Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 26 May 1992

Vol. 420 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Light Rail Transit System for Dublin: Motion.

Before I move the motion I seek the permission of the House to share my time with Deputies Nora Owen and Nuala Fennell?

Is that satisfactory? Agreed.

I move:

"That Dáil Éireann calls on the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications to commission a light rail transit system for the greater Dublin area on a phased basis in order to resolve the current congestion problems, particularly in the inner cordon area of the city; further calls on the Government to seek EC funding for such a project so that it is constructed within a seven-year period on an established timetable for implementation; and further calls on the Government to re-establish the Dublin Transport Authority to oversee these improvements in public passenger services in the Capital.

It is important at the outset to state exactly what is the problem in the greater Dublin area. Traffic congestion in Dublin is significantly worsening each year. The number of vehicles registered in Dublin has increased from 158,000 to 270,000. This can only grow further. As regards car ownership, per 1,000 of population, Ireland has approximately 200 cars compared with the European average of 350 cars. The logical conclusion during the nineties and beyond is that our level of car ownership will rise in line with the European trend.

In terms of traffic flows, as monitored by Dublin Corporation, the figures show that at morning peaktimes some 55,000 vehicles cross the inner cordon line carrying over 75,000 commuters each day between 7 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. and between 4.30 p.m. and 7 p.m. Given the growth in population in Dublin, particularly in the suburban areas and the sprawling nature of development in satellite towns around the city these congestion problems will grow over the nineties and the present congestion will deteriorate further.

Dublin Port is the largest port in the State and accounts for 40 per cent of all trade in the Republic. It employs 5,000 people in the port estate of 800 acres. It handles 7.5 million tonnes of goods each year. The problems of increasing traffic congestion have been a major contributory factor in the huge diversion of freight container traffic through the northern corridor. It is a matter of some disgrace that four out of every ten containers coming to or going from the Republic go through Northern Ireland. It has been estimated that there is a revenue loss of £56 million to the Dublin region and to the Irish economy. There is no doubt the traffic congestion problem is having a direct effect in choking Dublin Port.

The present policy of building large public and private housing estates on the periphery of the city has a dual negative effect on Dublin: first, it increases the level of urban dereliction and inner city decay, and second, it increases the demand for transport services, for commuters to gain access to their places of employment and for shopping purposes. Therefore, the provision of a modern public transport service across the city would not only meet the commuter needs of the people of the greater Dublin area, but would ensure that the city centre would be a more attractive place in which to live. I strongly believe this issue is at the heart of making inner Dublin a living vibrant city again, Light rail is not only more attractive but is safer and environmentally friendly. The figures show the population of inner city Dublin has declined from 150,000 in 1971 to 95,000 in 1986.

Safety is also one of the hidden costs of congestion in Dublin. The level of motoring accidents in Dublin represents a half of 1 per cent of total gross domestic product or, in simple cash terms, £125 million per year. It is significant to note that claims against Dublin Bus in 1990 amounted to £10 million.

The present over-reliance on cars for commuters is the most inefficient form of transport. Dublin Corporation have carried out a very interesting survey in relation to car occupancy and the use of different modes of transport. During peak hours the figures show the average occupancy of a car is 1.4 persons; the average occupancy of a bus is 39 persons but for a commuter train the figure is 417 persons per train. These figures clearly demonstrate the potential impact of a modern mass transit system for Dublin in reducing the number of cars. It must also be borne in mind that the minimum cost of motorway development in an inner city area is now reckoned to be £17 million per mile. It is in these contexts that a radical alternative solution must be found to resolving Dublin's transport chaos.

Fine Gael believe it is essential that the Dublin Transport Authority, which was set up under the Greater Dublin Transport Authority Bill, 1985, is fundamental to the resolution of Dublin's traffic congestion problems. It was most regrettable in 1987 that the then Fianna Fáil Government saw fit to abolish it. It is vital that it is reconstituted and assumes responsibility for all aspects of transport planning and administration in Dublin.

Currently, as well as Dún Laoghaire Corporation, Dublin County Council, Dublin City Council, the Departments of the Environment, of Tourism, Transport and Communications, and Justice, all play different roles in relation to transport issues in the greater Dublin area. In conjunction with this, Irish Rail and Dublin Bus have no direct interlinking with these authorities. These organisations report to different Ministers and different Departments, which has led to two consequences: first, ad hoc decision making on a political basis, such as what the former Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications, Deputy Brennan, decided to do with the Harcourt Street line. There was no overall plan for the greater Dublin area but rather a politicised decision in his own constituency in the dying days of his term of office and without any reference to a capital allocation; second, it has led, in successive decades, to an endless series of studies because there is no coherent plan. There is paralysis by analysis by virtue of the fact that the Dublin transport study is out of date and we now have the Dublin Transport Initiative, who are to produce their interim report in the autumn and their final report next spring. That is no substitute for coherent decision making.

There is an endless series of reports and studies on the transport needs of Dublin. A variety of academic, transport, architectural, environmental and other experts have concluded that the best way forward is to develop public transport facilities that will displace the need for personal motoring in the capital city. All similar international studies indicate that the ultimate solution to traffic congestion in large urban areas lies not with catering for increased car numbers through extra road capacity, but rather in attempting to control demand for personal motoring.

Fine Gael believe that a single transport ministry, combining the roads, haulage and traffic functions of the Department of the Environment with the existing transport section of the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications and the appropriate transport elements of Marine, is the best way to oversee integrated transport policy.

There are many proposals in the short term that the Dublin Transport Authority could deal with. The first deals with enforcement. It is obvious, in this time of rampant and growing criminal activity, that the Garda are at full stretch dealing with increasingly serious criminal activity and have less than adequate resources to deal with parking and traffic offences. I envisage the Dublin Transport Authority having the staff and resources to augment the work of the Garda traffic corps.

Revenue from traffic offences could be directly channelled into the Dublin Transport Authority to improve enforcement procedures. Fines for traffic offences should be increased to a level of £50. More tow-away and clamping facilities should be introduced to eliminate illegal parking, especially on double yellow lines and clearways. Only through effective deterrents will the law be observed, both in terms of the more serious offences in bus priority lanes and box junctions.

Fine Gael envisage that traffic management would come under the aegis of the Dublin Transport Authority involving the reassigning of staff from Dublin Corporation. It would seek to eliminate parking on major routes for traffic passing through the city and replace it by off-street car parking. Investment would take place in computerised traffic lights on all major intersections in the Dublin region.

The DTA could pioneer the greater use of roundabouts instead of traffic lights at larger intersections. It could also pilot the introduction of "tidal flow lanes" during peak periods. This would mean that certain lanes of roadway could be used for different directional traffic for peak flows in morning and evening. Greater priority will have to be given to the buses. The latest technology — selective bus detection systems — allows buses to increase their speeds. Stopping space, where possible, at bus stops could be increased to at least two bus lengths to enable buses to pull in and out of the main traffic flow.

The Dublin Transport Authority will also be given the brief to see if voluntary agreement could be obtained with the retail sector in Dublin to providing off peak period deliveries. It is estimated that there are some 6,000 retail outlets in Dublin that have to be serviced by 2,200 commercial vehicles for deliveries. It is essential that delivery times, where possible, take place before 7 a.m. or after 7 p.m. This would reduce distribution costs by up to 50 per cent.

The Dublin Transport Authority should seek to develop car parks on the periphery close to main roads and public transport systems to promote the "park and ride" concept, as is the case in other European cities.

The Dublin Transport Authority would also take responsibility for taxi services, including the licensing system. It is envisaged that they would have a consumer role in relation to monitoring of fare levels and the quality and availability of service levels. The Carriage Office currently has responsibility for taxi plates in the Dublin area. This sector has not been liberalised like the road haulage sector, resulting in taxi plates developing a capital value. It would therefore be the role of the DTA to establish the appropriate level of taxi plates. They would also have an annual inspection system to maintain uniformity of standards of taxis. Ultimately, consideration should be given to standard specifications for cars so that a certain type of livery would be uniquely available to the Dublin area. To introduce this, perhaps once off concessions on excise duties could be considered.

The question of road development has been very controversial. The eastern by-pass has become not only a transport, but an environmental and political issue. It is vital that the Dublin Transport Authority, in conjunction with the National Roads Authority and local public representatives, determine the most effective use of road construction and EC funds. Specifically, the Dublin Transport Authority should take responsibility for the lengthy road openings which cause excessive disruption to commuters. Often these seem unco-ordinated between different companies such as Bord Gáis, ESB, local authorities and Telecom Éireann. Penalties should be introduced for failure to comply with deadlines and the completion of such works to a satisfactory standard.

It is clear from all these points that there is a lengthy short to medium term agenda which must be acted upon by a new transport authority in our capital city. The construction of a modern public transport system will take time and in the interim these decisions cannot be delayed further.

Fine Gael believe that the long term solution to Dublin's transport problems lies with the construction of a light rail transit system. This can only be introduced with planning, substantial investment and political determination. We believe this is the single most important public transport issue facing the Republic in the nineties. In our view LRT is not only the best solution, but it is also the most inevitable.

Light rail transit uses the latest technology involving steel wheels on electrically propelled vehicles. It is the only form of transport that can travel on steep gradients and around sharp curves. It can operate above or below ground level. It can operate on different surface treatments, road or rail. Light rail transit offers the greatest flexibility of any public transport system as it can traverse pedestrianised areas that are historically and environmentally sensitive.

Light rail transit can provide Dublin with a public transport network to match the success of the DART service from Howth to Bray. The success of DART has been quite startling. It has resulted in 7,000 cars being left at home each day. Its success is based on is predictability. Unlike buses that get caught in the very same congestion that motorists seek to avoid. LRT, because it is on its own dedicated track, can ensure that the commuter will be punctually served. Estimates have shown that the cost of putting a heavy rail system across Dublin, with all the complications of tunnelling, would be too prohibitive in cost.

Any comparison of traffic flows on DART corridors and elsewhere shows that where the DART exists over 50 per cent of commuters travel by public transport. On non-DART corridors the figures show that less than one in four commuters use public transport.

It is vital if light rail is to become a reality in Dublin that it is not beset with ad hoc political decisions. The last Minister responsible for transport participated in this short-sighted messing. It now transpires that his major announcement on the Harcourt Street line was only a decision in principle without any allied finance. It is not clear whether a guided busway or a light rail transport facility is to be provided. Decisions in this regard have more to do with constituency politics than any proper overview of the transport needs of Dublin.

It is symptomatic of this Government's approach that less than 4 per cent of total EC funding from 1989 to 1993 under the Structural Funds is being spent on public transport. I understand that only two cities, Essen in West Germany and Adelaide in Australia, have opted for a guided busway system. Over 320 cities worldwide are now adopting an LRT system. Currently in Britain light rail is being constructed in Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, Newcastle, Edinburgh and is under consideration in many more cities and towns.

Light rail, I believe, is the most accessible form of transport for the disabled. It is undoubtedly the safest, cleanest and most user friendly public transport system. It does not produce any air pollution, as would a busway system. Light rail transit must, of course, be complemented by a feeder/supplementary transport system, provided by buses to peripheral car parking locations on any LRT system. I believe that LRT has the best prospect of operating on a break-even or surplus basis on day to day revenue and expenditure. Light rail transit has low running costs and minimum maintenance requirements.

The implementation of LRT in Dublin will, of course, be difficult in terms of planning, property acquisition and technical considerations. I believe, however, that delaying the implementation will only increase costs and add to these difficulties, while in the interim the traffic congestion will worsen.

In the first instance, Fine Gael are proposing the consideration of three routes: (a) the old Harcourt Street line; (b) a route to the south west, including Tallaght, which would take in Harold's Cross and Kimmage and would operate on property already acquired and designated for transport purposes and (c) a route would run from Finglas to the city centre. It would run southward from Finglas village through the open area to meet the Sligo mainline, west of Broombridge Station, then link up to Broadstone and enter the city along Dominick Street through Parnell Street to O'Connell Street where it would connect with the first two routes. Everyone would like to see light rail all over the city, even to Dublin airport but we must prioritise the routes to meet the greatest public transport commuter needs.

The minimum cost of the least number of routes would be of the order of £150 million and the total cost of the three routes would be of the order of £400 million. The only way that such a proposal can become a reality is with European Community funds. In this regard it should be borne in mind that the next tranche of Structural Funds, from 1994 to 1998, is due to increase by 64 per cent and that the Cohesion Fund, which is specifically earmarked for the states of Ireland, Greece, Spain and Portugal, is exclusively for transport and environmental projects. The case for Dublin is on a par with those cases which have been funded by Europe at the rate of 55 per cent in Athens and the British systems in Newcastle and Birmingham.

It is vital that the Government should immediately prepare a detailed project for submission to the EC Commission. This cannot be done overnight and as the preliminary decisions at European level in this regard are to be taken in the latter half of this year it is imperative that work start now. This proposal will also involve the diversion of resources away from the construction of roads and motorways in Dublin city towards the construction of public transport. In this context the eastern by-pass is due to cost £400 million.

I call on the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications to outline the details of proposals made by different private consortia to her predecessor which are gathering dust in the Department. I am aware of one international group which made a specific proposal, either on an ownership or franchise basis, to provide a light rail public transport system with EC funding, yet, nothing has been done. Failing this combination of methods — EC and private sector funds producing the necessary finance further measures can be invoked. The Dublin Transport Authority could have the power to introduce road pricing. This would mean that on the inner city cordon there would be a charge to road users. This could be done by the display of a monthly disc. The revenue from this could finance public transport facilities. This method already has a proven track record across Europe.

I am aware that The Workers' Party and the Progressive Democrats have produced policy papers on the issue of transport in the greater Dublin area. They, too, have concluded like Fine Gael, that light rail is the best option for Dublin. We have now reached the time for decisions and, ultimately, it will be a political choice rather than a consultative one through any expert group. In the short period she has been in office, the Minister has shown signs of procrastination, be it in relation to the broadcasting issue, the Shannon stop-over or funding for public transport.

We are therefore seeking the support of other parties for the implementation of a modern public transport system up to a European standard for Dublin, This can only be planned and developed through a new structure in Dublin. It cannot be done solely by CIE, Dublin Corporation or the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications. Therefore, it has to be a new structure. What we are calling for in this motion is the reintroduction of the Dublin Transport Authority and a blueprint for a modern light rail system for Dublin up to a European standard. This must be implemented and sought at EC level this autumn.

Having listened to Deputy Yates, there is no doubt in my mind that the case for a light rail system in Dublin has been overwhelmingly made not just in this House but in a number of recent studies and investigations. I wish to pay a special tribute to people who have almost single-handedly during the past few years forced this issue onto the political agenda. These include Professor Simon Perry of Trinity College, Tom Coffey of the Dublin City Centre Business Association and the people concerned in the "People First Dublin Initiative". These people, who daily witness the disruption caused by traffic congestion, have highlighted the need during the past few years to look at the need for a new integrated transport system.

The essential requirement that would have to be met in relation to any new light rail system in Dublin city and Dublin county is that it should provide for a relatively free passage through the central core of the city to the suburbs. It is a known fact that the actual amount of time it takes to travel from A to B is not as important to the commuter as the fact that they know they will get there in a certain amount of time, that they will be guaranteed free passage to wherever they are going and that they will get to their destination without undue delay.

At present statistics and studies show that only one in 20 cars which enter Dublin city daily carries more than one passenger. This leads to the creation of traffic jams. The rate of car ownership in Ireland is one of the lowest, per capita, in Europe at present and is increasing at the rate of 2 per cent to 3 per cent per year but this means, that a very high percentage of Dublin residents, both in the city and county, are obliged to use public transport to get to work, school and vital facilities such as hospitals, health centres, churches and so on. If the centre of our city, which we all take pride in and love so much, is to survive we need to create strong radial routes to allow people move freely in and out of the city both to work and shop and enjoy the cultural facilities that are being developed in the city.

A new light rail system in Dublin must form part of an integrated traffic system. I am glad that at a recent meeting of Dublin County Council, which representatives of Bus Átha Cliath and protagonists of a light rail system attended, agreement was reached that any new system must be integrated with the existing DART system and Bus Átha Cliath network. In relation to the fare structure, we must take into account the fact that people will want to move with ease from one form of transport to another with the same ticket. This system works extremely effectively in the city of Oslo in Norway where there is an underground system, a light rail system and a bus network. For the one price one can move from one system to another within a certain period of time without having to buy a second ticket. This method is extremely effective.

Although a certain amount of disruption would be caused during construction of a light rail system it would be far less disruptive than any other form of transport such as an underground system or an extension to the DART system. It is also estimated that few properties would have to be demolished as tracks may be laid on existing roads and islands in the middle of the road, in some instances.

It would also be much more environmentally friendly, rather than increasing the use of standard buses that are in operation now and which form the backbone of the transport system. I wish to pay tribute to Bus Átha Cliath which has been trying with great difficulty and at great cost during the past few years to extend the bus network by providing a cross county and city service, whereby a person in Ballymun may visit a person living in Mulhuddart if they so wish, as against providing buses to and from "An Lar". These innovations have been introduced to meet the demand of the consumer.

As we are all aware, the carriages used in a light rail system are far lighter than buses. They weigh around 25 tonnes whereas a standard bus weights between 35 to 40 tonnes. As we are further aware, up to 400 people can be transported at one time in four carriages in a light rail system. This is far in excess of the number of people that can be carried in one bus.

It also has an added safety feature. Carriages are very steady so that both pedestrians and motorists would know that they could move up to within inches of a carriage without fear of being knocked. One cannot do this in the case of a bus.

Apart from the cost of £125 million a year, in relation to the cost of accidents in the Dublin area, to which Deputy Yates referred, the estimated cost of the effects of the existing transport system in terms of pollution, stress, fuel cost, wear and tear, time wasted is of the order of £500 million a year. I have no doubt that the Chair, like the rest of us, has been caught in a traffic jam when he should have been at a meeting and has had to wait for the lights to change 15 times before moving on to his destination.

The estimated cost of introducing a light rail system has been outlined by Deputy Yates. As stated in our motion, it must be introduced on a phased basis, having regard to the fact that a minimum of 75 per cent of the cost will be available from the Cohesion Fund. This means that a maximum 25 per cent will have to be provided by the country concerned. This is the amount that was received by the city of Athens in Greece recently.

The costs would not be astronomical but, unless we grasp the nettle soon, they will continue to increase. I agree with Deputy Yates that this is no time for procrastination. My understanding is that a decision from the Government is required by next September. Normally, I respect the fact that the Minister makes decisions but, sadly, in relation to this — and perhaps the Shannon stop-over — she seems to be procrastinating for fear of the political fallout. The Minister should make this decision or she will go down in history as one of the Ministers who did not solve the traffic problem in Dublin.

In any scheme provision must be made — not just for the routes about which Deputy Yates spoke — but around the core of the city linking Connolly, Heuston and the other stations so that someone getting off a train at Heuston can travel to Connolly without having to take a bus and trundle their way along the quays or maybe take a taxi which takes 35 minutes to travel a mile and a half. The existing infrastructure must be connected but at the same time we should be looking seriously at the extension to Dublin airport. I know that the airport authorities are very anxious to become involved in this. Dublin airport is one of the very few EC capitals which does not have an effective, quick and cheap traffic system to bring passengers to and from the airports.

It would be remiss of me not to highlight the need for a transport system to the town of Swords which currently has a population of about 25,000 people. Because of its location, it has been left out of the existing network system. The council has been very far-sighted in leaving a tunnel of land all the way to Swords to allow for an extension of rail to the town and I have no doubt that the economic benefits of extending to a town that size will be recognised and implemented by the Minister.

I should like to outline briefly the advantages of a light rail system; it would provide a fast, clean, popular arterial network to the city allowing full integration of all public transport — buses, heavy rail, DART and taxis. It would run on time and would not present a pollution problem. In the long term, it would be the cheapest system to run although, of course, there would be an initial investment cost. There would be very little demolition of property. It would substantially reduce the number of cars, allowing greater freedom to other road users, buses, taxis, goods vehicles and cyclists whom we must allow back on our roads. It would also introduce a system of "park and ride" on the perimeters of the city; the latest American phrase in that regard is "kiss and ride"; it means that the spouse leaves his — or her — partner to the station and takes the car home.

I call on the Minister, with my colleagues, to make a speedy decision on this matter to prevent Ireland from losing out on her application for the cohesion funds which are available. If a decision is not made quickly we may lose our slot in the system and the city and county of Dublin will become so jammed with traffic that business and job prospects will be seriously affected. The introduction of a light rail system should be seen as returning us to the romance of railways. I am sure that the Minister has enjoyed the romance of the railway line coming from the west. A new rail system would create a kinetic sculpture running through our city in which we could all live and enjoy it.

I am very happy to contribute to this debate and I am hopeful that the Minister will preside over plans which I accept are long term and expensive but which will provide a network of light rail in Dublin which will give us back our capital city.

In my childhood I lived on the south side of Dublin and I travelled to the north side to go to school. I remember those wonderful days when Dublin was a city in which you wanted to meander and window-shop. At weekends it was the Dublin of Edna O'Brien where young people went to the Metropole to dance. It was a city of wide streets and clearways in which you did not feel afraid, congested or poisoned by pollution. That Dublin is one that we could still have if we had the type of consistent planning that other cities have had and that this city deserves.

It is not just a question of Dublin people lobbying for Dublin transport, it is a question of everybody seeing what has happened to Dublin as a national crisis and tragedy. The capital city is the gem of the country, where most people come, where most commence, whether we like it or not, is centred. Most foreign visitors come to Dublin. I have consistently heard people abroad talking about the horrors of Dublin and how awful it is. I could cry when I realise that it is my city about which they are talking and which I remember with great fondness.

It is not surprising that we have problems in the city of Dublin. A Dublin Chamber of Commerce report of March 1991 entitled "Decongesting Dublin", gives us an indication of the movement that takes place in Dublin, and this has already been referred to by Deputy Yates in another context. Dublin Corporation's 1989 inner city count indicated that approximately 145,000 persons cross the canal ring in the two hour peak period between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. each day, that cars and commercial vehicles accounted for 52 per cent, 23 per cent travelled by bus, and 11 per cent by rail with the balance travelling by bicycle or walking. This survey highlighted other factors when vehicle/passenger ratios are analysed. It indicated that a total of 75,600 passengers travelled in 54,000 cars and commercial vehicles across the canal ring in that two hour period. This gives an average occupancy of 1.4 persons per vehicle. The survey also highlighted that in the same period 33,300 passengers were accommodated in 885 buses giving an average occupancy of 37.6 persons per vehicle. When one compares that figure with an average of 1.4 persons per car, one realises that there is an indisputable case for doing something about public transport and for ensuring that people leave their cars at home and use public transport. It follows that that can be achieved only by way of the provision of an adequate public transport system. The report indicates, too, that when allowance is made for equivalent utilisation of road space buses are 14 times more efficient than private vehicles.

Dublin is besieged by traffic, it is a most unfortunate place to be. When it is compared with other cities which operate modern transport systems — Amsterdam, Brussels, London; Glasgow and Montreal for instance, it appears that its development stopped 60 years ago, or, more appropriately, it receded, because 60 years ago there was a tram system in operation in Dublin. That may not have been the most efficient system in the world, and it might not be efficient in terms of public transport today, but at least it transported large numbers of people cheaply and efficiently to and from their destinations.

As has been highlighted by the two previous speakers, we do not have a coordinated transport policy for this city. Therefore, a light rail system is essential so that we know the future for Dublin in terms of transport and can plan accordingly. In my constituency there is great need for the re-introduction, extension, of a service on the Harcourt Street line. That line should never have been closed. It was closed down summarily in 1959 leaving the people who relied on it without transport. The area it served is the most critical in Dublin in terms of public transport. I regret that the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Brennan, who is my colleague in the constituency, confused people considerably by his headline grabbing before he left the Department. He indicated that there would be a Harcourt Street line, to which £10 million would be allocated. When that statement was further examined it was recognised that the proposal was to borrow that money from some other area that did not want to give it up and needed it very badly. The previous Minister made that announcement in order to get a headline — unfortunately, a very cheap headline — before leaving that portfolio. His announcement was regrettable. The people of Dundrum recognise that it was a very cynical move on the part of the Minister and they will not easily forgive him for that.

I hope this debate is taken seriously. I hope it is the start of a serious plan for Dublin, because it ill behoves us to ignore this very important resource.

Ba mhaith liom leasú an Rialtais a mholadh. I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Éireann" and substitute the following:

"notes the commitment of the Government in its programme to addressing the traffic congestion and public transport problems of the Dublin area through the establishment of the Dublin Transportation initiative; commends the comprehensive approach which has been adopted in the context of that initiative; and supports the declared intention of the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications to seek, from the next tranche of EC Structural Funds, significant EC financial support for the development of all the options for public transport, including light rail in the Dublin area.

At this stage, I wish to ask whether I might share my time with Deputy Dick Roche?

Is that proposal satisfactory? Agreed.

At the outset, let me say that I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to Deputy Yates' motion. I remind Deputy Yates, although he is a considerably shorter period of time in the House than I am, that he should not accuse me of procrastination because of party political, personal political or parochial political considerations in relation to issues needing consideration within my Department. I ask him to cast his mind back to debates that took place in this House and outside it in 1980 and 1981 and decisions that were made with particular relevance to the portfolio that I had at the time and more especially with particular relevance to my constituency — decisions that were taken at considerable personal political cost to me.

I particularly welcome Deputy Yates' support and that of his party for the development of a light rail system for Dublin. All of us who believe that public transport has a very important role to play in the future of Dublin are genuinely excited by the opportunities afforded by this attractive form of public transport, which has been so successful — as all speakers from the opposite side have said — in many other European cities. As part of an integrated public transport strategy, light rail offers an innovative way of addressing some of the major transport problems of Dublin, including traffic congestion, pollution and a decline in the inner city heart of Dublin.

The transport of people and goods is, of course, a major component in the social, economic and commercial life of a city. The importance of fast, efficient, cost-effective and environmentally friendly urban transport systems is increasingly being recognised throughout the developed world and particularly in the European Community.

The public transport and traffic congestion problems of Dublin city are well known and extensively documented. During the 1980s a long period of recession, coupled with sharp increases in car prices and running costs, tended to stabilise the congestion problem. More recently however, accelerated economic growth and a rise in car ownership have again highlighted the transport problems of Dublin. It is generally recognised that the main problem in Dublin stems from the inadequacy of its street network to cope with the volumes of traffic wishing to enter the city centre at peak periods. Road based public transport has deteriorated because of congestion, which has encouraged additional commuters to use private transport, causing a spiralling effect.

Demand for public transport has grown continuously over the past 30 years. In general, this demand has had to be catered for by the public transport authorities against a background of a structure of roads and railways inherited from the 19th century. Paradoxically, the roads network is now threatening the commercial dominance of the city centre as a consequence of the congestion of the radial routes which are intended to serve it. Congestion is now endemic and has spread into the hours between the morning and evening peaks.

A number of measures have been taken by the Government, local authorities and transport operators to address those problems. Those measures have included the introduction of bus lanes, the extension of the one-way street system, pedestrianised streets, improved traffic and bus fleet management systems and, most significantly, a range of major infrastructural improvements involving the construction of new roads, motorways and bridges and the improvement of existing roads. In addition, there has been significant expansion of commuter rail services in the past decade, most notably with the commissioning of the DART system in 1984, at a cost of over £100 million, and the development of diesel rail commuter services, including the opening of four new stations in the Maynooth-Dublin line in 1990. These services will be further enhanced by the delivery to Irish Rail of 17 new diesel railcars over the next two years.

In my own immediate area of responsibility, the Dublin Transportation Task Force have been working for over a decade to improve road traffic management and to promote and facilitate public transport in Dublin. The task force comprise representatives of the Dublin local authorities, the city bus and rail companies, the Garda Síochána and the Department of the Environment, the Department of Justice and the Department of Tourism, Transport and Communications, who chair the task force. The task force draw on the collective legal, technical and administrative resources of their constituent bodies in pursuing the twin aims of reducing traffic congestion in Dublin particularly at peak times, and facilitating the use of the city's public transport systems. Their traffic management strategy is geared towards making the most of existing resources by encouraging a switch from private cars to public transport during peak times and reducing traffic congestion at peak times through a combination of improved bus services and the discouragement of all-day parking in the city. The main features of this "carrot and stick" approach are measures to improve the quality and reliability of the city bus services through the use of special traffic management and bus priority measures and the introduction of improved controls on city centre parking so as to curtail long-stay parking, reduce congestion and encourage private car users to switch to public transport.

The main measures pursued as part of that strategy are the introduction of bus lanes; progressive introduction of computerised traffic signal control, including measures for giving priority to buses at traffic lights; closed circuit television monitoring of traffic conditions; enforcement of parking regulations, including bus-coach parking controls; physical planning liaison with local authorities and An Bord Pleanála.

These measures have shown some degree of success, particularly at local levels. In particular, the introduction of 72 bus lanes covering approximately 14 kilometres, together with the use of new traffic signalling technology, have resulted in better bus journey times, improved operating costs and increased attractiveness of bus services to the customer. In addition, the introduction of the DART system has shown the way in which a high quality public transport system can attract car users from their cars. Along the DART corridor, 54 per cent of journeys in the morning peak are made by public transport and 37 per cent by car. Outside this corridor only 26 per cent of journeys are made by puplic transport while 58 per cent are by car. The DART experience shows that public transport can make a major positive contribution toward resolving the problems of traffic congestion.

Dublin city must now face up to the fact that, in common with many other growing cities in Europe and elsewhere, unlimited growth of private car use can no longer be catered for. It is time for a reassessment of the role of the private car and its place in the city's overall transport policy.

It is against this background that the Dublin Transportation Initiative has been established by the Government. The second phase of the Initiative was announced by the Minister for the Environment earlier this year. The main features of the second phase are: the development of an effective process for ongoing and integrated transportation planning in the greater Dublin area; the preparation of a long term integrated transportation strategy for the period up to 2011 which will be both practicable and updatable; the production of a medium-term investment and implementation programme for the period 1994 to 1998 based on that strategy.

Phase 2 of the Initiative has a 15-month work programme, with a final report due in April 1993. A critical element of that work programme will be the preparation by autumn of this year of an interim report which will be available to form part of the input to negotiations on EC Structural Fund investment for the period 1994 to 1998.

The terms of reference for phase 2 of the DTI provide for an open approach involving a two-way consultative process between the study team and the general public, institutions and interest groups. There will be substantial public consultation, using market research techniques, discussions with interested bodies, public meetings, invitations to make submissions and other suitable methods. Indeed this major campaign is now well under way, and 100,000 bus and rail users, 160,000 motorists and 6,000 cyclists are being surveyed, while extensive market research will shortly be carried out among residents, households and pedestrians in the study area. Last week my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, made a further announcement concerning a series of public information and consultation meetings at 14 centres throughout the city.

The Government are strongly committed to maximum public participation in the decision-making process at an early stage in phase 2, while options are still genuinely open. This emphasis will continue into the later stages when strategies are being developed and refined. In addition to these measures, a local authority committee comprised of local elected representatives and a consultative panel representing transport users and providers forms part of the steering arrangements for phase 2.

Of course my Department are participating very actively in the Dublin Transportation Initiative, as are CIE. The main focus of my Department's involvement is, naturally, on the public transport side. I expect that the Initiative, in the context of both their interim report in the autumn and their final report next year, will make radical and innovative proposals to resolve Dublin's traffic congestion problems. These problems are now so severe that it is extremely difficult for the authorities to provide effective public transport services. In the course of their work the DTI will evaluate a range of transport policy themes for Dublin, which will ensure that all possible choices are considered. The modelling and evaluation process will provide a comprehensive and detailed assessment of the transport options for the city.

One option being examined by the consultants is the development of a city-wide light rail mass transit system. Such a solution is clearly very attractive and would give Dublin a modern public transport system comparable to those operating in many European cities of similar size. The major investment which would be required to support such a development clearly is beyond the capacity of the Exchequer either at present or for the foreseeable future. My Department, as part of their input into the DTI, are also conducting a detailed examination of the possibilities for developing a light rail system for Dublin. That examination, being carried out with the help of international transport consultants, is well advanced and is addressing the full range of operational, technical, engineering and financial issues involved in the development, construction, operation and financing of a light rail network. These issues include: the form of operation which might be used — whether segregated or mixed with other traffic — the need for diversion or modification of underground services; the options for the configuration of the network, location of stations, depots etc; the traffic and traffic management implications particularly in the city centre; the environmental impact of a light rail system; planning issues, including land acquisition; vehicle type and general system specifications; and capital and operating costs.

Without wishing in any way to prejudge the outcome of the DTI, I believe that there are many advantages for Dublin in light rail technology. A key advantage is that it incorporates most of the attractive features of traditional rail-based commuter transport systems in terms of reliability, attractiveness to the consumer and environmental acceptability. It is also significantly less expensive than heavy rail and is most cost-effective where travel demand is at levels which exceed the capacities of a high density bus service but are not such as to require a full metro or heavy suburban railway. Light rail is technically very flexible, much more so than traditional heavy rail. This flexibility enables it to penetrate city centre areas without the need for prohibitively expensive tunnelling. Light rail is also readily adaptable to integration with a bus network, thus making a total network of public transport more accessible and more responsive to customer needs.

I believe that light rail can also make a major contribution towards the achievement of other urban transport objectives. The presence of the track is in itself a major deterrent to illegal parking. Light rail vehicles can be operated through environmentally-sensitive areas or where other traffic is prohibited. Low floor vehicles can permit step heights which better anything currently available for buses and which are very much in line with current thinking about access for the very young, the elderly and persons with mobility difficulties. Deputies may be aware that light rail technology is widely used elsewhere in Europe and that its use and popularity are growing. My Department have been examining the situation in a number of European cities where light rail systems are currently established or are about to be introduced. As a result of these examinations I am convinced of the proven ability of light rail, first, to attract car users, second, to reduce traffic, third, to relieve the streets of congestion and fourth, to reduce the pressure for car parking space in the city centre. Light rail systems have also played a significant part in the revival of depressed inner cities in many parts of the world, triggering large-scale pedestrianisation, and bringing passengers directly into commercial city centre areas.

While accepting that there is a role for light rail in Dublin city, it is important, however, that we should not lose sight of the fact that the bus represents the backbone of Dublin's public transport services. There is no doubt that the bus network will remain a major carrier, even if a light rail system is implemented. Indeed, the bus will probably continue to be the single most important public transport mode in Dublin for the foreseeable future. It is important therefore that consideration is given to the integrity of bus routes in whatever new mass transit schemes are proposed, so that each mode can play a complementary role. I am pleased to note that Bus Átha Cliath are undertaking a number of initiatives to improve bus services, including the introduction of more frequent services using smaller buses and the development of "quality bus corridors" which will provide a premium service along a number of heavily used routes through a combination of high frequency, new vehicles, staff training, high quality bus shelters, interchange facilities, enhanced time-table/passenger information and priority measures to minimise delays.

In addition, the proposed legislation on competition in the bus industry — which I am examining at present — will liberalise the bus industry with the objective of improving the levels and quality of bus services available to the general public and the introduction of competition on a sensible and orderly basis.

It is important to bear in mind that the introduction of any new mass transit systems, such as a combination of light rail and improved bus services, will necessarily require taking some road space away from the private car. We cannot have it both ways, particularly in the city centre. Priority for public transport means that the private car must take second place. This will be more than balanced, however, by the availability of a high quality, efficient and reliable public transport system which will be more attractive to the traveller than the car.

It is clear that a light rail system for Dublin has many attractions. Having said that, however, I must emphasise that the single most important factor in relation to the development of a light rail system, or any other mass transit system which may emerge from the recommendations of the DTI, is funding. Clearly, the capital cost of establishing a light rail network will be very substantial. Preliminary indications to my Department, from a number of sources, would suggest that the capital cost could be of the order of £300 million or more. The construction period would depend on the levels of funding available, although construction could be undertaken on a phased basis and part of a system could be operational before completion of the total system, which I think is what Deputy Yates was suggesting. It is also important to remember in this context that the development of a light rail system for Dublin would have disruptive effects in the city during its construction period, including the limiting of road space on certain routes, the diversion of traffic and the rerouting of underground services and utilities.

Deputies will be well aware of the many competing demands on the scarce resources of the Exchequer. It is clear that such a major investment is beyond the capacity of those resources. Even allowing for the possibility of some investment by the private sector in the development of a light rail system for Dublin, it is clear that it would be necessary to secure major financial assistance from the EC if such a system or some alternative mass transit system for Dublin is to go ahead. I would suggest this is yet another indication of the importance for this country and its people of a resounding yes vote in the Maastricht referendum on 18 June. I am confident that the people of Ireland will indeed massively endorse Maastricht. I can assure this House that I will spare no effort in campaigning for the EC funding to ensure that, by the end of this decade, the people of Dublin will have a modern public transport system comparable with those enjoyed by many of our fellow Europeans in the major cities of the European Community.

As I have already indicated, the Dublin Transportation Initiative is adopting a comprehensive approach to the whole range of issues involved in transport, traffic congestion and public transport in Dublin. As part of that approach, the initiative will be addressing the development of a process for ongoing and integrated transport planning for the Dublin area. This work will also include an evaluation of the institutional arrangements which should apply to the future development of public transport in Dublin. With regard to the re-establishment of a Dublin Transport Authority, I would prefer to await the conclusions of the DTI before taking up a definitive position on the issue.

I commend the amended motion to the House.

I beg the indulgence of the House if I am somewhat more parochial in my contribution than the Minister. I welcome the opportunity to discuss again the commuter rail system for the greater Dublin area. I congratulate Deputy Yates on bringing this motion before the House. He was surprised when I congratulated him on the last occasion he brought a similar motion before the House.

On the previous occasion when we discussed the rail network in Dublin and the greater Dublin area I said it was a great pity Deputy Yates had not been in a position of some authority in his party during the early eighties. Having campaigned, particularly in the 1979 local elections, for the DART to be extended to Greystones unfortunately the first thing the Deputy's party did when they assumed power was to chop the decision to extend rail electrification to Greystones. I graciously acknowledge the fact that Deputy Yates recognises the massiveness of that particular sin and I believe that if he had been in office at that time — perhaps he will be in office as some time in the future — he would have reversed that decision.

Absolutely.

I was reminded today by no less a person than the chairman of CIE that that decision was compounded by an extraordinary fallacy in the document Building on Reality: I make a parody of it — it should have been called “Building Unreality”. If Deputy Yates or any of his colleagues wish to reach into the dusty archives of their shelves and dust off that document they will see that a decision was made at that time to cancel not just the extension of rail electrification to Greystones but to cancel all investments in rail.

It would be easy to make political capital out of an issue like this one. However, I do not intend to do so because I do not think the decisions made by my party when they returned to Government were any more enlightened. I find myself very much on a lone track from the far distant reaches of Greystones arguing the case not just for an extension of rail electrification to Greystones but for an examination of the rail electrification possibilities elsewhere in the city. I am very pleased that in a sense the clock has turned right around and that we are all ad idem on the issue of investment in light rail and further rail electrification. I believe the approach outlined by the Minister is the sensible one. Obviously we cannot just endorse a particular option as a matter of fashion at any point; there are very many options, all of which should be explored.

I mentioned the decisions taken in relation to the DART, decisions which I felt at the time were flaws not just in political planning but flaws in terms of planning both in the Department of Finance, who were opposed to the extension of the DART, and the Department of Transport and Power, as it was then, and CIE. I have acknowledged already that my party when they returned to power did not do a great deal better than had been done before them. The combination of these decisions meant that we had a partially operating DART system. This was a tragedy because one of the great successes in public investment in the past ten or 15 years has been the DART. A sum of £114 million was invested in this system. This obviated the need to invest some multiple of that sum in road transport and other options.

It would be wrong to take the view, as is often taken, that we have not put money into the rail network as a whole. It is worthwhile reminding the House that during the past decade a sum of £940 million of taxpayers' money has been invested in the railways in one form or another — usually the money is invested in the form of a subsidy — and over £230 million has been put into capital services. However, we have failed dismally to put money into the rolling stock, particularly the light rail rolling stock.

A positive decision was taken by the Government during the past year and a half to allocate £80 million for rolling stock. Iarnród Éireann rightly point out that they have been starved of funds in this area for some time. I noted with some considerable alarm — I hope I will be forgiven for being parochial on this point — a statement that Iarnród Éireann have not yet made a decision concerning the allocation of the new rail cars. I should like to remind the House again that when the £80 million was allocated for rail cars at my prompting and the prompting of all Deputies from County Wicklow, the then Minister, Deputy Séamus Brennan, made specific reference to the allocation of a portion of that money to upgrade the rolling stock on the Bray-Greystones line. Deputy Yates acknowledged this point on the last occasion he spoke on this issue in the House. I do not apologise for being parochial; I am simply making the point to CIE and anyone else who cares to listen that even if they have forgotten the promise, the people in Greystones have not. I wish to reiterate that the Government made specific reference to upgrading the rolling stock in the Bray-Greystones area. I, for one, will be putting pressure on CIE, as was done today, to honour that commitment.

It is clear that Dublin and the surrounding areas require a very significant level of investment in all forms of public transport. The only real investment made in modern times was the £114 million spent on the DART. That was a very worthwhile investment but it did not go far enough. I said at the time it was tragic that the system was not extended both south and north. While such an extension would have required only very little additional funds at that time it would require a considerable amount of money at this stage.

In recent times I have been disturbed — I am sure people interested in rail and commuter mass transit have been equally disturbed — by the carping from some quarters, particularly by those west of the Shannon who have been making a particular point, that the DART is making a loss. The loss is entirely a bookkeeping figure. Direct decisions taken by successive Governments inflated the cost of the DART to £114 million. The specific decisions made by Governments to effectively divert cheap interest loans from the DART are discounted. If we also discount increases in VAT rates during the period of the construction of the DART, the cost structure of the DART would be very considerably enhanced and its very real economic return would be enhanced. If one adds in the other benefits, particularly the displacement of commuters along that network — the Minister said that 54 per cent of the commuters on the DART line come into town on public transport, which is a very positive point — clearly the economic benefits of the DART are manifest to us all.

I wonder if the suggestion made in the motion that we should simply opt for a light rail system is the wisest. There are a number of priorities which come before that. I do not disagree with the light rail option. Such an option would be an inspiration in the inner city area and would change the whole nature of commuter transport. As I have already said, I have certain priorities and people living on other sides of the city have other priorities. I believe the first and cheapest priority would be to extend the DART line southwards. The second priority must be the linking of the western suburbs and, in particular, Tallaght and Clondalkin, into the DART network. I do not mind if this is done by an extension of the DART network to the west, which would cost approximately £40 million, or a light rail system. It is obvious that the huge number of commuters in that western belt have to be serviced. Another priority must be a link to Dublin Airport. I note that Iarnród Éireann and Aer Rianta recently completed a study which suggested that covering those northern suburbs, bringing them into the DART line and linking them to the airport, would cost approximately £30 million. I believe this would be an investment well worth undertaking.

The fourth priority is the reopening of the Harcourt Street line. It has been suggested that there should be a bus lane system from the city centre out as far as Sandyford. Such a development would cost a great deal of money and I suggest we should go a step further. Very inspired proposals were produced by a private group in the city called the DART 2 proposals which would involve a State subsidy for each person carried and which would have involved an input of private capital. I suggest that that fourth priority is well worth looking at. One of the things which distresses me is that up until very recently the line was effectively intact. There was some private building on the line but the first major public encroachment on the line was the N11 which severed the line close to Loughlinstown Hospital. Nevertheless it would still be possible for a light rail or DART system to be extended along that line. If the DTI and the Department are considering reopening the Harcourt Street line I would strongly suggest that they should reopen the entire line.

The fifth priority must be some form of circular public transport system within the area of the two canals. This is where I would see the light rail system becoming a real option — I am not sure if that is exactly what Deputy Yates has in mind. The first set of priorities must be to improve the general public transport system from the outer suburbs. If commuters are tempted to take their cars — as happens everyday on the Bray-Greystones route — they will drive all the way into the city. Therefore, the first priority must be to service all the outer suburbs and then we can consider the inner city. A light rail network in that context has a great deal to commend it. I suggest to Deputy Yates that the amended motion, as has been expounded by the Minister, is the more acceptable one. I think the Deputy knows that that is likely to be the sort of proposal the DTI will come up with. Notwithstanding the criticism, I would like to once again congratulate Deputy Yates on being a novelty in his party, somebody who is convinced as to the benefits of a mass transit system. It is a pity he was not around ten years ago.

I would like to share my time with Deputy Mervyn Taylor.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I compliment Deputy Yates for bringing this Private Members' motion before the House, as it gives us an opportunity of putting on the record proposals from the Labour Party document on transport development for economic growth in Dublin, a policy document drawn up by Labour Party members, councillors and Deputies in the greater Dublin area, including Mr. Barry Desmond, MEP. I had great pleasure in visiting Brussels in November 1991 to present this report to Bruce Millan and his group for consideration for the next phase of the Structural Fund.

I welcome the commitment made by the Minister for Tourism, Transport and Communications to the whole concept of a light rail system I hope she will have sufficient influence in Government to ensure that that becomes a reality. However, I question whether or not we can trust this Government in relation to public transport. Let us consider the case put forward in relation to the 1989-93 Structural Funds from the EC; £615 million was allocated for roads while £30 million was allocated for public transport, a ratio of 17:1 in favour of roads, which must be compared with some of the progressive cities in Europe, for example, Germany, where the ratio is 4:1 in favour of roads.

The Minister has stated her commitment to public transport, but the people in the greater Dublin area and in the country at large are well aware of the lack of commitment to public transport. The Minister said that 17 new carriages had been constructed and came on stream over the last two years but she did not refer to the lack of carriages in the last few years throughout the country, which results in commuters who would otherwise use real transport using the roads, thereby causing congestion. The Minister did not refer to the report that had been on her predecessor's desk since 1988 in which the board of CIE stated that there was a need for 47 rail carriages to meet the needs of the future. That report lay on the Minister's desk until 1991 when another commitment was made.

When talking about public transport we must consider all aspects of life, including employment. It is a scandal that this Government allowed a viable coach building industry in Dublin to go to the wall. If a commitment had been made in 1988 or 1989, that industry would have continued in operation in Inchicore, providing employment for the next four or five years. That work is now being done by Japanese people, which is an utter scandal.

In our policy document the Labour Party believe there is need for a co-ordinated transport system. We are referring to a light rail system, but we are also talking about the rail and bus system, all of which must be considered together. The development of transportation in the greater Dublin area needs to be formulated in the context of broad policy principles. The Labour Party put forward their proposals to the European Commission last October. Transportation investment and transportation management and control are crucial determinants of economic and social development in a modern urban environment. We believe that public transport development must be the primary focus for investment and management in Dublin for the foreseeable future. This is suggested by the experience of other major cities which have successfully pursued such a policy, and is dictated by the consideration that a sustained development of our transport infrastructure over many years, geared principally to the requirements of private cars and their owners, has created the traffic congestion and inefficiency which is stifling the economic and social development of Dublin.

In developing public transport in Dublin, which regrettably is by now a sprawling conurbation, we must address the needs of people and business in all regions of the city. I refer to the policy in the past of transferring people from communities in the heart of the city to areas such as Tallaght and Clondalkin. In Blanchardstown in my constituency there is 70 to 80 per cent unemployment. People cannot afford to go into the city to work or to visit their relatives. For that reason a proper policy is needed. Unemployment in Dublin has reached crisis proportions — 75 per cent of jobs lost in Ireland during the eighties were in Dublin. There are large, densely populated areas of our city which lack a minimal acceptable public transport infrastructure, which is crucial to the economic revival of the areas to which I have referred.

The question may be asked, if we provide a service will people use it? Our only effective mass rapid transport system, the DART, benefits 30 per cent of people in the Dublin region. It has shown that where an efficient reliable service is provided, people will use it. When cars are taken off the road it will in the long term benefit our economy and our city. The benefits of efficient mass public transport must be brought as a priority to the growing and economically disadvantaged regions in the western, north-western, south-western and southern areas of Dublin. The development, control and management of transportation in Dublin must be provided through a unified transport authority. I support Deputy Yates concept of a transport committee.

In every major city throughout the world, public transport infrastructure receives continuing subsidies from national exchequers. These subsidies, which are given to road and rail systems alike, are part of the continuing infrastructural investment which governments must make for desirable economic and social purposes.

Such continuing subsidies, which in Ireland at present are well below levels applied in other countries, must be taken into account in transport investment planning for Dublin. To regard public transport subsidies for mass rail and bus transport as reflecting adversely on the management of these services, with no like consideration being given to the continuing subsidies required for road transport, is one of the fallacies which has undermined public transport development in Dublin.

In evaluating transport investment options for Dublin, and, particularly, in assessing rail versus road options, the true costs and relative efficiencies of comparative systems must be taken into consideration. The capital investment and operating costs of rail systems and the revenues required to offset those costs can be readily computed. The capital costs of road developments can likewise be computed, but their continuing and consequential costs are almost invariably ignored, not being readily amenable to precise computation. Public transport is not considered on the same wavelength as road transport.

While the economic development of Dublin is a prime objective of policy, it must also evolve as an attractive living environment. Dublin has outstanding natural position and amenities, a substantial man-made heritage, and immense potential. The development of the city during the past 50 years has frequently been insensitive to the unique character of our capital, with consequences which most Dubliners regret.

It is essential that in planning for the future development of Dublin and, specifically, in transport planning, the nature of our city and of our inheritance should be fully respected. Thus, as the Labour Party in Dublin in the seventies actively campaigned against the siting of an oil refinery in Dublin Bay, we will likewise oppose other developments which have adverse consequences for the character and amenities of Dublin.

Traffic congestion in Dublin has reached terminal proportions. An almost exclusive preoccupation with providing for private car/truck transport over decades combined with a corresponding failure to develop a public transport alternative has had serious economic, social and enviromental consequences for Dubliners. This has stifled development in the central area of the city and impeded offsetting development of the peripheral new towns.

There is a growing consensus for change amongst political and other groups in Dublin. The Labour Party are part of the consensus seeking the development of our public transport infrastructure; the regulation of car access to the city, and urgent action to address the capital's transport problems.

The Labour Party strongly support investment in and urgent development of a light rail transport system for Dublin with the inherent advantages of such systems. Road developments, while necessary for the future as in the past, have received more than their due share of infrastructural investment resources over the years while public transport development has been starved.

The eastern bypass motorway is an ill considered proposal and should be struck from the agenda. It would be environmentally disastrous, and other options should be pursued to relieve traffic congestion on Dublin's coastal belt and to improve port access. The Labour Party will continue to oppose the eastern bypass motorway under any guise.

Dublin's bus services will continue to be a crucial part of the city's transport network. While the guided bus system, being advocated by Dublin Bus management, does not provide the solution to the city's problems, all Dubliners have an important stake in enhancing the efficiency of the city's bus service. The scope for such enhancement may be limited until a network such as LRT is up and running.

I compliment the management of Dublin Bus who in recent years improved the efficiency of the services by introducing. for instance the nipper bus services into various areas of County Dublin, including the rural areas of north County Dublin. I hope Dublin Bus will get the commitment they require if they are to meet their mandate of providing a social service for the community. There are living communities in the rural areas around the city. We cannot ask Dublin Bus to provide a service there on economic grounds. Social aspects must be considered and enhanced in this new Bill. The Labour Party will be seeking to ensure that a social commitment is included in any legislation that comes forward.

The Labour Party firmly support investment in and development of LRT for Dublin along lines as recently proposed by various interested parties. The system needs to be set up on an urgent basis and the political will to solve Dublin's traffic and consequent economic, social and environmental problems is the main determinant in ensuring that it happens.

The budgetary difficulties of the Irish Exchequer are fully understood. But we shall only emerge from these difficulties via better than average economic growth and transport development in Dublin is essential to this growth.

Innovative financing approaches may be required to generate the funding needed for an LRT and other public transport developments. But one does not deal with a crisis by continuing with the policies which gave rise to it. The commitment, political will and resources of the Irish Government will be needed to establish a light rail transport system for Dublin.

The Socialist Group and the Labour Party have already sought the approval of the Commission of the European Communities for the application of Structural Funds to enable this LRT system to be progressed. Agreement in principle is requested of the Commission by the earliest possible date to allow planning for this project to be set in motion.

Dublin's economic and demographic development over the last 30 years has led to a total mismatch between resources, especially people and economic opportunities. The major office developments in the inner city have provided white collar jobs for the carowning, suburban-dwelling middle income group thus contributing greatly to traffic congestion and to consequent city centre decay. Anyone going through Dublin experiences the congestion and traffic back-up on all routes into the city centre. There was a time when there was a valley period and one could get through the city relatively quickly but those days have long gone. That is another encouragement to deal with this problem. The inadequacy, unreliability and high cost of public transport links either to city centre jobs or to the new industrial estates place an almost insurmountable barrier to reducing unemployment by matching people in greatest need with the jobs available. Transport conditions in Dublin are without doubt an increasingly damaging and destructive factor in preventing the economic development of this region.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn