but most of those requests have, unfortunately, fallen on deaf ears. But in 1972 they took the very sensible step of producing a Dublin transportation study and in 1975 CIE published a Dublin rapid rail transit study which was then submitted to the local authorities concerned and to Government Departments. A more practical and specific step was taken by CIE when they made a proposal for the urgent implementation of the first phase of a new Dublin rapid rail transit system which would involve the electrification of the existing railway from Howth to Dublin city and beyond to Bray. That study is a most convincing document about the various systems which can be operated to move people about any modern metropolis. What is most convincing, and I believe unanswerable, is the case they make for using our existing rail lines for the movement of people who so urgently require to be moved efficiently.
We in Fine Gael find it very distressing that a Government, who before they were given power by the people made a promise to have an urgent study of the problem carried out, have to date apparently not accepted the arguments which have already been put before them but took nearly 18 months after they went into office to establish yet another committee of their own to evaluate what had already been submitted by CIE. We will accept the bona fides of this study, and indeed the Government in their amending motion suggest that Dáil Éireann should note this study and should await its outcome. But even before the study has been completed we now have a Minister of the Government being highly critical of any proposal to electrify the railways or to provide a rapid rail transit system such as CIE propose. When we find that that is the Minister who is charged with the responsibility for planning we must naturally despair and feel that, instead of having an objective study, an effort is being made to clobber the suggestions and the proposals which have already been put before the Government.
Any Dublin person must be very concerned that this city is coming to a standstill, that it is virtually being strangled and that what was once a pleasant city to live in and to move about in is now becoming one that people try to avoid. They know that, if they go into the centre of the city during any average working week, they are likely to find themselves at a standstill, be it in a bus or in a car or, if they happen to be pedestrians, obliged to walk all the way home to the suburbs.
I suppose everybody tends to become a traffic expert as a result of his own experience. Personal experience has taught me that it is often much faster to walk from the centre of the city to Terenure, which is distance of three-and-a-half miles, than to rely on public transport which will not come, not because the vehicles are not there but simply because they cannot move. My personal experience today contrasts very sharply indeed with my childhood experience when trams ran in the area and when one could get in or out of town in a matter of 15 or 20 minutes. Trams were taken off the roads, ironically enough, because they were regarded as being too slow and lacking in mobility. But they kept to the lines and got people to and fro, although admittedly then the streets were not choked with private transport.
We must avoid the temptation to treat the private motorist as the villain of the situation. The private motor car is here to stay until some better way of getting people around is invented. But quite a number of the private cars operating in the Dublin region today are operating because potential users of public transport are so frustrated with public transport and so disappointed with its non-availability that they have in desperation taken to their own cars, thereby of course aggravating the problem. But no city in the modern world has been able to find a solution to its transport problems by imposing a ban upon private transport.
What is obviously needed is to separate public transport and private transport. That is not a new concept. If we travelled in this European Community of ours we would find innumerable cities, on mainland Europe in particular, where there is separation of public and private transport going back for decades and generations. I am not talking about railways or subways. I am talking about the public streets where the paths for the public service vehicles have been kept free because there was a recognition that, where public service vehicles were moving a large number of people, they should be given priority over private vehicles which tend to take up much more space and transport a much smaller number of people for any given length of the roadway.
The situation at the moment is appalling. It is very distressing to see in the White Paper of January this year, which apparently was intended to indicate the Government's mature consideration of earlier talks published in the Green Paper in June 1978, that the Government are apparently running away from the concept of public transportation which received a kind of mild approval in their earlier paper. It appears now that CIE are being prepared for a let-down and a rejection of their proposals.
There is a recognition in both papers that there is a real problem in the movement of people in the Dublin region. It is unfortunate that sufficient attention is not being given to the much more serious problem that will arise in Dublin in the next ten years. The latest indication is that the Government simply propose to maintain the existing rail system. One certainly hopes that at least they will provide some new rolling stock and better station facilities and also increase the number of hours each week during which the system will operate. Even assuming that will be done, it will be only scratching the problem. It will not begin to provide a worthwhile solution and it will not even serve the needs of 1979. By 1990 the Dublin region will have a population of about 1,500,000 people and it will not be possible to serve that number even if the road network is improved substantially and bus lanes introduced on the streets, thereby reducing the space available for private vehicles. By 1990 it will not be possible to move the people of Dublin in a reasonably efficient manner unless there is a dramatic improvement in the rail facilities on the lines recommended in the Dublin rail rapid transit study report.
I am sure that in the light of further experience it will be necessary to amend the specific proposals made in that report, which is worth reading and is deserving of mature consideration. The enormity of the problem and the challenges ahead cannot be faced if the Government are going to deal with the matter in the rather mealy-mouthed way outlined recently by the Minister for Economic Planning and Development in an interview he gave to a new journal called Southside. The journal stated the following:
The rapid rail plan is not the only option for the future of suburban rail, according to the Minister for Economic Planning. He said, "There is nothing to prevent modernisation of the existing system which would be done for less than one-fifth of the cost." Dr. O'Donoghue also blamed CIE for the delay in a Government decision on the rail plan. CIE had sought sanction for the electrification of the rail as a first stage but the Government had asked for details of the entire plan.
It is our information that CIE have given all the information sought by the Government, and if the situation is otherwise I ask the Minister in the course of this debate to indicate what information has not been supplied. This matter is extremely urgent if we are to answer the needs of the people of Dublin to get on the move again.
I recall—and the Chair will understand my cynical feelings in recalling it—the slogan of the administration now in office during the election campaign. They asked the electorate to give them office in order "to get the country moving again". Public transport, and all transportation in Dublin, has slowed down seriously in the past three years. There was a time when people could avoid the delays and congestion of peak hours by selecting other times to get through their city, but now on many days one can be certain of serious traffic congestion from 8 a.m. until 7.30 p.m. The situation is getting worse. The problems are being multiplied every year and in that situation I was extremely disappointed to hear a member of the Government, and the Government themselves in their White Paper, contemplating merely to maintain the existing rail system. That cannot hope to transport any more than a tiny fraction of the numbers who want to move about this city.
In 1970 the existing rail system was transporting 14,000 commuters every day. Eight years later the same system, with antiquated rolling stock and with depleted services—they were reduced in the interim—was transporting 33,000 people on the antiquated rolling stock that was breaking down frequently. We have a situation now where there are no rail services on Sunday in the Dublin region and the services on Saturday are less than those on weekdays. Although the central Dublin shopping areas do a large proportion of their business on Saturdays and people want to get into the centre, in many cases the rail services are not here to answer the public demand.
(Dublin South-Central): That is not true.
There are no rail services to the Dublin suburbs after 8.30 p.m. The last train on the northern line leaves at 8.25 p.m. If there is a very valuable piece of capital equipment that is capable of transporting people efficiently, one should want to attract the greatest possible number to that system, but because of the decaying conditions of Dublin rail rolling stock CIE have been forced against their will to reduce their services. They have been forced to limit the number of hours each day in which they can use their locomotives because they have to be withdrawn for frequent servicing.
That is a deplorable situation. The experts engaged by CIE for the study estimate that if modern, efficient rolling stock was made available on the existing line from Bray to Howth they could cater for 82,000 people each day instead of 33,000 people. I think that figure is pessimistic. I think the number who avail of an efficient electrified rail system on the existing line from Bray to Howth would be more than 100,000 people each day if the service was provided and operated as it should be in a modern city from 6 a.m. to midnight and seven days a week. If such a service were available its attraction would be obvious and many people who at present through frustration are forced to use their private vehicles to get to the city would leave them at home. I have been so assured by many acquaintances living in places as far apart as Dún Laoghaire, Killiney, Booterstown, Howth, Sutton and Raheny but they will not do it unless and until that service is provided. It is no solution to the problem to suggest that in this day instead of electrifying the existing lines new diesel locomotives and new carriages would be provided which could not operate on an electrical system.
It would be highly undesirable that our rail system should be dependent on the availability of diesel oil alone. Admittedly, the larger proportion of our electricity is generated today from foreign energy sources but at least some of it is produced locally from hydro-electric stations and turf. I recall the days of the last war when those who were fortunate enough to live on the tram line which in those days operated by electricity had the joy of having a really excellent travel service beginning at five o'clock in the morning in Terenure—my colleague and neighbour from Terenure knows what I am talking about—while the rest of the city had very limited bus services, bus services which used to have their terminus in the centre of the city but which had their terminus changed to points in the suburbs on the tram line because the electric trams were able to continue to operate. At that time, of course, a much higher proportion of our electricity was generated from hydro-electric stations but I quote the instance simply to remind the House of the fact that electricity is generated from a variety of sources and when you have such an essential service as public transport there is a lot to be said for operating it by electricity. Electrified railways have been found in countries abroad invariably to be the most efficient way of transporting people in an urban environment. It is most unlikely that our transport problems are much different from theirs.
Briefly I should like to put on the records of the House the proposals made in the CIE report on a Dublin rapid rail transit system. They have asked for £41 million in order to electrify the existing line from Howth to Bray. That sum at 1978 prices would electrify that line completely and would also provide all the rolling stock and motors required to operate the system. The second phase, which CIE have not yet put before the Government because they are waiting for approval of the first one, would involve an expenditure of £45 million and would provide a similar electrified system to Clondalkin and Lucan, with a spur to the city of Tallaght. Tallaght is now almost as large as the city of Cork but the only public transport system through that city is now so inefficient that, although CIE have trebled the number of buses on that bus line in the last three years, the people of the area are obliged, sometimes beyond their private means, to purchase motor cars in order to transport themselves in and out of the area.
The county council, with immense foresight and in consultation with CIE, reserved a strip of land from the existing Dublin-Cork line to the centre of Tallaght and to construct a railway line along that stretch now would require the acquisition and demolition of only twenty buildings. Yet the people of Tallaght and the environment are obliged to suffer the inconvenience of spending one and a half hours per trip each way to and from the suburb, which I think is seven miles from the centre of the city to get to and from work because the buses are unable to move along the choked roads. The Government White Paper suggests that the problem can be met by simply maintaining the existing system and remarks of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development in the last fortnight would suggest that apparently that is the limit of their appreciation of the problem.
Tallaght is not the only area of population explosion. We have it in Blanchardstown and Clondalkin. CIE, with considerable foresight, pointed out in their report that these areas which are going to be new cities as big as Cork in another five or ten years cannot be adequately serviced unless the rapid transit system on rail is provided for them. I say rail because it is not possible to provide efficient public transportation unless you separate the means from streets already choked with private transport. I assume that a Government that abolished car tax in order to encourage people to buy more cars will not now suggest that people should be penalised for bringing their cars to the city—or perhaps that is what they have in mind; certainly, that is the logic of what was said in the White Paper and in the most recently published remarks of the Minister for Economic Planning and Development.
Returning to the Dublin transportation survey, the third phase recommended that a new line be built to Blanchardstown and also a line to that metropolis which is now 14 or 15 years old, Ballymun. If and when such a line is constructed I think it should go further and a line should be taken to the airport which is only across the fields from Ballymun. That can be looked at in the light of experience.
The final phase of the recommended rail system for Dublin would involve tunnelling in the central area of considerable congestion and business density so as to link all these radial lines which would provide Dublin with some element of efficient transportation of people as we enter the 21st century. If we do not do that, Dublin will continue to die. The strangulation of the centre of the city is adding enormous cost to our economy and our society. One of the tragic things is that when people are talking about alternative transportation systems too little attention is paid to how much the existing inefficiency is costing us. CIE say that traffic congestion in Dublin is now costing them about £1.5 million per annum. I think that figure is probably understated. That is not the end of the cost. What is it costing in human misery, anxiety, frustration, wear and tear on people's nerves every day? It costs an immence amount. What does it cost in the running of private cars and the massive consumption of fuel as cars sit in choked streets? A few minutes walk from this House brings one to Pearse Street where daily there is traffic congestion in which both public and private vehicles often must spend half and hour negotiating a distance of five yards.
This is the situation despite the existence of a new bridge across the Liffey, even if that bridge was built about 50 years too late. I am amazed that, in the light of this appalling situation, the Government appear to be prepared to allow the matter drift. We are told that they have established a study group to consider the matter, but all they have to do is to walk around Dublin any day to realise the extent of the problem. What we need is a solution, but anyone who knows Dublin will be aware that an adequate solution will not be found on the streets of this city alone. The population of Dublin is expected to increase to almost 1,500,000 people in 11 years' time. Many of these people will find themselves confined to the dormitory towns of Tallaght, Blanchardstown, Clondalkin, Lucan, Ballymun and so on, effectively cut off from the excitement and the commercial life of central Dublin, unless we tackle the transportation problems in the way suggested by CIE in their excellent report.
As I have said, Dublin was noted once for the efficiency of its transport system. That is a matter of public record. Today the average speed of public transport in Dublin is the walking pace of four miles per hour, and during peak times of movement of people this average is reduced frequently to a mere one or two miles per hour. That is the sort of situation that leads to the death of a city. Therefore, I urge the Minister and also all of his colleagues in Government to give to the question of the transportation needs of Dublin the priority it deserves.
I do not wish to be political in this instance, though perhaps it is difficult not to adopt a political stance on every argument one offers after 20 years' experience as a Member of the House. However, on this matter we must be above political rivalry. The problem of the movement of people in Dublin is so serious that it must be given priority. We are in the happy situation now that we are to receive from the EEC, as a result of the introduction of the EMS, a bonanza of £70 million for a few years for the purpose of providing the infrastructures we need. I suggest that a significant proportion of that money be earmarked for dealing with the transportation problems of this city. I have thought often that one of the effective ways of helping the west would be to improve the roadway from Dublin to Kilcock. Travellers could then arrive in the west of Ireland an hour earlier than would otherwise be the case. Therefore, we would be helping the whole country by dealing with the congestion problem in the capital. The problem would be eased if we were to adopt and implement quickly the proposals in the Dublin rapid transport study. Not merely would this provide for an easement of the situation but it would lead to a situation in which people would abandon the use of the private car in favour of a transport system that would enable them to reach their destinations in a quarter or perhaps a tenth of the time required now.
Each day 33,000 people are transported by means of a hopeless and antiquated system. If the four phases suggested by CIE were to be implemented, as many as 250,000 people would be moved by rail in Dublin every day and journeys which now require an hour or an hour-and-a-half to accomplish would be accomplished in about 15 minutes. That would constitute an improvement in the quality of life in Dublin so exciting and so necessary that it should be given immediate priority. If we do not make this move in the dynamic and dramatic way suggested, the existing service will become much worse and this city will die before our eyes.
We must endeavour to separate the problem of public transport from that of private transport. Otherwise, there will be an increasing number of private cars on the road, there will be more congestion, CIE will lose more money and the Government will be required to provide more money by way of subsidies in order to maintain, as they suggest in their Green Paper, the existing services even though it is clear that these existing services are not adequate. If we adopt the plan we will have a situation in which Dublin can begin to "move" again. It is my privilege to be a member of the European Parliament. Unfortunately, because that is a "flying parliament" one is required to move around a good deal. Recently I calculated that I had visited 52 European cities in a 12-month period. From my personal observations I can say honestly that the traffic congestion is not half as bad in any of these cities as it is in Dublin. This is because other people recognised the problem and dealt with it.
Admittedly, we have always been limited in terms of capital, but we are now to receive increased resources for infrastructure. Never before have we had a better opportunity than this for earmarking funds for such a worth-while project as the easing of our traffic problems. If we take this step now we will be providing employment for 12 years for about 1,500 people. Arrangements have been made by CIE with a continental electrical firm for the manufacture of the equipment needed for the electrification of a transport system in Ireland. Therefore, apart from the very obvious need to provide better transport facilities in Dublin, we would be providing 1,500 jobs for 12 years. If we take this action now Ireland can become a new industrial base for the supply of electrical equipment for urban rail systems across the rest of the Continent.
At the end of 12 years I would not regard the 1,500 jobs to be at an end because, with the continued expansion of the country and the hoped-for increased prosperity, there would probably be a need to extend further the electrification of our railways. If we accomplish this plan we will have a situation in which 250,000 people will have access to a rail system within ten minutes of leaving their homes and will be able to reach their employment within half an hour. But if we fail to implement this plan we shall be condemning these people and their families to living in a city in which it would be much faster to walk than to travel in any type of vehicle, be it private or public. I am sure the Minister would be thrilled if he was able to satisfy his personal ambition to start or to achieve this.
The Minister will get every assistance in applying pressure where it is needed in order to get the resources for the construction of a Dublin transportation system which will be not merely a matter of prestige. I have not at any stage suggested that we should have a public transport underground because other cities have them, but I am arguing that we must have it if people are to be able to move when they want to.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann" and substitute the following:
"notes that CIE proposals for the upgrading of the Howth/Bray railway line are at present being evaluated by the Government in the context of the overall transport needs of the Dublin area; and that the comprehensive rail rapid transit system envisaged by CIE for the greater Dublin area will be considered as soon as the views of the Transport Consultative Commission (established by the Minister for Tourism and Transport in September, 1978) on the arrangements for the provision of urban passenger services in the Dublin area have been received."
I feel that many of those who complain about the public transport system and the traffic congestion in Dublin and who call for immediate and simple solutions fail to appreciate the nature of the problems involved and the complexity of the issues which arise.
The first thing that should be remembered is that the problems we are talking about are a reflection of the reasonably rapid economic growth we have had and the tremendous improvement in social standards and conditions which our people have achieved in recent years. It is not long since Dublin was a compact city in which journeys to work, to shop and for recreational purposes were short and convenient. The level of car ownership was relatively low and traffic could move fairly freely through the streets. Public transport, for the reasons I mentioned, was efficient, reliable and profitable.
There has been a very significant change since those days. Economic growth has cut emigration, increased employment and led to a rise both in population and in standards of living. Our cities and towns have grown in size and in the case of Dublin we have seen the development of large new residential areas in places where only a few short years ago we had green fields. With the rise in prosperity a much larger proportion of our people could attain to car ownership and this has led to very substantial commuter traffic by car to and from the city each day. In addition, the general level of trade and commerce has caused a considerable growth in the number of commercial vehicles using the roads.
The circumstances which have brought an increase in our population and which have brought car ownership within the reach of so many are of course a matter of pride and satisfaction for all.
They have, however, also brought with them many of the problems of modern life which other large cities already experience including the problems of congestion, noise and pollution. As a consequence of congestion, public transport services have declined in quality with consequent loss of passengers and revenue.
These problems are common to all developed countries and have been the subject of considerable study, debate and experimentation in Britain, in Europe and in North America. There are different schools of thought about how these problems should be tackled and, over time, ideas as to the best solution have changed according as experience and circumstances have demonstrated the inadequacy of many of the policies adopted. Despite the dissatisfaction and frustration which we complain about I doubt if many people would want to go back to the standards and the life-style which they had a couple of decades ago. I was interested to hear Deputy R. Ryan mention trams as if the congestion at that time was anything like it is today. We all want to enjoy the benefits of the economic, technological and social changes of recent years and so we are faced with the problem of how to retain these benefits while freeing ourselves as far as possible from the unwelcome features.
These issues have not arisen overnight. They have developed over a period of years. The Government before and since taking up office have shown a keen awareness of the problem and I believe that the question of public transport has received greater attention from the Government over the past year than at any previous time. Our awareness of the importance of the transport sector and the various problems arising in that sector are evident from the fact that our pre-election manifesto contained a commitment to establish a body whose terms of reference were
to investigate and report on the measures necessary to achieve the most efficient and economic transport system for goods and passengers having regard to the need to maintain a flexible competitive transport system—thereby ensuring the facilities necessary for industrial development through the country as a whole.
This commitment has since been honoured in the establishment of the Transport Consultative Commission. I will return later to the work of this commission in so far as it relates to today's motion but I should emphasise that pending their deliberations and report the Government have by no means ignored the problems of urban transport, which have received particular attention in the economic planning documents issued as part of the regular planning cycle.
The recent White Paper on National Development referred in particular to the problem of urban traffic congestion, to the serious delays which this is causing in the movement of passengers and goods and to the consequent increases in costs and frustration to the travelling public.
The White Paper recognised that there is no easy solution to the vicious cycle of increasing traffic congestion leading to deterioration in bus services which in turn causes people to rely still further on private cars, a trend which inevitably causes greater congestion of traffic, increased costs and loss of revenue to public transport and consequently increased Exchequer subvention.
The White Paper referred to the various measures which might be taken to alleviate the problem—for example, the extension of parking controls, stricter enforcement of parking regulations, extension of flexi-time in the public service and the staggering of school opening hours. The White Paper also recognised that improved public transport services could lead to a substantial alleviation of the problem and stated that the Government accordingly saw public transport as having a developing role in urban areas.
In this context the Dublin commuter rail services have a particular value and in the White Paper the Government made it clear that they are committed to the retention of these services—they would not accept Deputy R. Ryan's definition of the word—and recognised that their contribution helps to reduce the flow of road vehicles, both buses and cars, which would otherwise be entering and leaving the city during rush hours.
As is generally known the existing rolling stock and support equipment of these services are not in very good condition and the fulfilment of the commitment to maintain the services as part of the city transport system will therefore involve new investment and this investment could be very substantial. The question of what type of system we should provide must therefore receive careful examination. This is necessary not only because of the financial implications but also because we are anxious to ensure that whatever approach is adopted is appropriate for the overall transport needs of the city.
These considerations indicate the need for a very careful look at the proposals for the future of the service. In order that I could approach the matter in an informed way, I went last year to see the transport services in a number of cities and to familiarise myself with how things were done elsewhere and what lessons might be learned from the experience of other cities.
I visited Newcastle-on-Tyne where a modern rapid transit system is at present being developed. I was particularly interested in that city because I found many analogies with the position in Dublin. In Newcastle they had a commuter rail system based on mainline track. It was regarded as unsuitable for modern travel needs and it was losing money. They are now converting it to a modern rapid transit operation linking the old lines with some new track, including about four miles in tunnels. It will be interesting to see how it will perform in terms of passenger carrying, relief of congestion and financial results.
A feature of the position in Newcastle was the high place accorded to public transport in the approach to road use and traffic regulation. There are a large number of exclusive bus lanes and other bus priorities which enable the bus services to escape at least some of the congestion and to provide a better public service.
In this connection, I welcome the increased interest here at home in the relationship between the quality of public transport and the approach to traffic management and control. A useful and welcome result of the increased concern here about transport problems is the greater public understanding of the difficulties of transport undertakings. It is entirely understandable that people waiting for buses or affected by interruptions in train services should tend to blame CIE and to assume that the difficulties are caused by failures in that undertaking. There is now, however, a growing realisation that the growth in car traffic and commercial vehicle traffic causes tremendous interference with the movement of public transport vehicles and makes it very difficult to maintain schedules. I believe people understand also that, while draconian curtailment of private cars may not be acceptable, some measure of priority for public transport is essential. Public transport is a service for the community as a whole and I think that public opinion is beginning to recognise this. I am sure that, given the support of the public and of all the interests concerned, CIE can provide a service to meet the needs of the people.
I now turn to the specific CIE proposals for the electrification of the Howth-Bray suburban rail line, including the acquisition of new rolling stock and the provision of new signalling. There has been criticism about the time taken in reaching a decision on these proposals. It must, however, be recognised that the expenditure involved—over £42 million according to the latest estimate available to me—is very considerable, in spite of what Deputy Ryan thinks of it. While the Dublin commuter rail services make an important contribution to the city's transport services, nevertheless they must be considered within the context of total public passenger movement in the Dublin area.
With the expansion of the city and in particular the development of new areas, there are large numbers of people in other areas for whom public transport is essential for travel to and from work and who find the present transport services inadequate. Given the inevitable limitation on the overall resources available, we must take account of the needs of the total community and ensure a balanced pattern of investment and development.
It will be appreciated also that the city bus and rail services incur losses which have to be met by Exchequer subsidy. Although the proposed improvement in the Howth-Bray services would attract additional traffic, there is no prospect that they could operate on a totally commercial basis, meeting capital and interest charges. The extent to which the deficit might be reduced depends on the volume of additional traffic which the improved services might attract. CIE would propose to operate a frequent service throughout the entire day and, while this would no doubt be welcomed by the residents of the areas served, it is necessary to consider whether the total population served and the volume of the traffic generated would be adequate to support regular off-peak services to a level commensurate with the very large investment involved. It has been suggested that the numbers travelling could be trebled.
It will be obvious, therefore, that the CIE proposals had to be very carefully examined by my Department and the other Government Departments concerned. This examination entailed the identification and examination of possible alternative options for continuation of the services—for example, by retaining diesel traction and operating at various levels of service. A variety of options faced us. Consideration had to be given to the forecasts of traffic and revenue made by CIE, the various costings for the electrified system and the alternative options, how the expenditure would be financed and so on. This was inevitably a lengthy process. The matter is, however, now at the stage of being considered at Government level.
As I have stated, the Government are committed to the continuation of the Dublin rail commuter services. What has to be decided, however, is whether electrification of the Howth-Bray line is the best course to adopt at this stage in the light of available resources and of the overall transport needs of the Dublin area. The proposals are under active consideration by the Government.
The Opposition motion refers to CIE's proposals for the Dublin rapid busway and rail system. I am aware that CIE commissioned consultants to carry out a study of rapid transit systems for the Dublin area and the consultants in a report completed in 1975 entitled The Dublin Rail Rapid Transit Study recommended a rail rapid transit system. The features of this are already well known, the first being the electrification of the Howth-Bray suburban line. That was to be followed by rapid rail extensions to the three new towns at Tallaght, Ronanstown and Blanchardstown and also to Ballymun. There was also a condition relating to a tunnel in the centre city area and some other features.
While a copy of the consultants' report was sent to my Department by CIE, the board have not yet submitted any definitive proposals to me for implementation of the rapid transit system, except as regards the electrification of the Howth-Bray line. The most recent estimate available to me of the cost of the rapid transit system proposed by the consultants is £220 million at 1978 prices. I do not think anyone would dispute that this is an enormous sum and that a very careful assessment of the proposals would have to be made before any decision could be taken.
Proposals of this scale and cost cannot of course be looked at in isolation. A growing economy makes great demands for capital investment of all kinds. In the area of transport alone, the needs of air, sea, road and rail require substantial infrastructural investment. There are also demands from other sectors—health, education, telecommunications, industrial development and so on. No matter how desirable particular proposals may be in themselves, it is never possible to implement them all and so priorities have to be established. The Government have recognised the importance of the transport sector and will ensure that, within the framework of their overall economic programme, resources will be made available to ensure as far as possible that the transport sector is enabled to provide the services necessary for economic and social needs.
Deputy Ryan referred to traffic figures and the need to relieve congestion. While we are considering demands for the electrification of the Howth-Bray line or the introduction in full of the rail rapid transit system for Dublin, there are certain points which we must keep in mind, which are fundamental to any investment in the transport area. We must be clear in regard to the areas which would be served by any new transport system, the numbers likely to use the service and the acceptability of the system measured by the effects which the service will have on existing travelling patterns and arrangements.
We must look at the economics of the proposals which will be dependent on the success of the system in attracting the forecast numbers and in achieving the revenue forecast and the expected economies in operating and maintenance costs.
In regard to the electrification of the Howth/Bray line, the present daily carryings are somewhere in the region of 27,000 persons. Under the proposals which are at present before the Government it is envisaged that the numbers carried will rise to a level of 82,000 persons per day—a trebling of the traffic. This is a significant increase in existing numbers. The basis on which these forecasts were arrived at and the likelihood of their being attained must be considered carefully. Any significant shortfall in numbers would have an adverse effect on the economics of the service.
Similar considerations would apply to the question of the introduction in full of the rapid rail transit system. In the examination of the proposed system it will be necessary to test the various assumptions on which the proposal is based. We will need to assess the probable effect of the system on the overall split between public and private transport. There are many factors involved, tangible and intangible. While an efficient and speedy transport system has much to commend it, many car owners are reluctant to give up the flexibility and the personal mobility which they have. If the traffic levels envisaged are not achieved, we would not only be faced with a service requiring continued heavy support from public funds but would still have a serious congestion problem in Dublin. We are talking about a very large capital investment both in the specific proposals for the Howth-Bray line and in the longer term proposals for the rapid transit system. We will need to satisfy ourselves that there is a reasonable assurance that the expected beneficial results will materialise.
It must be remembered that, while the introduction of the rapid rail transit system would have a significant impact on public transport in the city and the suburbs, a large number of people would still be relying on bus services. These needs cannot be overlooked. We are most concerned to ensure that the overall transport needs of the Dublin area are met. The Transport Consultative Commission which I have appointed will be directing their attention to the reports in the context of what other measures are available to see that these needs are met.
Reference was made to a statement by the Minister for Economic Planning and Development. I have seen the report on the comments attributed to him. The main point made by the Minister and quoted in the report was that the rapid rail plan is not the only option for the future of surburban rail. This is correct. The rapid rail proposals were developed by consultants engaged by CIE and their report listed and examined a number of possible approaches to the Dublin transport problem. These options included strategies based on rail and on priority bus lanes and a combination of these. The various options showed a considerable range of cost. The Minister for Economic Planning and Development referred to these options and to the cost differentials, though I understand that he did not use the figures attributed to him in the report.
While CIE made specific proposals to me in relation to the Howth-Bray line they have not yet put any specific proposals before me in regard to the implementation of the overall rapid rail transit system.
In formulating policies and investment strategies in the transport area, I attach considerable importance to the work of the Transport Consultative Commission. While the terms of reference of the commission are very wide, I have asked the commission to devote their attention to urban needs in the first instance. This, again, is evidence of the awareness of the Government of this important issue. I have, accordingly, drawn the commission's attention to the serious problems existing in relation to urban transport passenger services, particularly in the Dublin area, and I have asked the commission to consider as a matter of priority the arrangements for the provision of urban passenger services. I have asked the commission to have regard in their examination to the appropriate role of public transport, the potential benefit of traffic management schemes, the need for co-ordination between the various bodies having responsibility in this area and the relevant social, environmental and energy considerations. I have also requested the commission to pay close attention to the role of the Dublin suburban railway because of the contribution it makes towards easing the Dublin traffic congestion problems and to take account of the possibilities of future extension of the suburban rail system. I also drew their attention to the various studies and reports that had been undertaken in regard to this matter.
I am glad to say that the commission are pursuing their investigations with all possible speed. They have, as I am sure Deputies are aware, produced a discussion paper on passenger transport in the Dublin area and on 23 January they invited interested parties and organisations to make written submissions to them on the subject, with particular reference to the main issues as seen by the commission and set out in the discussion paper. The paper ranges comprehensively over the main problems and the possible solutions both in the short term and in the long term. The questions raised cover a very wide field including bus services, train services, road developments, private cars, taxis, traffic management schemes, flexible working hours, the possible need for a Dublin transportation policy and so on.
It is clear from what I have stated that the question of passenger transport facilities in the Dublin area is receiving the close attention of the Government and that the necessary examination is in train with a view to alleviating the problems of traffic congestion and the difficulties which this causes for commuters and other users of the road. I am very anxious that the city should have an efficient public transport system which can satisfactorily meet the needs of the public. At the same time, it must be appreciated that the Government cannot embark on very costly schemes without being satisfied that the investment is justified, not only in regard to the contribution which would be made to the city's transport facilities but also in the context of competing demands for scarce capital resources.
The Minister is right in saying that, in drawing up a comprehensive answer to the extreme traffic congestion in our capital city, one needs to consider carefully the various options before one. Large capital sums are involved and it is true that grave errors could be made if one were to rush into adopting one solution rather than another. However, there is no need for an extraordinary, lengthy examination of the position in Dublin to come to the conclusion that traffic in the city is now at a standstill, literally. We have the evidence of CIE bus drivers that runs which up to two or three years ago took 15 or 20 minutes now take one hour or one hour and 20 minutes. Therefore, we can say that, though it is necessary to consider long term options carefully, we need quickly some response to the existing impossible situation.
The Minister poses the choice of more investment in public transport as against individual family preference for private locomotion, the car, but I do not wish to enter into that argument. Obviously people see a lot of advantage in car ownership, but I am certain there are many commuters living in large suburban areas outside the city which have grown up in recent years who, if there was the choice on their morning run to work of an efficient public transport service as against the use of their cars, would opt for the former. The problem is, certainly not through the fault of the operatives concerned, that the road network is such, the volume of traffic is such, that the congestion causes delays and that, apart from the coastal run, the public transport system is not adequate to give a real choice to commuters in outlying areas.
Of course part of the difficulty is that Dublin is at the centre of the national transport system, that the city has to carry a good deal of national traffic as well. When we plead tonight for immediate priority investment in Dublin as an interim short-term attack on traffic congestion in the city, we are not looking at it merely as little Dubliners but from the point of view of the national interest, because Dublin's traffic congestion is a national question which affects national prosperity.
It is true that large investment in infrastructure must be made if a long-term solution is to be found. Moneys will be coming up shortly under the EMS and we suggest that some of that money, if not all of it, should be earmarked for the infrastructural development needed for traffic improvement in Dublin. Making his case tonight, the Minister referred to weighty options to which consideration must be given. He referred to his tour of various European cities to observe their situation. After all, the Minister belongs to a party which gained quite some political support in a recent election by inducing people to buy cars. In the past year we have seen car ownership jump upwards, by more than 100,000 new cars, the vast majority of them coming on the roads of Dublin city and county.
The Minister would cite that as evidence of our growing prosperity. That may be the case, but we have not accompanied this vast increase in traffic with a commensurate increase in our road network, and the position is that in many parts of the capital our roads are worse than in some of the most remote rural areas. For instance, if the Minister's car proceeds down Westland Row tonight it will be at the risk of its springs being damaged. Many other roads in Dublin are covered with potholes, trenches, streets permanently dug up—that is the appearance of the fabric of the roads in our capital city, evidence of starvation of funds for road maintenance.
I would not direct attention to long-term options. The motion refers to the present difficulties which cannot be overlooked. An interim solution is called for. If we were talking about this city in a different epoch, its inhabitants would be deserting it as a place in which civilised living no longer was possible; at another period in history the inhabitants would just leave and set up an alternative city elsewhere. Naturally we cannot do that now, but I do not exaggerate when I say that transport conditions in Dublin are such that for many people living has become very difficult.
People along the coastal belt are fortunate in having a rail system, and the CIE plan calls for renewed investment in improving that service. The Minister pointed out that that service caters for a certain proportion of the population. That is true, but I would maintain that if that portion of the population now using the Dublin commuter rail service must take to their cars and proceed to the inner city we will have added even greater difficulties to an already bad situation.
As I have said, money is called for. At the very heart of this motion is the requirement for more money. When we are talking about transport we are talking about heavy capital investment, but if it is not made things cannot be allowed to stand still. CIE have made the point that their present financial situation is such that the maintenance of their rolling stock will require a greatly increased subvention to the company. I understand it is possible that they will need to transfer some of the existing rolling stock, at the moment being used in the suburban service, to other parts of the company's operations. I understand that it is possible because of their financial position that they may be shortly forced to discontinue the Dublin suburban rail services.
I am looking at the situation here tonight as it meets the everyday commuters, the person attempting to come in from Howth and Bray. The disastrous error of the Harcourt Street line robbed part of the city of the benefit of a CIE suburban line. No one has referred to that costly error tonight. It does not disprove the case for an improvement of the existing suburban rail service to say it is of advantage only to a limited number of the population. My suggestion is that that service be improved so that those who have the advantage of that service may continue to use it with greater frequency. If we wish to do that we must have immediate investment in rolling stock.
I am aware that the commission are considering all the inter-related aspects of the problem in the context of long-term solutions. That is a necessary examination but it should not cause us to postpone consideration of urgent problems which call for quick decisions if the terrible transport situation facing the people of Dublin is to be eased. The situation at the moment is part of the reason for much of the bad industrial relations within CIE—the total frustration of men who cannot get vehicles from point A to point B with any kind of rapidity. Traffic is stalled at every hour of the day in every part of the city.
I doubt if the Minister in his travels has encountered a capital city of the size of Dublin with traffic problems as bad as they are in every part of the city at the moment. All of our transport moves on roads which have not attracted the kind of investment needed to cope with increasing traffic. We have, with a wave of our electoral wand, abolished taxation on cars—let them pour out on to the roads—but when it comes to the answering side of that equation, more investment on the roads, there was no wand in the politicians' hands. We have 100,000 new cars travelling on roads which have continued unchanged. We have a pothole network of roads in the city which have remained untouched and apparently a complete shortage of public money to keep them properly maintained.
While the Minister is considering the long-term problems of public transport in 21st century Dublin let him not forget the crisis which exists in traffic in 20th century Dublin tonight and not, as it was on one occasion, the traffic congestion of a Friday afternoon. The Friday afternoon is every hour of the day every day of the week at the moment. What must this cost industry? The Minister painted a picture, if not of a pastoral land echoing to the laughter of athletic youths and happy maidens, that of a prosperous land humming to the tempo of efficient industry. There cannot be any efficient industrial future for this city if nothing is done to improve the existing traffic situation. What is one to say about firms who find that transport through the city becomes impossible? How do they get their products through the docks? How can they communicate with the airport? What is to happen to industrial employment in a city whose transport system is steadily grinding to a halt?
We need to tackle this question very urgently. We need a short-term plan. I do not believe that no-parking zones will make much improvement. I believe that these are simply tinkering with the problem. We require a vast infusion of extra funds. With regard to the CIE plan for the electrification of their existing system, we should try to come to some decision as rapidly as possible on that matter. I do not pretend that this will be the final solution to this problem. Part of the problem in Dublin is that over the years we have neglected the capital side of the improvement of transport. We have never conceded to public transport its deserts in terms of cash and public support. We have starved it of money. The result is that we now find that CIE are almost bankrupt, unable to keep their rolling stock up to modern standards, coming to Parliament ever more frequently asking for more money to keep going from month to month. We cut back in the January budget on the subvention to CIE and now we find CIE forced to come to the Prices Commission looking for increases in bus fares.
The Government are depriving CIE of needed cash and forcing the commuters in places like Dublin to pay ever-increasing amounts for an inefficient service. The Government stand back and say they are looking at the matter in its long-term aspect. We cannot evade this question much longer. We cannot pretend that painting yellow lines down one side or two sides of a street will change anything in Dublin. We have a huge car population in Dublin and we do not provide decent public transport. We have not invested sufficiently over the years in that public transport system and it is making living conditions and industrial conditions impossible in Dublin, particularly in places like Clondalkin, Blanchardstown and Tallaght. How are the people in those vast satellite cities to get into work on time? Many of the people in those places work in offices or factories miles away from their places of residence.
It is not within the ambit of this discussion to consider the question of how, higgledy-piggledy, we have permitted industrial development in this city. It is sufficient to say that in many cases residents from one area must travel right across to the other side of the city. We can picture the effects this has in bad industrial relations when a person who has got to be in a factory at eight o'clock or earlier has to get up at least two hours earlier to get to his work in time. It is obvious that there is a spin-off in bad relations with all sorts of strange claims under the guise of wage negotiations coming into the contract between employer and employee.
All of those things can to some extent be attributed to the bad transport situation which exists in Dublin at the moment. It pervades every area of national decision-taking. If we have a bad transport system it must affect all of those other thangs. We do not give a real choice to the commuter to travel on public transport. We force him back to the car. The Taoiseach attended a meeting in Paris this week where Heads of State committed themselves to cutting fuel consumption by 5 per cent in the coming year. They committed themselves to a target reduction and energy conservation because of events in Iran and elsewhere. Is it not a fact that the more efficient and the more attractive we make the use by the public at large of the public transport system it makes sense in terms of energy conservation? It makes no sense in terms of energy conservation if we force people against their will to buy and use cars. I am not against the use of cars. They are very handy vehicles but if we can make it attractive to the people of Dublin to use public transport and give them a service providing a real choice so that they can use buses which travel frequently and have some possibility of moving in getting to work, they will use them in preference to taking their cars into the centre of the city.
Debate adjourned.