I wish to share my time with Deputy Olivia Mitchell and Deputy Clune.
Private Members' Business. - Public Transport: Motion.
That is agreed.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to implement a major investment programme in public transport, both with immediate effect and as a significant part of the National Development Plan 2000-2006 to specifically provide the following measures:
(a) a 40 per cent increase in the capacity of Dublin Bus, with particular emphasis on fleet expansion and daily peak travel demand;
(b) the upgrading of the railway network to ensure that passenger safety is not compromised and that the recommendations from the two recent consultants' reports relating to investment in track, signalling, equipment and rolling stock are implemented;
(c) the construction of the Luas project with light rail provision for the first three routes as proposed in the Government decision earlier this year.
The Minister was not in the House for the debate on the Private Notice Question, but I was reminded in the crossfire——
I had another appointment.
I appreciate that. However, during the crossfire in the debate on Fruit of the Loom, the difficulties and job losses in Packard Electric were raised. In a previous incarnation, the Minister was Opposition spokesperson for Enterprise and Employment.
That is the case.
It was remarked by Members on all sides, including Deputies from the constituency concerned, how particularly adversarial and critical the Minister was at that time.
Deputy Rabbitte said it was another Mary. That does not sound too adversarial to me.
The Minister obviously heard the debate. She must not have been too busy.
I thought it was a nice comment.
Given that the Minister is so familiar with living with the sword, she should learn to do the other thing with the sword also.
It is with regret that the Opposition parties must use Private Members' time again to discuss the issue of public transport. In our view, the Book of Estimates, the budget and the public capital programme made nothing more than a minor incremental change with regard to public transport. There is still no acknowledgement, let alone implementation, by the Government of a major strategic policy to shift people from private cars by the provision of public transport. I understand the Minister did not hold this brief in Opposition, but the Government is in office over a year and the alibi of past Governments and lack of knowledge is no longer a hiding place.
Regrettably, despite the fact that the Government had over a year to develop a coherent overall transport policy, none exists. The nearest we came to it was the strategic management initiative of the former Department of Transport, Energy and Communications. Ireland is the only EU state that has not strategically invested in a modern urban and inter-city public transport network. Responsibility is still divided between different Departments and Ministers. Initiatives are ad hoc and piecemeal.
The country's major millennium project should be the construction of a modern public transport system, particularly for Dublin. We do not need millennium cosmetic trinkets of dubious value. We require projects that will give lasting and real benefits to people who need their quality of life improved in addition to the benefits of an efficient and better environment which could be created in the capital city. A major and historic opportunity now exists to put in place such a transport system as proposed in the motion.
Simple logic dictates if a bus carries on average 80 passengers and a train carries on average 500 passengers that the solution to traffic gridlock is to replace lanes of cars with high quality, frequent public transport. Many commuters wishing to use public transport find that the DART is so full that seats are being removed or that they must wait for the next bus because the buses at peak times are all full and do not even have standing room. To increase bus capacity for rush hours, a fleet expansion of 350 to 380 buses is required. At present, the total fleet is 900 buses.
The Minister announced with great fanfare on the day the Book of Estimates was published a special allocation of extra money for Dublin Bus. The headline was "£56 million extra for public transport".
That is correct.
The Minister did not say that all but £17 million was a rehash of the third allocation of the unspent Luas money. Unfortunately, there will only be an extra 50 buses, giving a total of 150 buses.
Is the Deputy not glad?
When one asks Dublin Bus about the impact of 150 buses, one is told that it retires 50 buses a year. The allocation will just about keep pace with the progress being made in replacing and updating buses. An additional 350 buses are required. Therefore, the Government's additional 150 buses must be viewed from the point of view that no buses are currently available and it will be late next year before the buses are on the streets.
The only immediate public transport solution for the major cities, particularly Dublin, is to invest £200 million in fleet expansion, quality bus corridors, park and ride facilities and computerised traffic lights. The annual subvention to Dublin Bus is the lowest of any capital city in Europe and is based on 94 per cent fare recovery of costs. The Government's rhetoric on modal shift into public transport is strong. However, its actions are deplorably weak.
The Minister recently established a watchdog to report to her directly on the Luas project. The watchdog should train its eyes on the Minister because she has done more to scupper Luas than anybody else. The shelving last May of the overground, on-street Luas project, despite the Atkins report, was a monumental step backwards. A limited viable project costing £221 million with EU funds of £114 million has been replaced by a leap into the dark of an unplanned, uncosted pipe dream.
At the time, the Minister stated that the cost of the revised project would be £400 million plus. When she was pursued as to what "plus" meant, she most revealingly stated "extra". I understand that at a CIE board meeting on 5 November, the provisional cost was put at £671 million. However, this includes only rough guesstimates of the cost of the tunnel. When St. Stephen's Green is completely dug up for the entrance to the tunnel, nobody knows the geological wonderland which awaits beneath the city centre. Not only will there be no northside connections in the lifetime of the Government, no matter how long it lasts, but it will soon become apparent as a result of the Government's policy of regionalisation involving the 15 counties on the western seaboard that no EU funds will be available for the entire proposal. In a sustained effort to avoid the disruption of construction, the Government has consigned an equivalent to the DART for commuters from Tallaght and Sandyford to a distant and remote concept.
The other vital component of our national transport jigsaw is our rail system. This principally includes inter-city and suburban services. The two rail safety studies show that there is a predictable risk of rail passenger fatalities in the coming months. This will either occur through a derailment or a collision. The level of risk has been classified as intolerable and unacceptable. Old jointed track with rotten timber sleepers built in the 1920s and 1930s cannot sustain its current traffic without risk. The signalling systems particularly at Heuston, Cork, Waterford and Limerick stations are outdated and obsolete.
I am particularly concerned about the IRMS study of the tracks from Rosslare to Waterford, Mallow to Tralee and Athlone to Claremorris. I have not addressed the Minister on this matter, although I have met her senior civil servants. I am aware of the debate in the Seanad and I met the IRMS consultants. Experts are currently studying on my behalf the unpublished six working papers put together by IRMS. As a layman — I await expert opinion — I consider there are dilutions, omissions and gaps in what was finally put together.
I was alarmed on being informed by IRMS that the orange document, which was the summary of its report, was not its summary, but the Department's summary. I have seen the initialled changes but my particular concern relates to the three routes, Rosslare-Waterford, Mallow-Tralee and Athlone-Claremorris. My fear, given the heavy volumes of traffic during the Christmas season, is that some of those routes should have been closed. That is the key public safety issue. I assure the Minister and her officials I have no hidden agenda, other than safety, about which I am deeply concerned. It is an onerous responsibility for the Minister and is not one I envy. If there is a doubt about it, it is better to close the line and make it safe than run a risk even if it greatly inconveniences people. I await the Minister's implementation report in January but time is against us. If some lines have to be closed in the interests of safety in the short-term, so be it.
In recent months the Joint Committee on Enterprise and Small Business has had public hearings and is about to appoint consultants to look at investment in transport. CIE has unambiguously advised the committee the total rail investment required for safety and rolling stock considerations is in the order of £650 million. This cannot be factored over 15 years. All the debate on our railways has been in the context of grave essential requirements, rather than, as is the case in the UK and on the Continent, of fostering and developing rail passenger numbers. I understand that in Britain one of the few things that survived the Thatcher era from the Labour Government of the 1970s was a grants scheme to move freight from the roads to the rail. There is no special system here. Given the small percentage of freight being carried on our rail we should examine whether that system would be applicable here.
I am not convinced that the Department of Finance has bought into the revised proposal, that the Minister has got from Cabinet the money for rail safety or that the immediate problem of gridlock in Dublin in terms of buses can be solved. Given what Owen Keegan, the DTO and others are doing, the QBCs will be in place but it is necessary that buses are made available. I do not believe that is the solution. These problems will not go away, rather they will get worse. Four or five weeks ago my party Leader and I met the DART management to discuss the night time service. Since that service commenced it has not added to its rolling stock. It is astonishing, given the growth in Dublin, that anyone could run their business in that way. A person running the smallest hackney business for the past 20 years would not operate in that way.
The other area I am most disappointed about is that the Minister has delegated the issue of bus competition. I know how a large Department works. A Minister must bring a proposal to Government, override, negotiate and drive. Ten successive Governments have said they would reform the Road Transport Act, 1932 .
Last night I attended a Bus Éireann launch in my constituency. Bus Éireann officials came from Athlone to Wexford to launch nine return services per day from Rosslare to Dublin. This is happening because Ardcavan Coaches are competing head to head. Competition is the greatest dynamic. I have met present and former employees of Bus Éireann who are more alive to competition than any other unit of CIE. I do not suggest cherry-picking and open competition but rather the Independent Radio and Television Commission equivalent to deregulate the industry and increase rural transport services. The policy for a service for which no one else can obtain a licence dates from the 1960s. The Minister could do more to achieve her viability plan by moving in that direction than hours of consultation.
There are lots of analyses but no resources. There is no evidence of new policy thinking. These problems are beginning to impinge on national life. Normally transport would be a low level issue compared with the economy, taxation, employment, health care, education and crime. Public transport is now moving to the centre of economic development and is becoming the central issue of people's ordinary lives — in some cases it takes 50 minutes to bring children to school and it takes one and a half hours to travel a short distance to work. These problems are mounting. The Minister has the clout within Government and in her party to make things happen but I see little evidence of action either through her Vote, the PCP or through policy.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. This is probably the single biggest issue facing the Government and the country. I do not make that statement lightly but because a deficient transport network is the single biggest constraint on our ability to sustain our economic growth, even at a fraction of current levels. Transport impacts on every sector, particularly in a peripheral island economy. To function efficiently our economy needs to move goods and people. It is a basic prerequisite of a viable economy. If we fail to do that or do so inefficiently, inevitably costs rise and we become uncompetitive and lose jobs.
The announcement in Donegal yesterday is clear evidence of how critical is the competitiveness issue in Ireland. Already we are losing jobs because of transport problems, particularly in the capital city. International investors are rational people who make rational decisions. If they see a congested city which is inefficient they will not come here. If here already, they will not invest further and will not expand their businesses. If costs are seriously escalating they will leave. Unfortunately it is not only international investors who are mobile nowadays and who make those choices, so too are Irish people, many of whom are much less tolerant of State inefficiency and under provision of basic transport services. They will leave the island altogether.
Other members of the Government have referred to this problem and said it may not be such a bad idea if jobs and people were driven out of Dublin and relocated in other parts of Ireland. There is no guarantee whatsoever that such businesses would relocate elsewhere in Ireland. It is much more likely they would take themselves out of this country altogether and reject a Government and a country which thinks so little of its capital city that it allows it to deteriorate into a congested, inefficient, unattractive, polluted city.
Tourists make the same type of rational decisions. They will go to some other trendy place just as quickly as they came here. Regardless of the economic costs of urban congestion and under provision generally countrywide — there have been various efforts to quantify the costs — they come nowhere close to the social costs of congestion and lack of mobility in terms of utter misery, stress, inconvenience, delays and community severance endured by the citizens of Dublin in taking their children to school, getting to work and carrying out normal everyday tasks. Given the extent of the problem, this topic has replaced the weather as the topic of conversation.
Given that the dogs on the street recognise the extent of the problem, one would have thought that transport would be a priority for any Government preparing a budget, particularly in the most benign financial circumstances that ever pertained here. Instead of that, we did not receive anything. The existence of a transport problem was not even acknowledged. One would have thought it would have come somewhere on the Government's list of priorities, somewhere above the problems of the betting industry. Even gamblers have transport needs.
I will not pretend that our transport under-provision occurred today or yesterday. It is the product of years of under-investment in the industry and an unwillingness by successive Governments to tackle structural and institutional arrangements within it. Whatever its genesis and the undoubted difficulties and costs associated with it, we are now faced with a crisis. The Government has no choice but to tackle it. No effort was made in the budget to begin to address the problem in any kind of meaningful way. The only mention of traffic, related to increased VRT on larger cars, as if that would somehow miraculously improve public transport.
The Minister will recall the Dublin Transportation Office recommendations to Government presented to her last summer. The measures outlined were those required merely to maintain the current levels of congestion, not to solve the transport problem. That was not a very ambitious target, yet it has not been met. The critical recommendation in that package of measures and the one which underpinned all others was the ongoing £14 million subvention to CIE. That would enable the company to man and operate the buses and trains which are on order and which are being funded out of Luas moneys. The success of all of the other recommendations depend on that subsidy being available to CIE. Quality bus corridors without buses and buses and trains lying in garages are a waste of money and only serve to deepen public cynicism about the Government's willingness and ability to tackle the traffic problem.
On 14 October the Minister, in reply to a parliamentary question, stated that the additional £14 million annual subvention would be considered by Government as part of the Estimates/budget process. Was it considered? Did the Minister remember to ask about it? Did the Minister for Finance respond? Did he express an opinion on the matter? I have heard him express the rather extraordinary view in this House that the transport problem would not be resolved until the situation became so bad that there was a revolution. That does not sound like someone willing to adopt a leadership position on the issue. Was the case for emergency measures put to the Minister for Finance? Did he receive any support from the Minister for the Environment and Local Government? Did the Minister for the Environment and Local Government or the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform make a case for the additional £5 million required to extend the freeflow operation to a year-round one? The value of this was seen only two weeks ago during the train strike when the Garda successfully regulated traffic. I congratulate them on that. Why were the relevant Ministers unable to ensure that the new buses being ordered were disabled accessible and used a clean fuel rather than one which will almost certainly involve Ireland in costly emissions trading arrangements with other less developed countries? Were these issues ever discussed or considered by Cabinet? Did the Ministers ever get together to ponder solutions to the rapidly deteriorating suburban traffic situation in Dublin or the fact that, even though it is only half built, the motorway around the city is already operating at 96 per cent capacity in places? Have they considered that more than 80 per cent of the traffic on the motorway is not bypassing traffic at all, merely people trying to get to and from work? Not alone are there no orbital bus routes which might help reduce the pressure on the motorway by offering people alternative ways of getting to work but there are none planned as CIE and Dublin Bus do not have the resources to meet that demand. If CIE is to be so under-resourced that its prime consideration must always be its financial constraints rather than consumer demand, why does the Minister not licence existing providers or introduce legislation to allow these services to be provided by the private sector? Is anyone in the Government giving any of these issues any consideration? Is anyone in charge of traffic? Has anyone the interest or the will to take the transport system by the scruff of the neck and make the brave and bold decisions needed to transform it into a modern efficient system geared to meet the transport needs of a country which has changed utterly in the past five years?
We are losing the battle against congestion in this city and others throughout the country. The train service is unsafe, we do not have an adequate Nitelink service, we failed to introduce a late night DART service and the Luas system appears to have disappeared. We have a transport crisis today; we cannot wait five or ten years for long-term infrastructural measures to come on stream although we must continue to plan and invest for the future. The Government must meet the current needs. Given the mess made of the Luas project, buses offer the only short-term solution. They offer a viable solution which could be implemented immediately if the necessary political will existed. Bus travel could be provided through the public or private sector or both. It is essential that buses be made sufficiently attractive and efficient to encourage car users to switch to bus travel. To achieve that and transform the current system into a responsive, safe, high capacity, high frequency, integrated service which takes people where they want to go rather than where buses have traditionally gone, requires major investment. Above all, it requires a Minister and a Government who are willing to take charge of the problem. I urge them to take the first step in that direction by supporting this motion.
I support this motion. A major public transport investment plan is essential to alleviate the problems currently being faced in Dublin and all our major urban centres. We must seek to relieve the negative impact of traffic on the environment. Road traffic has become the greatest source of air pollution and recent reports have revealed a major increase in air pollution levels in our cities. These pollutants have a detrimental effect on our nation's health.
Dublin Corporation has stated that vehicle emissions from nitrogen dioxide, volatile organic compounds, VOCs, and particulate matter, PM 10s, are frequently above recommended guide levels in the city and will continue to be so at heavily trafficked roadside locations. Nitrogen oxides are produced in the combustion process and can become toxic above a certain level. They irritate the lungs, can cause bronchitis, lower our resistance to respiratory infections and can play a major role in atmospheric reactions which produce ozone, a secondary pollutant known to have adverse health implications as well as adverse implications for crops and other vegetation.
VOCs are another group of airborne pollutants which have come to the fore recently. They comprise a wide range of organic substances, including hydro-carbons and halo-carbons. Vehicle emissions are a major source of these VOCs. While most are non-toxic, some are carcinogenic, such as benzene, an ingredient of lead-free petrol. VOCs play a major role in the formation of ground level ozone and can cause eye and respiratory tract infections, headaches, dizziness and visual disorders.
Another airborne pollutant is particulate matter 10, PM10. These particulates which are caused by combustion engines, particularly diesel engines, are known to effect breathing and respiratory functions, aggravate existing disease and damage the lungs.
The rapid rise in traffic volumes in Dublin and other cities has resulted in a corresponding rise in emissions and pollutant levels. A recent report by the office of the director of traffic for Dublin Corporation predicts that air quality will continue to deteriorate and fail to meet EU guidelines. It states that vehicle emissions for nitrogen dioxide VOCs, including benzene, toluene, xylene and PM10, are in breach of recommended guidelines. It also states that it is estimated that a rise of ten micrograms in PM10 levels is accompanied by a mortality risk of about 1 per cent in the exposed population.
A recent report by the Department of Health in the United Kingdom states that short-term air pollution can cause between 12,000 and 24,000 early deaths each year. The number could be higher as experts are unable to determine the effects of some common pollutants or the role played by long-term exposure to pollution. This is the first official attempt to determine the health impact of air pollution in the United Kingdom. A similar exercise should be done here.
PM10 levels account for about 2 per cent of deaths as well as 10,500 hospital admissions in the United Kingdom each year. The committee assumed there is no threshold below which health is not affected. Those most likely to be affected by air pollution are the frail, the weak, those who are ill and young children. Air pollution is unlikely to have short-term effects on healthy individuals but the impact of the long-term build up of PM10 has not been assessed. Emphasis should be placed on reducing emissions by encouraging the use of vehicles designed to use clean fuels.
The Dublin Bus fleet is mainly diesel powered. Diesel engines emit up to 70 times more airborne particulates than petrol burning cars with catalytic converters. They emit twice the amount of nitrogen dioxide than petrol burning cars and five times more than LPG burning cars. They emit twice the amount of hydrocarbons than petrol burning cars and four times more than LPG burning cars. They emit ten times more potentially dangerous particulates than LPG burning cars. While LPG is odourless, diesel and unleaded petrol have strong odours. If the Dublin Bus fleet is to be expanded, emphasis should be placed on the use of environmentally-friendly fuels.
The negative environmental impact of diesel must be addressed. Valuable lessons can be learned from the introduction by Bord Gáis and Dublin Bus of a bus run on natural gas to reduce emission and noise levels. I hope this marks the start of a happy relationship.
We are at the lower end of the scale compared to other cities in Europe when it comes to the abandonment of dirty diesel and its pollutants in favour of cleaner fuels, be it natural gas or LPG. The recent reduction in the budget in the price of LPG was a small but welcome step. The owners of private vehicles and taxis should be encouraged to switch by providing a number of incentives, including the imposition of higher excise and taxation levels on dirtier fuels; the reduction of excise and VAT rates on cleaner fuels, and the reversal of the favourable excise duty levels which apply to diesel used for public transport.
Private motorists and fleet operators can be assisted by providing funding towards the cost of conversion — direct and indirect subsidies are available in other countries where successful clean fuel vehicle conversion programmes have been introduced — and introducing a zero rate of road tax for clean fuel vehicles.
The White Paper on transport produced recently by the British Government paid little attention to the effect transport has on air quality and CO2 emissions. Ireland is committed to major reductions in CO2 emissions to reduce greenhouse gases. Motor cars produce four times their weight in CO2 each year and account for 20 per cent of global CO2 emissions. Nothing is being done to reduce these emissions to their 1990 levels in keeping with the commitment given by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in Kyoto. In conjunction with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, the Minister should seek to reduce noise and air pollution levels through the use of cleaner fuels.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann —
(a) welcomes the Government's speedy decision to provide additional public transport funding in response to the Dublin Transportation Office's Short-Term Action Plan, thereby increasing peak-hour bus capacity by 20 per cent by end-1999 and peak-hour rail capacity by 60 per cent by 2000;
(b) welcomes the tax incentives for public transport announced in the Budget;
(c) welcomes the Government's decision to appoint a High Level Task Force on Railway Safety to report by end-January, 1999 with prioritised recommendations to address the railway safety issues identified in A Review of Railway Safety in Ireland;
(d) notes that the planning of the extended and re-energised Luas project approved by Government is proceeding on target; and
(e) notes that CIE, at the request of the Minister for Public Enterprise, has prepared a series of medium-term investment reviews as an input into the Government's planning for the next round of EU Structural and Cohesion Fund assistance.".
I thank the Fine Gael Party for the attention it has paid to public transport and for affording me the opportunity to address the House again on the issue. This debate is being conducted in a state of relative calm by contrast with the debate on telephone masts earlier this afternoon.
I have no difficulty with the motion. I also want investment in public transport. We considered agreeing with the motion, indeed, I agree with most of its points. However, I would be unable to agree to the scale of increases it calls for.
Our objective is to improve the quantity, quality and safety of public transport. Since taking office we have taken a comprehensive series of decisions towards that end. In May we re-energised and extended the Dublin light rail project, effectively addressing the issues which had bedevilled it up to then. We decommitted the EU aid for the Luas and reallocated the bulk of it to other public transport projects. The result of this initiative was almost an extra £100 million for public transport of which £63 million was for Dublin suburban rail, £26 million for mainline rail and £8.5 million for extra buses in Dublin.
For the first time the Exchequer is providing the balance of the finance for the projects being assessed by the Luas reallocation. CIE would previously have had to find the balance of £40 million from its own resources. We obtained EU agreement for the first time to provide Structural Funds assistance for investment in buses. No such agreement was given for the two previous plans.
The 1999 Estimates for the fist time provide for direct State investment in the development of our bus and rail services and the Exchequer is, also for the first time, financing the purchasing of 100 extra buses by Dublin Bus and 50 buses from the decommitted Luas funding. Deputy Yates referred to this as microwaving £150 million for buses. However, when I inquired if any previous Government had given money to public transport to buy buses I was told that CIE had to provide them.
I commissioned the first ever independent review of railway safety and I thank the support of the Opposition parties in that regard. It is an awesome worry. When I listen to the 6.30 news in the morning I do not know whether I will hear about a derailment. That is what prompted me after Knockcroghery to have a study done that would lay out the state of the railways. I wanted a case to bring to the Cabinet and the Dáil which showed exactly what was required. I wonder why no previous Government did this.
The Government acted immediately on the recommendations of the short-term action plan proposed by the DTO. Deputy Olivia Mitchell attended the launch of the plan at the Conrad Hotel and I assure her that, with one exception, all parts of the plan were given the green light within two months.
The exception is the subvention.
I will address that aspect. I am unaware that the recommendations of any other study were acted upon so quickly.
A series of far-sighted tax measure were announced in the budget, which have been favourably commented on in the newspapers. These are designed to encourage greater provision and use of public transport.
The SIMI is ecstatic.
We must all face the SIMI. Looking to the future I asked CIE to prepare a series of investment reviews across all its areas of activity. These reviews have identified substantial medium term investment requirements and have provided the basis for my Department's submission on the forthcoming national development plan.
I have adopted an innovative approach to the financing of public transport investment. As well as establishing the precedent of direct Exchequer financing of capital investment, I have appointed consultants to advise on a public/private partnership approach to Luas. At my request CIE has submitted a report, which I have just received from the chairman, on the disposal of its surplus property to generate funds for investment.
Has it much?
Not much.
I have not studied the report in detail yet. The Deputy could ask Deputy Yates; he knows everything that happens in CIE. This is a substantial record of achievement during the short period we have been in office.
Turning to the issues raised in the motion, I assure the House of the Government's determination to tackle Dublin's traffic problem. I referred to the DTO and to the money to be provided by the DTO. The bulk of the public transport recommendations of the DTO action plan have already been given the green light and EU funding has been provided through the allocation of the decommitted Luas.
The measures in the short-term action plan to increase passenger capacity on the rail network include 16 additional DART carriages on top of ten already on order by CIE; 20 extra suburban rail cars in addition to 27 new carriages already on order; extended DART and suburban station platforms to cater for longer trains; the doubling of the rail line between Clonsilla and Maynooth to cater for improved——
Will the Minister extend the line to Kilcock
Kilcock has reopened. I will consider the Deputy's request. The new DART carriages will increase the fleet from 80 to 106. Since the DART was introduced there have been two Governments headed by the Fine Gael Party and two Government headed by my party, yet nobody asked if more hardware was required. The additional carriages will help to ease congestion and serve the extended lines to Malahide and Greystones. These are expected to open next year. The new station at Barrow Street is scheduled to open in 2000.
The rail package involves a total investment of EU and Exchequer funding of £63 million and implementation of all of the rail measures will increase morning peak hour capacity by 11,000. This is approximately a 60 per cent increase in total rail trips, or a 17 per cent increase in total public transport trips in the morning peak. The bus services will continue to be the backbone of Dublin's public transport network, even after the improvement of the DART and suburban rail services and the introduction of light rail. In the immediate future it is the bus service which has the potential to increase public transport capacity.
The DTO action plan recommended the acquisition by Bus Átha Cliath of a further 150 buses to expand peak hour services. The total cost of the 150 buses will be met from a combination of Exchequer and EU funds. I understand from Bus Átha Cliath that the buses will be introduced on a phased basis in 1999 beginning next April when eight will be introduced. Twenty will be introduced in May, 20 in June, 10 in July, 20 in August, 15 in September, 20 in October, 20 in October and 17 in December. The increased bus fleet will add a total of 9,450 extra bus trips in the peak rush hour, an increase of more than 20 per cent. It will also ensure the effective utilisation of the network of 12 quality bus corridors, which are currently being developed. Quality bus corridors are being provided to further enhance the priority, speed, reliability and overall quality of service that buses can provide on key routes in the greater Dublin area. The corridors will be in place by the end of 2000. Two corridors are already in place. The Lord Mayor opened the Malahide Road quality bus corridor last Friday and a quality bus corridor is in place on the road from Lucan to the city. Two more are under construction and a further six should be provided by the end of 1999.
My Cabinet colleagues frequently say there are bus lanes but no buses on them and want to know why. Quality bus corridors took much longer to put in place than was envisaged when the idea was first mooted. That was because people had legitimate concerns, which they made known, and because of that the planning process took much longer than expected. The necessary additional funding for work on quality bus corridors was also provided as part of the Luas reallocation. The Malahide Road quality bus corridor, which was opened last week, has already resulted in significant reductions in bus journey times and a 20 per cent growth in bus use. Overall, between now and 2000, Government and EU funds will provide an £89 million boost to public transport in Dublin. That is apart from funding provided from CIE resources. For example, Dublin Bus will fund the replacement of 120 buses from its resources over the next two years.
We had a recent debate on rail safety and I made copies of the report on that subject available to each Deputy. It covered all aspects of railway safety, including infrastructure, rolling stock, safety procedures and safety culture. The main findings of the report called for an urgent and major investment to improve the safety of much of the track, signalling and other infrastructure. The report also called for the implementation of a systematic approach to the management of safety.
The consultants estimated that a 15 year safety investment programme, costing approximately £590 million is required, of which £23 million must be spent immediately. This overall sum includes approximately £230 million for a programme of improvements to rectify safety deficiencies in the infrastructure, £60 million to improve safety management systems and £20 million per annum, over the 15 year period, for ongoing renewal of the track of the permanent way.
A high level task force was established. It comprises senior officials from my Department and the Department of Finance together with representatives of CIE and Iarnród Éireann. Its function is to make prioritised recommendations to address the safety issues. Some of the major recommendations made by the consultants concerned issues related to safety procedures and safety culture generally. The task force is due to report by the end of next month. It has met twice and is making good progress on its assignment. The end of January reporting date is consistent with the consultants' recommendation that implementation plans should be agreed within three months of the publication of the report. The consultants produced a very fine hard hitting report. They identified, in plain language, the many issues which need to be dealt with quickly and thoroughly. The best contribution we can make to improving safety for passengers, staff and the public is to ensure that the recommendations of the report are fully implemented.
The light rail project remains one of the key elements of the overall transport strategy for Dublin. It is being planned in line with the indicative timetable——
Indicative?
Yes.
I thought the timetable was firm, not indicative.
On a point of information, it was published in the Dáil as indicative.
The Minister knows what happens with indicative timetables.
The Deputy will remember when he was Minister he did not implement a Government decision that was passed to him in April 1996.
What decision was that?
I read that in a newspaper. It was reported at a committee last week that the Deputy did not implement a Government decision.
Because of that the Deputy is responsible for all the traffic problems.
That decision related not to the traffic issue, but another issue.
The light rail project is being planned in line with the indicative timetable I outlined earlier this year. The public inquiry for the TallaghtAbbey Street line has just been completed. Mr. Justice O'Leary is completing his report and I am sure he will send it to me shortly. The Department selected the consultants, Arthur Andersen, to advise on a public-private partnership approach to the light rail project. The consultants will advise on the most effective way of structuring any public-private partnership to maximise value for money and the most appropriate form of partnership for the project. Options range from design, build and transfer to design, build, finance and operate.
I established a small light rail advisory action group. I have not commented publicly on any of the appointments made by the Opposition, when it was in office. It is snide for an Opposition Member to talk about——
I said the Minister was the person they should be watching.
The Deputy's party when in office appointed private assistants, PR consultants and programme managers and did not say a word about them. They were all earning their living. This is a voluntary group and it was mean of the Deputy to make such a comment, but I will not hold it against him. That advisory action group will meet for the first time tomorrow. That group, chaired by Padraic White, is working on a voluntary basis and will oversee the planning and implementation of the expanded Luas system and report to me. The Opposition appeared to find it odd that it should report to me. Its report will be published and the Opposition can dissect it, absorb and regurgitate it, reheat it and put it in a microwave.
We will.
Regarding future public transport investment requirements, I asked CIE to prepare a comprehensive series of reviews of its medium term investment needs for bus and rail. That was necessary so that the needs for investment in public transport could be properly identified and addressed in our preparations for Ireland's application for EU funding for the post-1999 period. These reviews were submitted to my Department at various times throughout the year and in the aggregate amount to more than £1 billion for the period 2000-2006. They covered mainline rail, Dublin suburban rail, Bus Éireann, the cities of Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford and rail freight. They did not include investment figures for Luas or Dublin Bus. Last June my Department made an initial submission to the Department of Finance, which has the lead role in the preparation of Ireland's application for EU Structural and Cohesion Fund assistance. That submission took full account of the reviews submitted by the CIE Group.
The Department of Finance commissioned the ESRI to review the various missions received. It will also consult the regional authorities and the social partners.
That will kill it stone dead.
Consulting with the social partners?
The fact that the Department of Finance has commissioned it own report. That is the beginning of the end.
This is in respect of everything.
I know. That is how the Department does it.
I do not know about that. This process will be followed by negotiations with Government Departments will a view to finalising a submission to Government. We will consider that in the spring.
In the spring?
It will lead to the completion of a National Development Plan, which will then form the basis of negotiations with the EU Commission funding in the post 1999 period. That is where the fun will be. It is too early to speculate about the type of transport projects that will be included. However, the House can be assured that I will make the strongest possible case for investment in public transport. I welcome the support of Members in this regard. I do not say that in a jocular way, I sincerely mean that. Debates are worthwhile. It has taken a while for Governments and Oppositions to realise that people want a proper public transport system and, if they had access to one, they would be willing to leave their cars at home and travel to work by bus or another form of public transport. They will not travel by public transport if a proper system is not available.
I echo what Deputy Mitchell said about the Garda involvement on the day of the unofficial rail strike. The chaos people dreaded did not materialise. There are a variety of reasons for that, which are worthy of study in their own right. Some people got up early to go to work, others got up late and others did not go to work. I conducted a mini-survey on how the staff in my Department, who all turned up for work, got to work that day. Some shared transport, some walked to work and others cycled. There was a combination of decisions which enabled people to cope that day. I will say again that I regret what happened on that occasion.
The action of the Garda when Operation Freeflow commenced had an amazing effect on the traffic. We made the case for a continuation of Operation Freeflow throughout the year but there has been no final decision on that yet. It would be worthwhile also to examine the idea of a traffic corps.
It is too early to speculate about the types of transport projects which will be included. The House, however, can be assured that I will be making the strongest possible case for investment in public transport. It is clear from what I have said that we face substantial investment requirements in the years immediately ahead. Even in the current favourable economic climate, the resources of the Exchequer are not unlimited. The levels of EU assistance will decline up to 2006. We therefore have to look at all possible funding options. I have already mentioned public-private partnerships. CIE will also have to do everything it can to maximise the internal financial resources it can provide to fund investment. Releasing cash from its property portfolio is part of that process. The restructuring programmes being negotiated in the individual subsidiary companies also have an important role in reducing costs and releasing funds for investment.
I welcome the recent restructuring agreement reached by unions and management in Dublin Bus. In recognition of that agreement, I have directed the Department to conclude its negotiations without delay on a public service contract for Dublin Bus. I will also shortly announce a positive response to the company's application for a fares increase. This has been put to me by all sections of CIE. In the summer the board asked me if I would consider a fares increase, bearing in mind that there had not been a general increase since 1991. When the increase is granted in January the right wing economic commentators will ask why.
The public will not be ecstatic.
When I came into office I found that ESB had agreed three price increases in advance with the previous Government for 1996-8. Thanks to the efforts of its workers, it has made substantial profits and I did not proceed with the 1998 increase because I did not think it was needed. There had been increases in the two previous years. CIE has not increased fares since 1991. There has been a cumulative inflation rate of over 16 per cent. It has faithfully followed up on its partnership arrangement on wage increases. At the same time we wonder why it did not invest in infrastructure.
The board asked for an increase when I met it in June. I refused and said I would like to see it linked to proper restructuring in each of the companies and agreement of the public service contract. The talks have since concluded successfully and I am giving a positive response to the fares increase on the basis that it is eight years since the last increase. How long can a company go without an increase? The unions also asked if I would consider an increase when I met them and I told them I would if it would help restructuring. That has happened.
The Government has shown genuine commitment to improving the quality of our public transport system. Much has been achieved and I am determined to ensure that this commitment continues unabated. We have to make up a lot of ground. I recognise the Opposition speakers have made the point that there has been underinvestment over the years. I call that "pass the parcel time"— it happened to me with TEAM, which started in 1990 and ended up in my hands. It is pass the parcel time with CIE because, over a series of years and Governments, everyone wanted cars, high speed roads and by-passes. Then they found the human toll on the roads is enormous while the railways are safe and environmentally friendly. If we can get public transport into shape, conclude the talks, secure the necessary funding for safety and enhancement, establish public-private partnership for Luas and continue to encourage the EU to fund buses, that would make up a package which is formidable and would allow us to move forward with investment.
I give a pledge to the House that I intend to ensure that, when my time in the Department ends, public transport will be in much better shape than it was when I started. That is not to denigrate any Minister who served before me. The time for public transport has come about. The realisation has dawned that people are better off in public transport on roads which are crowded.
I thank Deputy Clune for her contribution on environmentally friendly fuel. She quoted the model bus developed by Bord Gáis and Dublin Bus which runs on LPG. That and other measures are needed if we are to make any dent in pollution levels. Buses and quality bus corridors are the way of the future. If we are to have extra buses, we must reduce their emissions. Under the Kyoto objectives, the Minister, Deputy Dempsey, will have to put a clear focus on that.
I thank the House for the opportunity to debate this issue. On the question of people with disabilities, Dublin Bus has agreed, subject to board approval, to begin a pilot test programme in March for accessible double-decker buses. Buses from three different suppliers will be pilottested over a six month period. Depending on the result, Dublin Bus should be in a position to begin ordering accessible double-decker buses from 2000. It will be a breakthrough, and I am setting out a compendium on railway stations in Ireland that are accessible for disabled people and which will include telephone numbers and names of people to contact in each station. This compendium will be very useful to disabled people. I agree with the Deputy that we are not a proper nation if we do not allow public transport access to disabled people.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Upton.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion which seeks to assert the primacy of public transport and the pivotal role it has to play in future policy.
Transport and traffic have become major issues of public and political concern over recent years. The increased prosperity of certain sections of Irish society, the sharp rise in car sales, and the neglect of our public transport system have all combined to make traffic congestion a major social, economic and health problem that must be tackled by the Oireachtas.
Before I turn to the specific details of the debate I wish to comment upon the context in which this debate is occurring. Public transport in this State has been starved of investment and resources for decades. The recent rail safety report is a shocking example of this record of neglect. In order to ensure a basic standard of safety on our rail system nearly £600 million will have to be invested over the coming years. However, our rail system is not unique in this regard and the whole of our public transport infrastructure has suffered.
Neither the money nor the political will to invest in our public transport system has been evident until the very recent past. In fact, over recent years the main debate about transport has revolved around the question of how we can dismantle our public transport services and replace them with private operators and, of course, the private motor car.
This prejudice against public transport has its roots in the conservative philosophy of the new right, popularised by both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. This narrow, soulless view of society dictated that everything private was good and everything public was bad. Public transport companies were perceived as being no different to a private sector company. They should operate solely on a profit and loss basis. If losses were incurred then the company had failed and should be broken up and replaced. It is worthwhile to note that the main proponents of this view probably never used public transport and conceived their ideas from their own privatised ivory towers.
We on the left of Irish and European politics have always fought against this view. We have defended the role of public transport. Public transport plays a crucial role in the economic and social life of Ireland. Any attacks on public transport have serious consequences for society as a whole. The failure to invest in public transport has similar repercussions, and this is all too evident to any commuter in our cities today.
Over recent years billions of pounds have been invested in the road system to accommodate private transport while public transport systems have been virtually ignored. The direct result of this policy is the near gridlock we are experiencing in Dublin city — it is not much better in Cork, Galway or Limerick — and the severe traffic congestion that is clogging various urban centres throughout the country.
The total cost of this traffic mayhem is hard to value. However, some estimates have suggested that the economy in Dublin is losing £1.5 billion per year as a result. This compares with a subsidy of only £5 million per year to Dublin Bus. The imbalance is clear, and the citizens of this country are paying the cost. The message is that private transport has been a costly failure.
The motion before the House this evening seeks to address this imbalance. It calls for Government investment in our public transport system and as such it has the full backing of the Labour Party. I acknowledge that the present Minister has done more in this direction than any of her predecessors.
The motion addresses three specific elements of our public transport system namely, buses, the rail network and the proposed Luas project. The call for a 40 per cent increase in the capacity of Dublin Bus is a welcome move. At the moment there is a "chicken and egg" situation regarding bus services in Dublin city. Many people who travel by car at present wish to transfer to public transport, especially those who are paying high on-street parking charges in the city centre. This will no doubt increase in the future as the planned quality bus corridors across the city increase. However, at present, especially in the morning and evening peak hours, Dublin buses are full to capacity and cannot cope with extra demand. There is a serious overcrowding problem on buses at present and most buses are full after the first or second stop on the route. Many people who are currently driving into work in the morning peak hours cannot transfer to the bus service at present. There simply is no room.
It is vital that this problem is addressed as soon as possible. One of the most overdue and important developments in public transport in Dublin has been the decision to construct quality bus corridors. At long last we have realised that road space is one of the most important commodities in modern cities and at last public transport will have its own dedicated road space.
As these corridors come on stream, we must have the bus capacity to deal with the extra commuters that will no doubt begin to transfer from private cars to buses. The Minister gave us an example of this on one of the newly opened corridors. If this capacity is not available, the whole project could descend into farce. I welcome the fact that an additional 50 buses are on order and that a further 100 buses will come on stream in 1999. I worry that these buses might in fact be simply replacing some of the clapped-out fleet we have.
The motion also calls for the construction of the first three Luas routes. My views on the Government decision of April this year are well known. I repeat my opinion that not one shovelful of the Harney-O'Rourke tunnel will be excavated before this Government leaves office, and that another administration will be left to pick up the pieces because of this Government's indecision on the matter.
The Deputy should have finished it while he was in power.
We might be back together.
Do not barrack me. Given this, it is imperative that the Government proceed with the construction of the other Luas lines. Luas is a long-term investment for the capital city. I am particularly concerned at the Government's failure to progress the airport-city route. This line was the quid pro quo that the citizens of Dublin paid for the delay caused by the Government's decision to bury its head in a tunnel through the city centre. Has any progress been achieved to date on this important much promised infrastructural link?
The motion before the House this evening calls for substantial investment in three vital areas of Dublin's infrastructure. However, as anyone who has followed the transport debate as it has evolved over recent years is aware, there are no simple solutions to traffic mayhem, and all the various elements of our future policy must not only work in themselves but must also work in unison with each other. Integration and co-ordination are hugely important in the planning and implementation of any transport policy for a modern city. In that regard, many other measures that are not specifically detailed in the motion before this House need to be addressed.
Lest the Minister thinks I am entirely negative, let me put forward some ideas as to what might be done. As the Minister is aware, it is the policy of the Labour Party to put in place an efficient cost-effective public transport system that will replace the private motor car as the transport mode for large numbers of people in cities and on inter-city routes. It will not be required that the transport companies return a profit. Noneconomic, socially desirable services will also be provided. To give effect to that Labour Party policy on public transport, a range of decisions would need to be taken. All the planned quality bus corridors throughout the city should be made operative within one year. These should be available to all public transport, including taxis and hackneys. Exchequer and European funding should be provided to purchase the additional buses required for city routes — they may also be funded from CIE's own resources and may be leased from the private sector. Secure park and ride facilities should be provided on the outer city ring by the transport companies to meet the restrictions on private cars in the inner city. Effective bus routes should be introduced accordingly. Secure park-and-ride facilities should also be provided at suburban rail stations. Cycle lanes should be developed in tandem with the quality bus corridors and in areas where quality bus corridors are not planned. I saw a novel situation in the city of Aarhus in Denmark where, side by side with cycle lanes, they had roller-skate lanes which many adults were using to skate to work.
Traffic lights should be programmed to give preference to public transport vehicles. On street light rail should be fast tracked, with all routes being developed simultaneously. The proposal for underground light rail should be abandoned, saving £1 billion which should be used for the construction of the promised on-street system. Suburban heavy rail should be developed to allow for an efficient suburban service, with all old stations and some new stations on the route opening to meet demand. This would include a connection with Dublin Airport. Locomotives and rolling stock should be provided by State investment and through European funds.
The limit on the number of hackney cabs and taxis in Dublin city should be removed. Applicants for licences — which should have a nominal fee covering the cost of processing them — who have a vehicle of the required standard, a good knowledge of the city and the required PSV driving licence should be approved. There should be fixed fares in various parts of the city — for example, from Dublin city to Dublin Airport — so that tourists and travellers are not ripped off by unscrupulous operators.
Integrated ticketing should be introduced for all forms of public transport, excluding taxis and hackneys but including light and heavy rail trains and express, main route, provincial and local buses. Fares on public transport should be pitched at a level to make the move from private car to bus or train attractive. Zero fares should be used on a pilot basis on new routes and on routes with more pressure from the private transport sector.
Private car access to the cities should be restricted in a number of ways. For example, from Monday to Friday, inclusive, odd and even number registered cars should be excluded on alternative days; park and ride facilities should be provided free of charge——
Does the Deputy mean they should be precluded from coming into the city?
Yes. Tolls should be charged for cars coming into the city with less than two passengers. Inner cities should be generally off limits to private cars, with special licences issued to exceptional cases and residents — of course, public transport would be available in the inner cities. Free parking in the inner city should be regarded as a benefit in kind and should be taxable.
What about Members of Dáil Éireann?
We should give a lead in that regard.
I said that in the Seanad a few weeks ago and——
The Minister must allow Deputy Stagg to continue without interruption.
I happen to agree with him.
The Minister must let him know that somewhere other than in the Chamber.
Tax breaks for inner city car parks should be discontinued.
I hope the authorities will take on board some of those ideas when examining the implementation of plans to deal with this crisis in the city. The ideas have merit and have been tried and tested successfully elsewhere — we are not reinventing the wheel.
This motion should be accepted by the House. Investment in public transport is essential if we are to make Dublin a living city, designed for the people who live there and the numerous visitors who flock to it each year.
Years of neglect and ideological opposition to the very concept of public transport has resulted in the mayhem which thousands of commuters face in our city streets every day of the week. At long last, the philosophy behind that policy has been discredited and accepted as nonsense by any right thinking person — I do not mean right-wing persons.
It is now an economic and social imperative that we invest in public transport. This investment must take account of the crisis we are currently facing and the challenges we will face in the future. This motion is part of that process and I commend it to the House.
Dr. Upton
I thank Deputy Stagg for sharing his time with me. It is a statement of the stunningly obvious to say that transport and traffic have become a very big problem. To a large extent, this problem has arisen from a failure to plan and understand that matters move on and develop in a way which has consequences and knock-on effects.
We seem to work, to a large extent, on the assumption that matters must get much worse before we are prepared to take action, or allow action to be taken, to make them better. One did not need to be a mastermind to predict that, given that the road infrastructure in Dublin city was more or less fixed and did not have great potential to be increased within the canal area and that it was likely the number of cars would increase as economic development occurred, we would have the gridlock we have today, and inadequate public transport.
I remind the Minister about the 77 bus route, which is one of my favourite routes and I am sure it will become her favourite route. Perhaps she might go for one of those bus rides she takes from time to time——
I will not bring a photographer.
Dr. Upton
——to see what life is like for people on that route. She could join the large number of people standing at bus stops on the Crumlin Road and observe the number 77 bus going past full. It would be good for everyone if she were to do that.
It is sometimes very difficult to get agreement on what should be done, and to get the public to agree to allow what has been decided to go ahead. There is a need for public consultation at every stage of development of the transport network. There is a great need to communicate to the public that there is such a concept as the common good and that it is in everyone's interest, including their own, to allow a quality bus corridor to go down their road.
People's concerns must be taken into account but the transport agencies should put much more effort into communicating to the wider public the general benefit which will come from such developments. There is a certain element of the NIMBY syndrome, whereby people want these bus corridors but on someone else's road.
The clamping policy is a correct one. The parking practices and road manners of some people are truly awful. It is the careless, well meaning awfulness of the type of person who parks on a double yellow line and pops into the local grocer to get their morning newspaper or a packet of sweets or cigarettes. They meet a few people in the grocer's, have a chat, then casually stroll out and are quite dismayed if they find a garda is about to put a ticket on their car.
Some people think if they put on their hazard lights they can park wherever they like.
Dr. Upton
Hazard lights are a truly terrifying invention — they are a sort of enabling gadget which allows people to block a whole lane of traffic. That must cost thousands of pounds, if one works on the assumption that gridlock costs the public in the region of £1 billion or £1.5 billion. I do not think the people who do that understand what it costs — it is a great pity that no attempt is made to communicate to them the sort of havoc and difficulties they create for large numbers of people. Despite the fact there has been a clamp down in the city, there is still a long way to go.
There is need for a much higher level of expenditure on developing the infrastructure and reducing fares of Dublin Bus. The amount by which Dublin Bus is subsidised is the lowest subsidy of any European capital cities and is the second lowest of 30 European cities on which the Dublin Chamber of Commerce collected information. Buses in Rome are subsidised by about 75 per cent and those in cities such as Brussels and Copenhagen, which are fairly similar to Dublin, are subsided by about 50 per cent. We need to have that level of subsidy to encourage the public to use the service and to bring it up to an acceptable standard.
Public transport has been the poor relation of transport, and Dublin Bus seems to be the poor relation of public transport, which is a huge pity. Given some of the recent developments, it is scandalous that the 150 new buses are not wheelchair accessible, which is a very unfortunate development.
It is important to experiment and try to get the public interested in using public transport. To that end, Deputy Stagg's suggestion of zero fares is a good idea. It might apply for just a short time, perhaps during the weeks before Christmas or during the summer. We should at least experiment——
Wait until we get the buses.
Dr. Upton
We must encourage people to become familiar with the system and to appreciate its value.
I ask the Deputy to move the adjournment of the debate. He has ten minutes remaining.
Debate adjourned.