Vol. 629 No. 1
29 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport the role in the management of traffic he envisages for the proposed Dublin transport authority, particularly in the locations most affected by the development of projects under Transport 21; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41998/06]
The report of the Dublin transport authority establishment team made a number of recommendations in respect of traffic management. The team concluded that there needed to be an integrated policy approach to traffic management across the greater Dublin area, based on international best practice. It recommended that the Dublin transport authority be obliged to prepare a strategic traffic management plan for the greater Dublin area. The Dublin transport authority should also be responsible for co-ordinating the traffic management arrangements during the construction phase of Transport 21.
While traffic management functions should continue to be discharged by local authorities, in exercising their functions they should be obliged to comply with the strategic traffic management plan of the authority. However, the report also recommended that the Dublin transport authority should be given power to decide to perform certain traffic management functions itself or through a third party where it considered this to be more effective. It further proposed that the authority should be empowered to issue policy guidelines and mandatory directions to local authorities in respect of their traffic management functions.
I share the views of the establishment team on the need for an integrated approach to traffic management in the greater Dublin area. I am also of the view that the range of powers for a Dublin transport authority in respect of traffic management proposed by the team would deliver such an integrated approach. These powers would also enable the authority to ensure the effective management of any disruption to traffic caused by construction works during the delivery of key infrastructure projects under Transport 21. The drafting of legislation to give effect to these recommendations is at an advanced stage in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.
I agree with the Minister that the Dublin transport authority should have a key role in traffic management. However, we do not have a Dublin transport authority and we have traffic chaos. I tabled this question in the context of the gridlock we experienced two weeks ago on the N11. That sort of problem will arise on an increasingly regular basis because of the growth in traffic and because many of the public transport measures will not give benefit for many years. The key to survival in coming years is traffic management. We need to invest in it in a major way and give it considerably more prominence and consideration than we have done in the past.
The M50 will be under construction for the next five years regardless of how efficiently it is done. It will get worse. Already 5,000 to 6,000 cars have been displaced away from it on a daily basis and are now using local roads, which adds further to congestion. The big dig for the metro and Luas lines is about to commence. All these projects will happen in the context of a city that needs to keep functioning. The only way for this to happen is through immediate short-term measures. While it would be great to have a strategic plan, what short-term measures does the Minister have in mind? Will he give consideration to the suggestion I made here of having a special traffic management officer corps within the Garda reserve? I ask him to discuss the matter with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Despite the large numbers we are told are in the traffic corps, in reality at any given time only a small finite number is on duty in Dublin and even that number is a drain on Garda resources. It is not a fraction of the number required to keep Dublin going. For example no additional gardaí were available for deployment on the M50 when the work started, which cannot be allowed to continue. As the Minister probably realises, there were 100 accidents in the first month, every one of which resulted in a traffic jam. It will get worse and needs to be addressed. While I realise it is not entirely an issue within the transport portfolio, it is an issue that needs to be considered.
The Deputy raises an issue that is very much part of a modern developing economy. I agree the way Ireland has developed has resulted in this becoming a very significant issue. The NRA has managed its contracts — for example the Naas dual carriageway — with very strict penalties. It compelled the contractors to keep two lanes open in both directions, which worked very well. The issue on the N11 was one of those unexpected sudden issues that occurred. We would all agree that it could have been handled better. I am struck by what the team has done in traffic management. The Deputy has referred to the two key issues. The development of a specific on-street traffic corps on the beat as opposed to in vehicle is a significant traffic management feature in major cities similar to Dublin. This week I saw figures showing that we have almost 2.2 million vehicles on our roads. The growth is continuing apace. We need very significant control centres capable of monitoring and controlling the entire area, to reflect traffic flows, to change traffic signals, to assist public transport and a range of other issues. This is a further reason for having the Dublin transport authority, which can introduce the required technology.
There is no simple solution. In some respects Operation Freeflow has worked well in some areas and in other areas it has not delivered the sorts of results we would like. The disjointed way in which traffic management has been handled in the capital city is not satisfactory. Ceding authority to the DTA will give a tremendous impetus in that it will have an overview. Working in conjunction with the local authorities to implement some of the different policy areas will clearly bring benefit. It is not a question of resolving this. From what I have seen as best practice in a very short space of time, it is a complex issue requiring interaction between physical presence of gardaí or others at many of the junctions, the technology that is involved and having a strategic plan in place.
30 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Transport the strategy for the management of heavy traffic volumes on the M50 and particularly on the West-Link toll bridge after the opening of the Dublin Port tunnel. [41994/06]
The planning, design and implementation of national roads improvement projects, including the Dublin Port tunnel and the M50, is a matter for the National Roads Authority and the local authorities concerned.
Traffic management in general is a matter for the appropriate local authority notwithstanding what I have said about what will happen in future. In the case of the Dublin Port tunnel, that authority is Dublin City Council. The relevant local authorities have entered into an arrangement with Dublin City Council for the co-ordination of the management of the junctions and the associated traffic signals along the M50. Dublin City Council is the lead authority on behalf of the other authorities.
I remind the House of the benefits of the Dublin Port tunnel, the largest civil engineering project ever undertaken in Ireland and one of which we should be proud. It will provide access to and from Dublin Port for almost 2 million truck journeys each year to the motorway network, instead of passing through city centre streets and residential areas. This will have obvious benefits for the business and haulage sectors with the dramatic reduction in journey times from the M50 to and from Dublin Port — it will soon be a journey of six minutes. It will also provide much needed improvement to the environment of the city centre and will facilitate the introduction of traffic calming measures in residential areas. The improvement of public transport will also be facilitated through the introduction of additional quality bus corridors along the quays, which will come into being when the port tunnel opens.
In respect of the traffic impact of the tunnel on the M50, I understand from the NRA that of the 6,300 heavy goods vehicles of three or more axles that will use the Dublin Port tunnel each day, it is expected that approximately 1,500 HGVs of five axles or more will be obliged to use the West Link section of the M50 when the HGV management strategy is introduced by Dublin City Council. Most of these, however, will use the section at off-peak times because ferries come into Dublin Port early in the morning, which is good news. To deal with the increased traffic, additional lanes have been added to the motorway north of the tunnel. This will aid truck movements towards or away from the M50. The manoeuvring required will be no different to that required at any of the existing M50 interchanges.
In the longer term, the current phase 1 of the M50 upgrade works will be completed in mid-2008 and barrier-free tolling at the West Link will be in place by the third quarter of 2008. These measures will greatly improve traffic flow on the M50 in a period of less than two years. Further benefits will ensue, with an improved level of service to motorists when the full upgrade of the M50 is completed in 2010.
The NRA, local authorities and the Garda are co-operating very closely to ensure everything possible is done to mitigate the impact of the upgrade work on traffic flows on the M50. The authorities and the Garda are in regular contact and the situation is kept under constant review. With regard to the current upgrade works, both South Dublin County Council and the contractor have dedicated personnel working full-time on traffic management. This was the situation at Naas, where it worked extremely well.
I am satisfied that no effort is being spared by those responsible for traffic management and law enforcement to alleviate the problems on the M50 in so far as that is possible. The inclusion of the M50 in the Operation Freeflow launched on Monday, 27 November 2006 will also assist with management of the traffic.
We must have silence in the Gallery. When the Business of the House is being discussed there must be silence.
Specifically in respect of the Dublin Port tunnel, my Department has been keeping in touch with all stakeholders, including Dublin City Council and the NRA, to ensure a co-ordinated strategy, which takes account of the management of HGVs in Dublin city and the traffic impact on the M50, is developed for the opening of the tunnel. The development and implementation of the HGV management strategy is a matter for Dublin City Council. I understand this will be introduced on 19 February 2007. This will allow for a bedding in period of a number of weeks, which is normal.
My Department's formal role is to put in place the necessary regulations relating to traffic and road signage to support the HGV management strategy. The drafting of these regulations is closely co-ordinated with Dublin City Council and I expect to sign them shortly.
The Minister's reply appears to indicate that he does not have a strategy to deal with the hugely increased traffic volumes that are going to arise on the M50, specifically on the West Link section, when the port tunnel opens. It is all very well for Deputy Cullen to state the city council is responsible for this and that the NRA is responsible for that. He is the Minister for Transport and he is charged with responsibility for ensuring a strategy is put in place to deal with traffic in the greater Dublin area.
The situation on the M50, particularly the West Link section, is intolerable. From the middle of February, a huge number of additional vehicles will be disgorged from the port tunnel onto the M50. It seems there is no strategy in place to deal with this eventuality. We will move from a situation that is intolerable to one that could prove potentially impossible by next February. The Minister has not outlined any action he proposes to take to deal with that matter.
The Minister recently announced the Government's intention to buy out NTR. Whatever about the pros and cons of doing so, will the Minister consider including in the negotiations with NTR the possibility of the Government obtaining control of the West Link toll bridge, not years from now but from an early date? If this is done, the Minister and his agents will be in a position to manage the situation that will arise at the West Link when the additional trucks to which I refer spill out of the port tunnel and onto the M50. If the Minister was given power in this regard, he could decide to lift the barriers at certain times when the situation becomes completely intolerable or he could, for example, vary the toll to ensure better usage of the West Link and the M50. Assuming responsibility for the West Link would give the Minister scope to manage a difficult traffic situation. In addition to the extra traffic volumes that will arise, we must remember that the M50 will be a construction site for the next four to five years.
The Minister and his Department have known for the past ten years that the port tunnel would eventually be completed and that it would disgorge the heavy trucks to which I refer. I contest the figure of 1,500 the Minister provided in respect of the latter. In reply to a parliamentary question I tabled recently, the Minister referred to 2,200 trucks of five axles or more. We must also remember that other, lighter trucks will also be using the port tunnel to get to the M50. The Minister has been aware of this for the past ten years and he should have made preparations in respect of it. The upgrading works should have been completed in advance and barrier-free tolling should be in place. Regrettably, this has not been done. In light of that, will the Minister consider seeking to gain early control over what is happening at the West Link in order that some kind of sanity might be brought to bear in respect of the situation that is likely to arise from next February when the port tunnel opens?
The Deputy raised a number of points. It is amazing that I am continually obliged to come before the House to listen to discussion of this project, which involves putting in place the largest, single item of infrastructure in Europe at a cost of €750 million, by experts who know nothing about it and who have not seen it function. I reject the notion the port tunnel will somehow not make a substantial contribution in respect of traffic management in Dublin. There is no doubt that it will do so.
It will make a negative contribution to the position at the West Link.
One of the major impacts of the Dublin Port tunnel, to which the Deputies opposite refuse to refer, is the immediate benefit it will have for Dublin's streets and for its people and those who visit the city and do business here on a daily basis.
I asked about the West Link, not the port tunnel. The Minister should answer the question I asked.
I outlined earlier the number of vehicles to which the HGV strategy will refer and which will use the port tunnel. I also outlined the fact that most of the additional vehicles that are expected to appear on the M50 will use the road at off-peak times. This will help to balance the flow.
One would prefer if the M50 had been completed before the opening of the port tunnel.
Why was that not done?
When the Deputy's party was in power it had no interest in public transport——
No preparations were made for it. The Government has had nine years to do so. It knew the port tunnel would be completed and did nothing.
——road development, health, education or any other matter of which one cares to think. I can only go by the Deputy's party's record and her particular interest in the development of public transport and road development.
Immediate benefits will result from the opening of the port tunnel.
The Minister should tell that to the people on the M50.
The Deputy should allow the Minister to reply.
The maximum benefits from the port tunnel and all of the surrounding road infrastructure will be fully realised when the various upgrades are completed.
What will happen in the meantime?
I look forward to an outcome similar to that achieved in respect of the Naas dual carriageway which, when expanded to three lanes, transformed travel in and out of the city. The development of the Naas dual carriageway was completed with two lanes of traffic flowing in each direction. The position relating to the M50 is the same.
On the Deputy's final point in respect of the NRA, she is correct in that discussions have taken place between the NRA and NTR regarding a range of issues relating to the M50 toll bridge, the toll plaza and the space on either side. I am driven by one outcome, namely, to dramatically improve the lot of drivers using the M50. That will be to the forefront in the context of whatever deal we strike.
31 Ms Harkin asked the Minister for Transport the steps he will take to address the transport infrastructure deficit in the Border, midlands and western region in view of the transport underspend in the national development plan in the BMW region. [41616/06]
Very considerable road investment is being made under the provisions of Transport 21 in the Border, midlands and western region, far surpassing previous levels of investment in national roads in the area. Spending in the region for the years 2000 to 2005 amounted to €1.581 billion. The most recent forecast for the final outturn figure for national roads investment in the region for the period from 2000 to 2006 is €2012.531 million, which is €534.96 million less than the amount originally envisaged.
At the start of the ESIOP, a relatively small number of major road projects in the BMW region had progressed through the planning, design and public procurement processes. The NRA provided grant assistance towards accelerating that work. As a result, there was an intensification of planning and design activity on major roads projects, resulting in a sharp upturn in the number of projects arriving at the construction stage, and a corresponding increase in the level of spending on national roads in the region since the beginning of 2004.
Construction work on several projects will continue after 2006. There is no question of an underspend or a loss of funding in respect of national roads in the BMW region. The position is that, at an early point after 2006, the total level of investment originally envisaged for the seven-year period from the start of 2000 to the end of 2006 will not only be reached but surpassed.
Of particular note in the BMW region is the development of the complete N6 route between Athlone and Galway to high-quality dual carriageway standard — effectively motorway standard, which I will designate it as in time. The 56 km Ballinasloe to Galway section, which will start construction next year, will be one of the largest schemes ever undertaken in Ireland. In addition, the Athlone to Ballinasloe scheme will commence construction the following year, 2008. When completed in 2010, the two schemes will effectively provide a motorway-quality east-west route linking Galway to Athlone and onwards to Dublin.
In tandem with the work on the N6 route, work is also ongoing to provide modern north-south linkages along the western seaboard. In particular, the key linkage between Limerick and Galway is well advanced. I look forward to opening the N18 section of the Ennis bypass this month, several months ahead of schedule. North of the Ennis bypass, the statutory documentation — compulsory purchase order and environmental impact statement — for the next two schemes, Gort to Crusheen and Oranmore to Gort, was published in 2006 and currently await approval from An Bord Pleanála.
Those two schemes will provide a total of approximately 50 km of high-quality dual carriageway. They will connect directly with the N6 Galway to Ballinasloe project, which is starting construction next year. In addition, to the south of Ennis, the Limerick tunnel scheme, connecting the N18 to the southern ring road around Limerick, is now under construction and will be completed in 2010. Those schemes, when completed, will provide, in conjunction with the Ennis bypass and the other completed schemes on the route, a high-quality and high-capacity dual carriageway connecting Limerick with Galway.
Investment in the above schemes represents close to €2 billion. In addition, many other schemes are being advanced throughout the region including the N55 Cavan bypass, the N15 from Ballyshannon to Bundoran, the N4 Edgeworthstown bypass, the N52 Mullingar bypass, and the N2 Monaghan bypass, which opened in 2006.
Other BMW schemes currently under construction include the N6 Kinnegad to Kilbeggan and Kilbeggan to Athlone schemes, with an estimated combined cost of over €500 million. Further schemes under construction in the BMW region include the N4 from Dromod to Rooskey; the N2 Castleblayney bypass; the N5 Charlestown bypass; the N52 from Mullingar to Belvedere; and the N56 from Mountaintop to Illistrim. Numerous other schemes are at varying stages of the planning process, including projects on the N5, N14, N15 and N26 routes.
I would also like to mention the western rail corridor.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The exact road type to be constructed along any route is a function of predicted traffic levels. The NRA has yet to make a final determination of the road types to develop along various routes. However, it is already clear that significant sections of the Atlantic corridor will be developed to dual carriageway standard.
In addition to those road investments, I announced in September last the phased reopening of the western rail corridor from Ennis to Claremorris and the upgrade, for commuter services, of the Athenry to Galway line. Completion of the project will provide a rail link between the cities of Limerick and Galway, with an onward connection to Claremorris on the Dublin-Westport line. That new line will also facilitate the provision of inter-regional services in the BMW region.
I thank the Minister for his answer. He listed several projects, but the issue I wish to highlight is the underspend on national roads under the NDP. Figures from his Department to June 2006 indicate that spending is €700 million behind in the BMW region. His most recent figure was approximately €600 million. At that point, the south and east of the State had an overspend of €1.1 billion. That follows an underspend in the last NDP, which covered the period up to 2000. Some 7% or 9% of funding had been supposed to go to Clare, Connacht and Donegal, and the Western Development Commission confirmed that it had fallen to 4%.
We have therefore seen an underspend up to 2000 and a continuation of that trend up to 2006. I understand the money will be ring-fenced and spent. Of course it will be spent, but we will be playing catch-up while the south and east power ahead. They are already well ahead and we will be playing catch-up in 2007 and 2008, when those moneys should already have been spent. Despite the list of projects that the Minister had, which I accept are in place, we are still far behind, and the infrastructural gap will not be closed.
The Deputy should put a question. This is Question Time.
The Minister spoke of the western rail corridor. How can he justify half-finishing it to Claremorris by 2014, which is only one year behind completion of the metro? I accept that the latter is needed, and I am delighted to see it coming on stream, but it has not even been costed. The Minister costed the western rail corridor and will half-finish it to Claremorris by 2014. How can he justify that situation?
When I tabled my question to the Minister, half of it was rejected. A note came back stating that the Minister has no official responsibility to the Dáil regarding dual carriageways north of a line from Dublin to Galway, or completion dates for the Atlantic road corridor. I was astounded when I read it. Has the Minister abdicated his responsibility to the NRA? Who is the person responsible? If I want an answer, I need to know where the buck stops and whom I can ask if, according to the Ceann Comhairle, the Minister is not responsible. If the Minister does not accept responsibility for building roads, why is he there when they are opened?
Why is it that every other colleague in the Dáil, from whatever party, seems to wish to join me in the photographs? It is hard to say that I do not accept responsibility. I seem to have been given it for almost every problem in the country, so we can knock that rumour on the head. I do not want to go through what may be an embarrassment for the Deputy, having read out an extraordinary long list of developments.
The Minister should be embarrassed at the underspend.
Please allow the Minister to speak without interruption.
Frankly, it would take more than what the Deputy has said to embarrass me.
Perhaps because the Minister does not care.
I welcome the Deputy back.
I thank Deputy Cassidy.
I am pleased and thankful that people in the west have acknowledged that since I entered office as a Minister who understood the needs of the regions, I have substantially rebalanced investment in the roads programme.
Hear, hear.
It is evident from what I have said in the House today that in the past two years, investment in the BMW region has been extraordinarily substantial. The Deputy is right that it is somewhat behind. My job is not only to ensure that it is achieved. I would have thought she would have been pleased that I told her I intend to surpass what it was originally planned to spend in the western region.
We are playing catch-up.
I am not sure how many Ministers of Transport have stood in the House to answer questions on the western rail corridor. However, I secured Government approval to reinstate it, and the money to do so.
Hear, hear.
That is widely acknowledged in the west. The Deputy belatedly acknowledged this point. It is very important that those in the west and everywhere else understand that the investment we make in our capital city benefits everyone in the country, not only those who live in Dublin or on its periphery. There is business interaction with Dublin and the ability to transfer goods and services around the country and build up tourism in the west and east, and throughout the country. We all have a vested interest in our capital city being one of the most thriving and respected economically dynamic capitals in Europe today.
32 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Transport if he is satisfied that public expenditure on rail upgrades, improvements and infrastructure since 2002 is delivering the maximum value for money; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41999/06]
I am satisfied that the investment of recent years in upgrading and expanding the rail network represents good value for money. The rail network has been revitalised and modernised and we now have a safer network with increased capacity, providing more services and carrying more passengers than ever. The benefits to the travelling public are evident in the increased numbers using the network on both commuter and intercity services.
Passenger numbers on the Iarnród Éireann network have grown from 35.37 million in 2002 to a projected 42.3 million in 2006. I was recently happy to see at an international conference that Ireland's rail network was referred to as the fastest-growing in Europe. The two Luas lines are an unprecedented success and have exceeded all projections for carrying passengers. An estimated 26 million passenger journeys were made in 2006 and a surplus was generated on the operation of the lines.
All major capital investments in railway upgrades and improvements and in rolling stock are subject to rigorous appraisal procedures, ensuring the need for each project and the options for delivering it are established within the objective of maximising value for money in accordance with Department of Finance guidelines. Major rail projects are being delivered on time and within budget.
Progress on projects is monitored through regular reporting by, and meetings with, the implementing agencies and through technical and financial audits of a selection of projects by independent consultants. I have also established a Transport 21 monitoring group, chaired by my Department and comprising representatives of relevant Departments, to oversee the monitoring arrangements. The chief executive officers of the implementing State agencies assist this group in its work.
I am satisfied the arrangements in place for the appraisal, approval and monitoring of projects are sufficiently robust to ensure value for money is secured.
The Minister claims the heavy rail system is being revitalised and modernised. I doubt if those rail passengers who were stuck outside Mullingar for two hours last Sunday would agree. Nor would those who are obliged to stand regularly on the same Sligo service at least as far as Carrick-on-Shannon and sometimes as far as Sligo.
One of my main concerns in tabling this question is the operational difficulties that have arisen in regard to the new Cork trains. Their introduction was promised many times in recent years but when they were finally put in service, they broke down one after the other. I do not know the reason for this because the Minister will not answer questions about it in the House. The public has a right to know what the problem is because taxpayers have made a major contribution to their purchase. We were also promised an early service on the Cork line but there is no sign of that happening.
The breakdowns on the service are so regular that CIE was obliged to post an apology on its website. Some of these breakdowns last for hours, with people being moved from one train to another without being given any information. In one instance, passengers were moved successively onto four different trains, none of which would start. It is absolutely outrageous that such major investment has taken place but we are given no explanation for the operational difficulties.
The Government also undertook to refurbish 76 DART carriages and a contract for this purpose was signed in 2004. A problem became evident in 2005, however, and only four of them have been refurbished to date. The Minister told me in response to a parliamentary question that this delay has incurred no financial loss for the taxpayer. There is no doubt taxpayers are losing out, however, because the extra capacity that was promised has not been delivered. Passengers are paying high fares to stand in trains which are not running at either the capacity or frequency that was promised.
What is the problem with the new Cork trains and why is the early service that was promised several years ago not in place?
If the Deputy had tabled a question on this particular issue, I would have been able to provide a more detailed answer.
The Minister should have all the necessary information on what is the largest ever investment in rail services.
I will provide the Deputy with the information if she requests it.
The best way to assess the public's attitude to the railway system is simply to look at passenger numbers. The figures are through the roof, with more than 42.3 million passenger journeys in 2006.
The rail service is not even competitive with the airlines.
All the new rail carriages that were promised on the Cork route have been commissioned, some of which are currently being tested. I am not aware of any major issues in this regard. These are state-of-the-art trains which offer first-class facilities.
An early service will be in operation from Cork to Dublin.
When?
I understand it will be from 1 January.
That will not happen.
Nobody has suggested to me it will be otherwise. The latest information I have indicates the service will be in place from 1 January.
The Minister should not attempt to do what the Minister, Deputy O'Malley, did. It is necessary to ask a question to receive information.
The Deputy is correct that the rolling stock on other routes is outdated. In terms of the quality of the carriages, I agree it is not what one would want in a modern rail service. That is why 157 new carriages will be introduced next year on all intercity connection routes from Galway, Limerick, Sligo, Waterford, Rosslare, Westport and so on.
Will those trains run without problems?
The Government agrees this is what the public deserves. When these new carriages are put into operation next year, we will see a major transformation of the intercity rail network.
Will the Minister come back to the House with information on why the new Cork trains are breaking down so often and why the early service that was promised is not in place?
I will.
33 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for Transport his views on the application by CIE for a 9% increase in fares for 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41996/06]
CIE has applied for an average increase in 2007 of 9% in Iarnród Éireann and Bus Éireann fares and a 10% increase in Bus Átha Cliath fares. CIE has based its application on a projected 6% increase in costs in 2007, plus a 3% to 4% increase to meet historical fuel cost increases over recent years which CIE contends have not been adequately dealt with in previous fare increases. CIE's application is under consideration in my Department and I intend to announce a decision in the matter shortly.
I asked the Minister for his views on CIE's application for fare increases. The reason for the annual request for exorbitant fare increases is that the public funding it receives is completely inadequate. Does the Minister accept the level of subvention he is providing to the three transport companies which make up CIE is inadequate to allow them provide the type of service the public expects?
The latest figures indicate that out of 16 major European cities, Dublin is bottom of the list with a subvention rate of 26%. This compares poorly with, for example, Stockholm at 54%, Paris at 58%, Milan at 63%, Brussels at 67% and Luxemburg at 78%. We all marvel at the wonderful public transport services in the foreign cities we visit and imagine how wonderful it would be if it were the same in Dublin. The reason that is not the case is the inadequate funding; the Government is trying to provide a public transport system on the cheap. It simply cannot be done with a subvention rate of 26%.
What is the Minister's view on public transport subvention? Has he any intention of moving closer to the European average, for example, of some 50%? In regard to CIE's application for fare increases, does he accept that to sanction such increases at this point would amount to an additional tax on public transport users? These are the people who take the environmentally friendly and sustainable option. For this reason, increases should be ruled out and the Minister must secure a commitment from the Minister for Finance that adequate funding will be provided for public transport.
I do not accept the Deputy's contention. The total subvention from the Exchequer in the period 2000-06 is more than €1.76 billion, an increase of more than 60%. The CIE companies will have grown from €190 million in 2000 to more than €306 million in 2007.
Perhaps we might look at the other side of the coin and consider whether we are more efficient than other states in our delivery of public transport and that we do not need the same level of subvention as is required in other cities. Could it not be that we do things well when it comes to the provision of public transport?
How can the Minister be so out of step with reality?
He must be joking.
Is it ever within the ambit of the Labour Party to admit that anything works well in this country?
An efficient public transport system cannot be operated on the cheap.
I am proud of what the CIE companies do. The Labour Party view on this is entirely different to mine. We all agree, however, that there is an onus on the companies to ensure value for money for taxpayers and to produce efficiencies in a modern competitive environment. We must acknowledge that they have been working to achieve that.
My view on the application from CIE is that the increases sought are excessive. I am seeking further information to back up the request for such significant increases, an average of some 9.5% across the companies. If we maintain public transport in Dublin city at a good level, more people will be encouraged to use it.
The most successful light rail system in Europe is Luas. There is no comparison in any other country. Light rail projects in other countries have only achieved high-peak capacity whereas Luas has defied expectations in that it also has off-peak capacity. This year it is running a surplus with no subvention required. That is unique in Europe. Rather than criticising our public sector companies that deliver public transport, we should acknowledge the successes they have brought about.
Hear, hear.
The Luas is not a public sector company.
What does Deputy Shortall have to say to that?
How can the Minister say Luas does not have a subvention? Luas has been given considerable road priority and expensive road space in the Dublin area for free. As Dublin Bus has pointed out, if its buses were given anything like the same priority as Luas, it would have a wonderful service. Dublin Bus is losing €60 million because of traffic congestion and the absence of adequate bus priority measures. Its entire subvention is being eaten up by the cost of congestion.
Does the Minister accept that the fundamental problem with public transport is that its subventions are inadequate? Is he prepared to move closer to the European model where, on average, public transport subvention averages at 50%? He cannot maintain it can be done cheaply without the level of funding provided everywhere else. The best models in Brussels, Paris and every other European city provide good public transport, have a real alternative to using the car and keep traffic moving in the city. We cannot do that because we have inadequate public transport.
I do not accept that public transport is badly subvented.
The figure stands at 26%.
The rail network is expanding. The Labour Party believes everyone will stop using their cars if there are more buses, but that is simply not the case. Alternative modes of transport attract people to public transport and, as much as it galls the Deputy, Luas proves the point.
It is not about alternative modes, it is about adequate public transport.
More than 60% of Luas users, approximately 16 million people in passenger journey terms, stopped using their cars.
They came off the buses and that is why the buses were moved elsewhere.
They did not. It was the remaining 40% that came off the buses. The Labour Party does not support light rail.
It was the Labour Party that proposed the light rail project in the first place. It was the Minister who butchered it.
The Minister should stop distorting the facts.
The Labour Party constantly criticises public transport policy but Deputy Shortall has not put forward one alternative mode of transport for Dublin city.
Why is the Minister distorting the facts? Why does he not answer for the fact that he has not provided adequate public transport?
I reject the Deputy shouting me down.
Will he provide adequate funding?
I listened to the Deputy and she should at least listen to my response.
The Minister should stop distorting the facts and answer for his own stewardship.
I respected the Deputy's time when she was speaking and I ask that she shows me the same respect when I am responding to her.
Hear, hear.
Where are the extra buses the Minister promised?
Cork city has 30 extra buses.
The problem is the Deputy does not like the answers and she does not like the success we are bringing to the country.
Hear, hear.
The Minister should say that to people waiting for buses this evening.
