Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 2 Apr 1992

Vol. 418 No. 2

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Transport System.

Eamon Gilmore

Ceist:

15 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if, in regard to the recent public announcement regarding the reopening of the Harcourt Street line, she will set out the proposed timetable for the establishment of a busway and the subsequent introduction of a light rail system; where the proposed systems will terminate at each end; if, in regard to the busway proposal, she will outline if the buses will continue into the city centre and if they will be given any priority on the streets; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

Proinsias De Rossa

Ceist:

21 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if her attention has been drawn to the fact that the first section of the Athens underground network will benefit from 314 million ECUs in EC aid or 50 per cent of the project's cost until 1993; if she intends to seek similar funding for an integrated transport system for Dublin; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

Monica Barnes

Ceist:

23 Mrs. Barnes asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if she has drawn any conclusions as to the preferable public transport solution for the greater Dublin area; and, if she will be submitting any proposals for funding to the EC authorities for a light rail system for Dublin for the funds becoming available under the Cohesion Fund and the European Regional Development Fund 1994-98.

Mervyn Taylor

Ceist:

27 Mr. Taylor asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if she will outline her present policy and intentions for improvement of the public transport infrastructure to serve Tallaght, Dublin 24; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

Seán Ryan

Ceist:

30 Mr. Ryan asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if she will instruct, or if she intends to request Dublin City Council and Dublin County Council to acquire the portions of the Harcourt Street lines now in private ownership so as to facilitate the provision of a buslane and/or the light rail system for Dublin; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

Roger T. Garland

Ceist:

32 Mr. Garland asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if she will outline in respect of the proposed reopening of the Harcourt Street Railway, (a) the cost on the basis of a busway, (b) the cost on the basis of a light rail system and (c) the cost on the basis of a busway initially with a later conversion to light rail.

Dick Roche

Ceist:

61 Mr. Roche asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if she intends to preserve the portion of the Harcourt Street line between Bray and Sandyford and the proposed starting point for an alternative mass-transit system on the Harcourt Street Line; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

Dick Roche

Ceist:

62 Mr. Roche asked the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications if she will outline her plans for reintroducing a mass-transit system on the Bray/Sandyford portion of the Harcourt Street line; and if she will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 15, 21, 23, 27, 30, 32, 61 and 62 together.

As the House will be aware, an expert group has been established to assess and report on the most suitable public transport options for the Harcourt Street line. The remit of this group has been extended to include examination of the possibility of developing a light rail system for Dublin. This work will include an examination of the public transport requirements of areas such as Tallaght. The detailed work of the expert group in relation to the Harcourt Street line is now nearing completion. In that context it has already been accepted by the Government in principle that the Harcourt Street line should be reopened as a public transport facility.

However, a number of important issues in relation to the project remain to be finalised. These include an examination of the following issues: the different public transport options; engineering and operational considerations; traffic management implications; capital aid operational costs; the position in relation to the availability of the necessary resources; the extent to which the line will be reopened, and acquisition of land which is not in public ownership.

As regards the mode of public transport which will ultimately be provided on the Harcourt Street line, I believe that, in the event of sufficient resources being available on a citywide basis for Dublin, light rail may be the desired public transport option. However, that option would be dependent on the availability of substantial levels of financial assistance from the EC authorities. Alternatively, and depending on the levels of funding available, bus based options could have an important role to play.

I am aware that EC support has been made available to other member states for major public transport projects and it is my intention to press Ireland's case for similar treatment in the context of discussions on the next phase of the Structural Funds covering the period 1994 to 1998 and the proposed Cohesion Fund.

However, until the full level and extent of EC support which may be available in the future for funding major public transport developments in Dublin is known, it is important that all options in relation to the development of the Harcourt Street line should be preserved. In this regard an examination is underway of the possibility of commencing preparatory work, in relation to restoration of the alignment, which would be common to both a busway option and a light rail development. This work could include the preparation of technical and engineering specifications, detailed referencing of the land to be acquired, land surveying, preparation of tender/contract documentation, as well as investigation in relation to the possible need to relocate existing underground services. Discussions are being held with the EC authorities in relation to possible European Regional Development Fund funding for this preparatory work under the current Operational Programme on Peripherality.

That was an extensive reply from the Minister.

Ordinarily, questions should finish at 3.45 p.m. but in the circumstances in which we find ourselves the House might agree that we extend Question Time by five minutes. Is that agreed? Agreed.

In thanking the Minister for her reply may I establish the following? I understood that the Minister's predecessor had made a clear announcement that the Harcourt Street line would definitely be re-opened between Harcourt Street and Sandyford. Would the Minister confirm that that definite decision has been made, irrespective of whether it is to be a busway or light rail system, or is there now a doubt about whether the Harcourt Street line will be reopened?

As I stated earlier and in my initial reply, it has been accepted by the Government in principle that the Harcourt Street line should be re-opened to provide a public transport facility.

I would like to pursue the question of what exactly is meant by "in principle".

I should indicate to the Deputy that there are many people here who have yet to ask questions and I ask him to make it as brief as possible.

All I want to know is whether the Harcourt Street line will be re-opened.

Before the Government can make a definite decision on the route, how it should operate, how much money is required and whether we should make an application to the European Community it will be necessary for me to submit a full memorandum to them outlining the various options, which include a busway or light rail system, and the funding that may be required.

The Minister should be aware that her predecessor did not outline a menu of options but rather had RTE camera crews——

The Deputy is imparting information. Would he ask a question?

There are now some grounds for believing that the former Minister misled the public. In relation to the light rail system, there are huge problems in Dublin with regard to congestion. Earlier, the Minister indicated in her reply to Question No. 10 that this autumn she will enter into negotiations on the new operational programme. Will she now give us a commitment that she will draw up a blueprint for a light rail system in Dublin and seek funding, in the next tranche of EC funding, for such a system? Second, will she consider in relation to investment the proposals which were submitted to her predecessor by a number of private consortia with regard to a light rail system? Finally, would she accept that it is only by making those concrete decisions that a light rail system will become a reality as opposed to a daydream?

I accept it will only become a reality if I am successful in securing substantial EC funding for it. While I do not live in Dublin, my own personal preference would be for a light rail system on the basis that our objective must be to get people to leave their cars at home and not to cause congestion in the city. It would be easier to encourage people to travel on a light rail system than on buses. That is my personal opinion. During the negotiations on the next phase of Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund I will work with my European partners and in particular with the European Commissioner, Mr. Millan, to try to secure a commitment to provide as much EC funding as possible for this project. The Deputy can rest assured that I will spare no effort in this regard.

Would you confirm, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that Question No. 32 is one of the questions we are dealing with now?

I should point out, therefore, that the Minister has not made the slightest effort to answer my question. As she has not dealt with any of the three parts of the question, which relates to the cost involved, I cannot ask a supplementary question. Has the Minister got a reply to Question No. 32?

If the Deputy had been listening to my responses to a number of Deputies it would have been obvious to him that no costings have been made in relation to the options open to us, be it a busway, a light rail system or a combination of both. Therefore it is not possible for me to give the Deputy the information that he requires. These figures will be made available once the discussions have been concluded.

As no costings have been made, how was the Minister's predecessor able to state that he was going to go ahead with the project? He must have been stone mad to say that if no costings had been made. This is a copout and it is time the Minister admitted this.

Deputy Garland, that is a comment rather than a question.

Given that the Harcourt Street line runs to Bray, it is a matter of concern that that line has recently been traversed. Will the Minister take steps to ensure that there will be no further encroachment on the remnants of the line until a final decision on the issue has been made?

While I accept that the points made by Deputy Roche are extremely important, let me clarify the matter for the benefit of Deputy Garland. The expert working group who are examining the costs associated with both the busway and light rail system options have received a number of proposals which vary greatly. At this stage they only amount to estimates. These estimates are being checked for the Department at present by the international transport consultants, Steer Davies Gleave. As Deputies are aware, they have been engaged to assist us in formulating a citywide light rail-busway network which will be considered in the context of the Dublin transportation initiative.

The Minister has clarified once and for all that her predecessor has misled over 60,000 people in south County Dublin in relation to the Harcourt Street line.

In respect of my question can the Minister say how many portions of land on the Harcourt Street line are currently in private ownership? On the basis of the report, are we to assume that we have to wait for EC funding and a final report before we can acquire the necessary land?

I regret that I do not have a reply to the questions that Deputy Ryan raised.

I have one question.

We have a Private Notice Question which I must take now. It should have been taken at 3.45 p.m. If Deputy Byrne's question is very brief, I will allow it.

Would the Minister not agree with me that her predecessor, Deputy Brennan, was very specific about his proposals for the Harcourt Street line? He said that he had discovered at least £10 million in funding, that the first stage was to rebuild across the canals and roads the bridges that had heretofore been demolished, that the second stage was to provide a busway and that the infrastructure laid on would be such as to accommodate a light rail system in the future, that there was a positive and active proposal and plan which I publicly welcomed at the time he announced it? Would the Minister not further agree that it is obvious now that it was only a decision in principle, that the Minister, Deputy Brennan, in whose constituency the line runs, thought at the time that there would be a general election, jumped the gun and committed the Government to what we are now discovering was only a policy in principle?

That is a rather futile question.

In 1990 the then Minister appointed an expert working group to report on rail and busway options in relation to the former Harcourt Street railway line and the Tallaght area and the remit of the group was subsequently extended by the then Minister to include examination of the possibility of developing a light rail system for Dublin. I know that the previous Minister is committed to the reopening of the Harcourt Street line, and what I have been attempting to state here is that the decision that has been made by the Government was in fact a decision in principle. I see nothing wrong with the Minister announcing that a decision in principle was made by the Government to open the Harcourt Street line.

Barr
Roinn