Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 11 Feb 2003

Vol. 1 No. 4

Dublin Transportation Office: Presentation.

I welcome Mr. Conor McCarthy, chairman of the Dublin Transportation Office, Mr. John Henry, chief executive officer, and Mr. Jeremy Ryan, senior transportation planner, and thank them for attending. I draw their attention to the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. I remind members of long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or an official by name, in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I will not take a major part in this but will leave Mr. John Henry, the chief executive officer, to do the presentation. I will be happy to answer questions with which he is unable to deal.

I have a Powerpoint presentation which is ready to roll. I thank the Chairman for inviting us here. It is a good opportunity for us to put before the committee the broad strategy that exists for Dublin, to go through it in some detail and to answer questions from members of the committee.

Some people may not know who or what the DTO is. We were established in 1995. We currently report to the Minister for Transport but originally reported to the Minister for the Environment. The current staff is 29. We have expertise in four key areas, transportation modelling, transportation planning, land use and planning and traffic management. All these areas interact with one another and form part of the expertise we have developed over the past seven years. We are probably one of the most expert groups in the country in those areas.

One of our primary roles, per our establishment order, is to co-ordinate the activities of all the transport agencies in the greater Dublin area. There are a multitude of those, seven local authorities, two Departments, the Garda Síochána, CIE, Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann, the National Roads Authority and the Rail Procurement Agency. There are a lot of different agencies involved in transport of one form or other. They are represented on our steering committee or board and we try to co-ordinate their activities in that forum.

The office or executive itself is responsible for developing, in conjunction with our steering committee, the transportation strategy for the greater Dublin area. Our remit includes the Dublin counties, Dublin city, Meath, Kildare and Wicklow. We have a large area to cover. Our biggest achievement to date has been developing a comprehensive transportation strategy for the Dublin area up to the year 2016 which we have called the Platform for Change. Some of the committee members may be familiar with that. It is the most comprehensive study of its kind that was ever carried out in Dublin. I am pleased to say that it was carried out in-house in the DTO. We did not require the support or services of consultants. We have reached that level of expertise and I am pleased to say that.

We review and update the strategy at regular intervals. Every five years there is a major review and update and we are currently started on the next one. One of the other things relevant to local authorities is that we get a capital allocation of about €40 million per year for traffic management grant purposes. Platform for Change covers the time period from 2000 to 2016. This plan is a blueprint for the future development of transportation policies and infrastructure up to 2016. It is a strategic solution to current traffic problems. We have the answer and know what has to be done. We are saying that instead of revisiting it over and over we should get on and try to deliver it. It is an integrated approach to travel needs and land use development. This is a key issue because public transport and land use are directly connected and interact with each other. If we do not get the land use right we will not be able to produce the proper public transport, and if we do not provide the public transport we will not get the right land use.

The two are linked so it is very important that we proceed with implementing our strategy for change as quickly as we can, but it is more important that we get some certainty on the alignments for the particular modes so that local authorities can instigate the appropriate land use planning for those modes.

When we were developing our strategy, A Platform for Change 2000-2016, we recognised it defined Dublin in many different ways, as a leading European city, a national capital, a metropolitan region and a living city region, which all have different layers, different levels and different focus. Plans and policies must therefore reinforce this status. We recognised Dublin in each of those layers and we had to develop a transportation system that complemented and supported that.

Let me address some of the factors that affect traffic, particularly traffic growth. Population is a fairly obvious one, as with increasing population one would expect an increase in travel. The more households there are the higher the travel patterns. Although households are smaller, there are more households so there is a higher distribution of population.

Employment is the key issue, particularly levels of unemployment, and I will give figures in a moment to illustrate this. The more people who go to work the more travel there will be. With increased prosperity the level of car ownership goes up and, correspondingly, if we are in a depression car ownership goes down. GDP performance as opposed to growth is another factor. When GDP is growing travel goes up but if it goes down travel will be expected to go down as well. I will not go through this in detail, but a copy of the Powerpoint presentation will be made available to committee members.

The employment figures for 1991 show that there were 452,000 people at work, but by 2001 that had risen to 720,000. That was a dramatic increase in the number of people at work, which reflects the economic boom we experienced at that time. Over the same period population grew by 150,000 which indicates more participation in the workforce by, for instance, women who had previously worked at home. There is a change in the pattern of employment resulting in more people going to work. Travel to work, therefore, contributed significantly to the growth in travel that happened over the ten year period between 1991 and 2001, resulting in almost two and a half times the number of people travelling in the peak morning period. I am not sure people are really aware of this enormous growth. While it crept up gradually over this period it has exceeded the predictions that were made in 1991.

The strategy had predicted 488,000 trips in the peak morning period in 2016. People were sceptical of that figure and accused us of overstating it. When we look at the actual outcome for 2001, which is 428,000, our figure for 2016 begins to look more like an underestimate. We said that at the time and we are being proven correct. Our new provisional estimate is almost 100,000 above that again - it is now 580,000. We have not yet reached the end of growth in this regard. While it will flatten off and be modest in the next ten years, there is still potential for growth.

I will not go through the figures in detail for how that translates into the different modes of car plus rail and the total for public transport. I draw the committee's attention to what has happened in regard to the car mode. There are now over 300,000 car trips in the peak morning period. In 1997 this figure was 181,000. The five years since 1997 have seen dramatic growth in the Dublin area. Bus transport has performed quite well, showing significant growth over the same period. There is also a modest growth in rail transport. The main emphasis has to be on the delivery of infrastructure to meet our projections for 2016. While the bus has a role to play, rail is the way forward. DART, Luas and the metro are all included in rail. We anticipate having over 300,000 rail trips in peak morning travel compared to the current figure of 100,000.

We constantly track change. I already mentioned that we have five year reviews. We have a key tool in the DTO called the DTO transportation model, which is a sophisticated computer model of the city and its travel networks, both public transport and car traffic. It is considered to be one of the largest and most sophisticated of its kind in Europe. We have a permanent team whose sole job is to work on that model and keep it refined and updated. We do extensive surveys every year. The one we did in 2001 was probably the biggest one that has been done in Ireland. There is much work involved in processing the information and inputting it into the model.

We used the model to devise our strategy, A Platform for Change 2000-2016. It is a powerful tool for testing "what if" scenarios, such as having another bridge over the Liffey, a rail line here or a metro there. We can isolate individual projects and test them to see how they work. All the possibilities can be put together to see how an integrated strategy can work and to see what the benefits are. If we do not keep that healthy in terms of current data, it will not be of any value to us.

Some findings of the recent survey are that Dublin Bus passenger numbers are up 40% since 1997, mainly on the QBCs. That is quite a significant change and it is the first sign of growth we have seen in bus passenger numbers since the early 1990s. However it is not just a case of increasing patronage of the bus network as we sometimes forget that the people who were already travelling by bus also get the benefit of the improved service. If one's travel time is reduced to half of what it previously was, existing bus users get the benefit as well so it is not only a matter of additional capacity, there is improved quality of service to all passengers.

Public transport has slightly increased its share relative to the private car since 1997. This is the first time we have tracked such a turn around. Cycling is a travel mode in its own right but it was not always put into the equation. We have only begun to measure it in recent times. I gave a figure of 4% but I have been told that it is an underestimate and the figure is probably closer to 5%. It has more than doubled over the past five years. The introduction of the cycle network and its continued development leads us to think that a target of 20% is achievable.

Probably one of the most interesting statistics that emerged from our survey was the number of people who walk to work, which at 11% is a very high figure. The challenge that remains is that car travel continues to grow - we have had a 100% increase since 1997. I have indicated the difference between our forecast for 2016 and what has already happened. Another point that we should remember is that we have not reached saturation levels in terms of car ownership relative to the norm in Europe. We could anticipate another 100,000 cars coming onto the Dublin road network.

There are two main elements in our policy, A Platform for Change 2000-2016, infrastructure and demand management, and I will quickly deal with these. Essentially we are trying to provide an alternative to the car so that people have a choice. We have coined the phrase "a walk and ride public transport network." If one is within walking distance of public transport at both ends of the trip, it becomes a choice. We set out to develop a network of public transport systems made up of rail, heavy rail, DART, Luas, metro and bus so that no matter where one lives or works one will be within walking distance of that network. This will require a major improvement in DART and suburban rail services but we also need to introduce new rail systems because the existing networks are insufficient to cover the metropolitan area adequately. In addition, we need to provide good public transport links to other counties, to places such as Navan, Naas and so on.

The main elements of Platform for Change are a major expansion improvement of DART and suburban rail and a new segregated rail system, which has become known as metro. By this we do not mean a totally underground system. It will be underground where it has to be and over ground where possible. There will be an expanded Luas network. Two lines of the Luas network will be in operation next year. Our Platform for Change identified five lines and an extension of the Luas network. There will be a very extensive bus network but it may be reconfigured differently from what it is today when the other systems are in place. We will continue to develop our cycle network and we also need to build some strategic roads.

Demand management is topical at the moment, particularly in view of what Ken Livingstone is proposing for London. Our plan is a little more than that. We are doing a study of demand management and it will be completed by the end of the year. It will examine a wide range of policies such as parking policy; control of workplace parking; charging for workplace parking; road pricing, which will be a difficult one to implement; changes in land use densities and location of development, which can have a significant influence on travel demand - we are doing work with local authorities in relation to that; development of mobility management plans with employers regarding different ways of travel; and traffic management - that is how we manage the traffic on the road network. All these, and more, will form part of the demand management strategy that is being implemented.

We do not intend to implement difficult policies such as road pricing and congestion charging until an alternative is available. We do not regard it as a tax collecting device. These strategies are concerned with travel management so we will need an alternative choice before we implement some of these policies.

As we worked our way through Platform for Change and looked at changing circumstances it became even more clear to us that Luas, even an expanded Luas, was urgently needed. It is good to see that within the next 12 to 18 months we will have two lines in operation. The Tallaght and Sandyford lines will serve key locations. We will be particularly worried if the Sandyford line is not implemented quickly. We assumed the Sandyford industrial estate and the surrounding area would have approximately 21,000 employees by 2016, but there are already more employees than that in that location. If all the current planning applications in that area are implemented the number could rise to 40,000. That is a large number of people working in one area and it will need a high capacity public transport service.

DART has seen a significant improvement in recent years. Up to three or four years ago DART had no expansion capacity. In recent times 38 additional cars have been put in service and 40 new cars are on order. These will allow us to lengthen the station platforms to increase the capacity of trains from six to eight cars, giving a 30% increase in capacity. By 2005 we expect to have increased capacity from 15,000 to over 21,000. The next stage of the development of DART will be to upgrade the signalling to give us another 30,000 on top of that again. There is still much potential in DART and we should keep moving on that project with full speed because the demand is there. Everyone knows the DART is crowded and the potential is there to be delivered. We must put this infrastructure in place.

If one looks at how places like Balbriggan, Skerries, Malahide and Baldoyle are developing, one sees much potential for development. This development will be at a higher density than in the past. There is a greater potential than was perceived in the past. At some stage in the future we need to be able to separate inter-city from suburban services. That will be another major step forward in the DART system. The key to all this is the need to reduce dependency on the private car by people who are commuting from as far away as Dundalk and Drogheda and in a corridor from Balbriggan to the centre of Dublin.

Some of the heavy rail improvements are ongoing and some need to be pushed faster. There is tremendous potential and much suppressed demand along the four lines, from Dublin to Maynooth, Kildare, Drogheda and Arklow. We have seen this already on the Maynooth line where when the number of trains in the morning period was increased from one per hour to three per hour the capacity was taken up instantly. There is potential to increase that to eight trains per hour without much modification. There is potential along the corridor at places like Pelletstown. We need to get a rail service to allow that development to take place.

The Kildare line project is going ahead, although it is at different stages. Some 18 new carriages are on order and they will be shared between these lines. Our focus is not on banning cars but on reducing dependency on the car by offering the choice of good public transport. If all these medium-term capacity increases are put in place we will see a significant increase in these lines by 2005.

The Rail Procurement Agency has produced its business case for the metro and the Government will be examining that shortly. We see metro as an intrinsic part of the public transport network. It is a system which interlinks with the other systems to create the network of which I spoke earlier. It is urgent that we get a service to the airport. One of the reasons we are pushing the metro is that it opens new rail lines. You may recall my saying that we need to put more rail systems in place and not merely expand the existing ones. The new metro system has a huge new catchment within the metropolitan area on lines which do not already exist. That will allow those corridors to be developed with the right mix of developments. There is potential for mixed development in places like Clondalkin and Lucan which would be impossible without the metro. It is essential to add high capacity systems to our existing networks.

The map on view is of a type with which we are familiar in cities such as London and Paris. It will be a starting point for Dublin's system. The red lines represent the expanded DART lines. On the south side of the city there will be an interconnected tunnel linking Heuston into the DART system. That will be a key part of the future network because it will allow the northern line to connect to the Kildare line and the Maynooth line to connect with the Greystones line in an expanded DART system. The blue lines represent the metro, which is an orbital system with branches to Shanganagh and the airport and the green lines represent the expanded Luas system.

What about from Heuston Station to Pearse Street?

The line from Heuston Station to Pearse Street goes on to Spencer Dock and connects with the Maynooth line or the DART line somewhere around East Wall.

Is that very far down the line?

I hope it is not because the benefit that will come from the interconnection of those two electrified lines and expanding the line to Kildare is enormous. While it is later in our programme - CIE is carrying out a study at the moment to establish the alignment - I would not like to see this put on the long finger because it is a very important element of the future network.

The Dublin port tunnel is well under way. It will be completed by about 2005 and will bring significant improvements in reducing congestion and shortening trips to the port for trucks. It will remove approximately 9,000 heavy goods vehicles from the city streets, it will be a direct benefit to business by improving the city street network and it could be used as a quick way from the airport to the city centre by bus.

I am not saying much about roads. The M50 extension to Loughlinstown is under way and will be completed within the next while. We then need to go back and look at the whole of the M50. It needs an upgrade because it is already in trouble. A duplicate bridge is being built at the West-Link and that will be completed within the next 18 months or so.

A copy of our summary report is available for members of the committee. All the information is in there. No further planning is needed. The framework has been set down but we now need to deliver it. We will see what refinements will be needed over the coming years but the essential plan which will solve Dublin's traffic problems is contained in this document. All we need to do is deliver it.

There is a vote in the Seanad so I ask to be excused. I hope the meeting will continue and I hope to be back in about ten minutes.

I thank Mr. Henry for that very informative presentation. Before I call the first speaker, you did not mention your attitude to the idea of a transportation office or authority to pull all the organisations you mentioned together under one heading.

No. We were talking about more or less where we stand today. We have been speaking with the Department of Transport and other Departments about the proposed new authority. The blue books set out very well the issues that relate to it. It is essential, at some stage, to move away from the present disjointed system where there are 13 or more agencies involved in transport. We need to get it focused into a single agency that can deliver. We get into many difficult issues here - problems with the existing transport operators and how they will be managed; introducing competition into the public transport system; regulation. It involves many complex issues but the different Departments are working on it. We have had some discussions from time to time. We certainly favour a single authority that not only does the strategic transportation planning but which also considers strategic land use planning, which is key. That is difficult because local authorities and the local politicians are involved in land use for their own areas. That is a typical political issue. The single agency would be involved in transportation planning, specifying and designing public transport services, regulation and procurement of those services and monitoring the implementation not only of the transportation strategies but also the performance of the different operators, not only the public transport operators but also local authorities. The role is complex. We would certainly look forward to it happening.

It is actually contained in the Platform for Change. The recommendation we made in the Platform for Change was largely included in the blue book. In the past development took place where there was water and sewage and then people said we could put in roads. That was the solution. The problem is those roads are inadequate to cope with demand. The importance of the greater Dublin authority, to use the name being bandied about, is that it will control land use in relation to transport. We did many studies on this issue and we have helped in many areas, for instance, in the various reports carried out in connection with housing. We showed where transport capacity was coming on stream. That is the key area. If we do not get that right we will end up 30 miles out. The problem is that if we build Platform for Change and allow the urban sprawl to continue, then the transport infrastructure that we put in will not be sustainable because it will not have the demand. There has to be high density. High density is not high rise. The original Ballymun flats were one of the lowest density developments in this city. It is not about bad development but good development. We certainly support the GDA.

You made a very good presentation. There are many good things happening but the average person does not know what is happening. So far as they are concerned the whole transport system is in chaos. Will you agree you have been very bad at getting your message out? For example, when a project in Boston, the Big Dig, was under way, every school pupil, every local radio station, every newspaper and everybody in the city knew what they were doing, how much it would disturb the city and the infrastructural changes in digging it up and knew at the end of the day what they would get. Here we do not know what we will get. If one were to ask most people they would say they do not have a clue, that all they see is more chaos, traffic moving slower and no light at the end of the tunnel.

It is a fair criticism.

Why have you not tried to get the message out?

We have tried but it is very difficult. Anecdotally, I was with a person recently who lives on Taney Road who said Luas will never be built. He drives by the bridge in Dundrum every day. How can you get the message across if people do not understand that? It is a problem. It will become evident, unfortunately not before 2005, when the two Luas lines are in operation, the Port Tunnel open, the toll bridge extended and the M50 complete. Traffic in Dublin, particularly in the suburban areas, will improve dramatically provided people use the facilities we have. The Chairman is right, there is a feeling out there that nothing has happened. Mr. Henry's presentation shows clearly that a great deal is happening.

There is a whole website on the Big Dig. I was told by somebody who lives in Boston how clear the message was. Everybody was involved in it and could see at the end of the day what they would get. Here, people do not see what they will get. In regard to Luas, I was invited to a public meeting as the Luas goes through my own constituency where various people asked questions about it. I asked if they did not know about it as all public representatives had dropped leaflets about it. One of the women got up and said, "We never thought you were actually going to do it".

That is my view also. People do not believe it.

We have to start by changing the attitudes and culture of some of our colleagues. We spend a great deal of time working with our colleagues in the different agencies. We have moved in a certain direction and it absorbs a lot of energy. I accept we have not managed to get the message out. We will have to renew our efforts. Duncan Stewart has a programme starting tonight which will try to get part of the message out.

There are a number of questions I wish to ask on the issue of congestion, which is grinding the city to a halt. It is fine to look at the long-term projects but we should look also at the existing assets available to us and the better utilisation of them. What plans are in place to extend operation free flow throughout the year to ensure better utilisation of existing road space? I note from the rail plan that one of the key elements that could be utilised in the short-term is missing from the plan, the Phoenix Park rail tunnel, the line which has only recently been upgraded. Is it feasible in the short-term to run a shuttle train between Heuston Station via Connolly Station down to the Dublin Docklands and back again to ensure interconnectivity? One of the downfalls of the rail service at present is that one is abandoned at Heuston Station and one has to get a bus to Connolly Station if one wishes to travel further or get the DART. I am aware that Platform for Change has rail as a key element.

While on the issue of rail, Irish Rail has taken a decision recently to stall the process of increasing the capacity on the central rail corridor by improving the signalling between Connolly and Pearse Street Stations. What is the DTO opinion on that issue and have you discussed it with the Minister, especially in light of the fact that there would be a one third increase in capacity by improving signalling?

In regard to the Dublin Port Tunnel, what discussions have you had with the authority about extending the opening hours there to take heavy goods vehicles off the quays during rush hour traffic and thus alleviate the current congestion? As the delegation will be aware, the Minister has given a commitment in recent days to ban heavy goods vehicles from the city centre as soon as the port tunnel opens. What will happen to approximately 10% of heavy goods vehicles which exceed the restricted height for the Dublin Port Tunnel? The ferries can cater for up to five metre clearance and the motorway network can cater for it, yet the port tunnel cannot cater for it. What is your opinion on that?

In regard to Luas, you made the point that it is important people use the facilities. One of the key elements in the short-term to the utilisation of those facilities is the provision of park and ride facilities. They were first mooted for Dublin City in 1991 and planned for in 1993, yet to date there are no permanent park and ride facilities in Dublin. There are ad hoc park and ride facilities at DART stations, which have been a success, but the DTO seems to be lukewarm in regard to the provision of such facilities.

What are the weaknesses in the transportation model for Dublin? Naturally, any model is only as good as the weaknesses which have been identified in it. The Dublin metro is needed, although 60% of people using Dublin Airport do not want to go to the city centre as they do not have any business to do there. Have you any plans in the short to medium term to develop a heavy rail link to the airport? What is the reason for the DTO's withdrawal of funding from Dublin City Council for the erection of the new traffic signs around Dublin? I know there was some discussion between the city council and the DTO in that regard and that the DTO withheld funding. Perhaps you will elaborate on that point.

I thank the delegation for coming in. I often feel that in 20 years time we will still be reading headlines in the Evening Herald which state "New Plans to Tackle Dublin's Gridlock" because there have been endless plans and analyses over the years. What we lack most is action. In spite of all the money spent and the analyses, traffic is moving more slowly in the Dublin area than ever before. It is interesting that over the past six or seven years, the share of people using public transport relative to the private car has only gone up by 2%. That is a fairly damning statistic because it has long been accepted that the only way to tackle the traffic gridlock problem in Dublin is by encouraging what is termed a modal shift, namely from private cars to public transport, yet there has only been a 2% increase in that share in the last seven years. That must be accepted as a fairly poor record.

Mr. Henry spoke to the Chairman about the decision-making process and he listed the 15 agencies which make up the DTO. There are probably another ten or 12 which have a role in transport and traffic in the greater Dublin area. I suppose it is not surprising that the decision-making process is so slow given the unwieldy structure with which you are trying to work. It certainly highlights the urgent need for the new greater Dublin land use and transport authority which we have been promised for so long. We were promised the legislation to set that up last year. We have been told it will be introduced some time this year but I gather from talking to people that it is highly unlikely that it will be brought in this year because the Government has not given any consideration to the question of governance. What about the democratic representations within such a body? Will it mean having a parallel local authority to the Dublin local authorities?

All of this mess highlights how utterly ineffective our local government system is. Clearly, decisions about the greater Dublin area should be taken by elected representatives and other interests in the greater Dublin area but there is no such body in existence. Indications are that the Minister is backing off even further from bringing forward that proposal because of this question of the clash with the local authorities even though we do not have good quality, effective and meaningful local government.

I often think too much time is spent on the big picture and on the high profile projects at the expense of the simple things which can be done in the Dublin area to improve traffic flow and public transport. In particular, I am talking about the flow of traffic to which Deputy Naughten referred, but yet again there has been another broken Government promise. We were told a special traffic court would be set up this year but there is no money for it. It is hard to know whether it will ever be set up. We have seen the success of operation free flow at Christmas which makes a huge difference to traffic movement. We need that all year round because there is widespread flouting of traffic laws and, in particular, parking laws.

There is supposed to be a quality bus corridor in my constituency. The Dublin City section of that QBC was opened two years ago but we are waiting for it to be completed. Fingal and South Dublin have done nothing about it. I thought one of the primary functions of the DTO was to knock heads together, to bring the different authorities together and to make these things happen. It should not be too difficult to establish a new QBC but two years on, the two outer ends of the corridor are not functioning. As a result, the entire corridor does not function and Dublin Bus cannot keep to a proper timetable when there are such delays. Why are you not moving more quickly in this regard?

The Minister appeared before the committee in December looking for a Supplementary Estimate. He was moving money from public transport to roads and sought additional funding for road projects. Given the philosophy to which we have all signed up, that is, to move people out of private cars and into public transport, it seems incredible that we are moving money from public transport to roads. The explanation the Minister gave was that the DTO had underspent by €10 million on Dublin transportation last year. How did that happen? We are looking for additional money for public transport and traffic management, yet we see that the agency charged with spending that money is not capable of spending €10 million.

We have talked in general terms about increasing capacity in a number of different modes. Have you set targets for peak hour capacity and how do you intend to make that up across the different types of public transport? You said in Platform for Change that the metro system will run via Dublin Airport to Finglas and Broadstone. The Minister said there are three possible routes for the north side of Dublin and that proposals have gone to Cabinet in that regard. Will you clarify that? I represent the Dublin north west area, which has had the least spending on public transport infrastructure. What are those three routes? There has been no public consultation on the possible routes for the metro.

We made an agreement.

I wish to raise two more issues.

You have spoken for nearly seven and a half minutes.

I hope you will excuse me for being parochial.

You spoke about the need for high density housing to justify new public transport systems. In the Ballymun area, a new town is being built with massive public and private investment. That town is designed and predicated on the north side Luas line being in place. It now seems that has been deferred indefinitely. What proposals are in place to serve the huge residential population in Ballymun and the surrounding areas?

Have you abandoned park and ride facilities as an element of your strategy given that absolutely no progress has been made?

I remind members of what we agreed at the start of the meeting.

I was going to remind the committee of the same thing. We made an agreement in private session before the meeting started. I said we must bring structure to our meetings because they cannot go on forever. I am restricted as a non-Opposition spokesman to 2.3 minutes. I would like to speak for 23 minutes, but my time is restricted. I hope my preliminary comment will not be deducted from my time but this issue will have to be addressed at future meetings.

I thank Mr. Henry for his excellent presentation. I would like to see many more presentations done in the same format.

Transport is a very complex issue. Anyone who suggests short-term, sometimes almost glib solutions to what is an infinitely complex issue does not appreciate the complexity of the issue. No one could have predicted the demographic changes in the country in the past ten years. The models and plans sought at the DTO were completely undermined by factors of economic growth, which could not have been foreseen. We must appreciate the inherent complexity of what we are dealing with.

I agree with practically all the recommendations. It is very important to get across the message that this is the model which should be adopted. It is highly researched and based on accurate research. As many resources as possible should be put into implementing what is recommended in the document.

Two basic points were underscored during the presentation. First, leaving aside roads, rail and buses, unless we get the physical use of space in the city and country right, we will be going nowhere in terms of public transportation. Mr. McCarthy made the point that we must address the issue of density, the space in which we want to live. The plans exist to keep increasing that space as far as Athlone. If we as legislators allow that to happen, no matter how many plans we introduce, they will be completely undermined by that decision.

I agree with the second point, which is that the greatest success in terms of public transport was the shift towards buses and the use of quality bus corridors. What would the view be on increasing the use of bus corridors by private firms, as has been mooted, in order to increase the utilisation of these quality bus corridors and increase competition in the market? How would that affect the quality nature of these corridors? In other words, would increasing the intensity of their use decrease the effectiveness of the quality bus corridors?

I thank Mr. Henry for his excellent presentation.

I thank Mr. Henry for coming before the committee. This is the third or fourth time I have received this type of presentation. I do not know if it is fine tuned any better, but it certainly looks better.

It is a fantastic plan and it would be great if we could all go to sleep and wake up in 2016 with it all in place, but that will not happen and I wonder if it is time to short-circuit the plan and consider what can be achieved in the short-term without affecting the long-term plans. If I may be parochial, I am referring specifically to the Clonee line. Page 22 of the plan refers to constructing the Clonsilla to Dunboyne Line, beginning in 2006 and completing it by 2010. That needs to happen tomorrow. It mentions beginning in Dunboyne in 2010 and going to Navan. The plan refers to Sandyford, Balbriggan and the airport. I do not think people realise what is happening along the N3 as far as Navan, and the new town which is being built. Pelletstown is the newest town on the system. I dread the day a station is opened in Pelletstown, closer to town, with nothing further out. The plans will have to be brought forward in order to see what can be done now. I do not think much can be done without Spencer Dock. I would like to have spelled out for Government the one and two year proposals Mr. Henry wants to achieve.

No one will use public transport unless there is a performance and reliability element. Irish Rail's DART figures for December, including the Connolly Station to Maynooth line, indicate that two out of five Connolly Station to Maynooth trains were late during that period. These figures have been denied. That means anyone travelling on that train would be late for work on two mornings out of five. It allowed a ten minute tolerance on an 18 minute journey from Castleknock to town. This means that when people should be dropped off they are only being picked up, and they are saying people are still on time. No one is regulating the service or demanding to know who gave Irish Rail permission for such a customer charter. The same applies to buses, where three might leave a terminus on a QBC at the same time.

Another issue which must be considered is that of schools congestion. We must consider what can be done to deal with this matter which is causing a lot of congestion in the suburbs.

I thank Mr. Henry, Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Ryan for coming here and for the extremely clear presentation, which is very welcome and very well set out.

I want to refer to the figures covering a ten year period from 1991-2001. I am not good at percentages but I worked out the figures roughly. It appears there was approximately a 10% increase in the population in the greater Dublin area. Car ownership almost doubled. Consequential travel grew by a factor of 2.5. Car use trebled, buses doubled and there was just a 35% increase in rail travel. This seems to me to be the core of the problem, because it should be the other way round. We should have a system where there is flexibility. The roads are jammed and there is this wonderful disarming example of openness and transparency on the part of Mr. Keegan. He said that Dublin Corporation hates cars on the roads and if they have not woken up to this fact they are a bit thick. We know that, but there must be the alternative of public transport, which has not yet been delivered.

I was extremely pleased to see the metro listed as No. 2 in the main infrastructure element. I am pleased it is included in strategy implementation. I tabled an amendment to the Dublin Transport Bill some years ago. It was fought against tooth and nail but I think we won the argument in terms of passenger numbers. The Luas, for all its attractiveness in terms of giving us the air of a sophisticated cosmopolitan city, will only be a pin prick in terms of moving people because of its inflexibility and lack of variability in terms of frequency, carriage lengths and so on. There was mention of 2%, which will have no effect. We must go for the metro and get the basis of an underground system as quickly as possible. I would like a timeframe for this. When I asked for the matter to be put on the agenda as a matter of urgency, no one objected. There was general support from Government, the Opposition, Independents and so on. We now realise this is the way forward.

I note the reference to Rotunda station. I would be delighted to have it renamed Joyce Central.

Norris Central.

No, I am far too modest. Joyce Central will do fine. I agree entirely in regard to cyclists. However, as a cyclist, I could not advise anyone to cycle in Dublin. I have stopped cycling because I was knocked off my bicycle on one occasion. I know of several people who have been killed. There is no cycle way in O'Connell Street. The condition of the roads is appalling. One would go into chasms if one is not careful. The rate of accident is unusually high because of a lack of coherence. One might have a nice bit of cycle way coming from Clontarf which suddenly stops. We must develop a fully integrated system.

The Senator's time is up.

Yes, but I am sure the Chair will allow me to complete one final point as I have been extremely good. Why are developers allowed to build flats in Dublin city without making any provision for car-parking? People who live in the city will need cars for the foreseeable future. My final point is very parochial, but I hope it will register. I would like somebody to explain the logic of dislodging cars from Dublin's principal commercial artery, O'Connell Street, and stuffing them down the principal residential street in that area, North Great George's Street. I am astonished at the lack of coherence on the part of planners. Given that they dislike cars so much, why do they assume that the residents of North Great George's Street have an unending appetite for cars, fumes and traffic jams from 8 o'clock until 9 o'clock each morning?

Many questions have been asked. My colleague, Mr. McCarthy, will answer any that I do not adequately cover. Deputy Naughten asked about the extension of operation free flow, a point that has been made since the operation's first remarkable success in 1996. It is difficult to maintain free-flowing traffic all year round, as road works cannot be abandoned. The local authorities in Dublin remove certain works during the period of operation free flow, but work on the Luas and port tunnel projects continued during last year's operation. Over 100 additional gardaí are deployed in Dublin during the operation with duties relating solely to it. A scaled down version of the operation applies all year round. The level of compliance with quality bus corridors is the highest I have seen in Europe. It has become a habit for people not to travel in bus lanes and they will not do so on Sundays. A significant impact has been achieved in that regard, but it is difficult to maintain. The Minister for Transport asked me recently if it would be possible to extend operation free flow all year round and we will come up with a version of it if available resources allow us to do so.

Who would enforce that?

Enforcement is a matter for the Garda Síochána, although new technology means that cameras can be used in a cost-effective manner.

The Dublin Transportation Office believes that a separate force to the Garda Síochána, which deploys 28 motorcycles each morning and evening to patrol the QBCs, would not be the best and most effective force to operate in Dublin. Local Garda stations will, understandably, put traffic issues to one side if a dedicated traffic police is operating in that area. We can call on local resources at the moment. The Deputy Commissioner is on the steering committee and we receive a great deal of support from the Garda. People will break the law, of course, but the QBCs work to a large extent and are not impeded to any great degree, although problems arise from time to time.

During the development of the Platform for Change process, the matter of the tunnel under the Phoenix Park which provides access to Connolly Station was raised, at it was today by Deputy Naughten. Many agencies pushed the DTO hard on the matter and we did not treat it lightly. Having examined it in every way possible, however, we found that we could not get it to work properly as part of the integrated network we are trying to develop. The tunnel goes in the wrong place and ends up in the wrong place - it does not serve the purpose we would like. The idea of an interconnector tunnel from Heuston Station to Spencer Dock, via St. Stephen's Green and Pearse Station and connecting with the DART system, has much more to offer. The Phoenix Park tunnel is still there and is an asset that can be used, if necessary, but we found that we could not get it to work as part of an integrated transport system.

Mr. Jeremy Ryan is an expert on this matter.

Mr. Jeremy Ryan

There are a few problems with the Phoenix Park tunnel. If one uses the tunnel to bring trains from the Kildare line to Connolly Station, they will have to join the Maynooth line, which is already at capacity as far as rolling stock is concerned. We want to increase capacity on the Maynooth line, but to use it for Maynooth line services and not Kildare line services. The most important point I want to make is that if one brings Kildare line services onto the Maynooth line, the potential for growth on the latter line will be undermined. Another important point is that the journey time from west of Heuston is quite long at over 15 minutes. One should bear in mind that trains on the Kildare line using the tunnel do not go into Heuston as they enter the tunnel west of it - they cannot serve both Heuston and Connolly. The Luas line outside the front door of Heuston will be operational in about a year and will bring passengers from Heuston to Connolly in any event. There is potential for empty shuttle Luas trains to begin at Heuston to bring people who disembark from mainline services there to the east of the city. We do not think using the Phoenix Park tunnel is a good idea for a number of reasons.

Perhaps Mr. Ryan would also like to deal with the question of signalling between Connolly Station and Pearse Station.

Mr. Ryan

Yes, it is an important project. The DTO understands that signalling resource constraints within Iarnród Éireann are preventing the project mentioned by Mr. McCarthy from being completed within the next two or three years. It is not just a question of funding, although that is important. I understand that Iarnród Éireann intends to complete the signalling project by 2008, once additional resources have been made available. Many signalling staff are currently working on the new platforms at Heuston Station.

It seems extraordinary that Iarnród Éireann cannot get anyone to work on the project other than its own staff. One would imagine that it could hire out the contract for upgrading signalling between the two stations, which would provide a significant improvement in service, to another company. Given that rail transport in a central part of the city is being held up until 2008, why has CIE not been instructed to get in another company?

I do not think the DTO is in a position to tell CIE how it should deploy its resources. I agree with the Chairman that the project is important, as it will provide a 33% increase in service between the two stations. The intended improvements will mean that 16 trains per hour can be brought through the loop line bridge, as opposed to the 12 that can pass through at the moment. The project is included in our plan. With respect, the committee should address the question of signalling to CIE, as the DTO would love it to be completed tomorrow. We understand that financial constraints are not involved.

I know it is not a financial restraint, which is the frustrating aspect of it, but does the DTO not think it could make certain recommendations in its plan? It could mention the signalling improvements as a priority project.

Mr. Ryan

We have said that to Iarnród Éireann and we will reiterate it when we bring forward a list of short-term rail priorities to the Department of Transport in the next few weeks.

Am I right in saying that the extra DART carriages will lead to a 30% capacity increase, but that there will not be any signalling in the middle of the city?

That is separate.

An initial increase in capacity can be achieved by lengthening the platforms, so they can take more carriages.

Can the platforms take 15 trains an hour?

Mr. Ryan

They can take 12 at present, but that will be increased to 15, at a push, during peak times when the signalling has been changed. The extra rolling stock that will lead to a 30% increase will see trains increase from six cars to eight but will not increase frequency.

There is a fair deal of knowledge of signalling problems in this House. With respect, perhaps the Chairman's queries should be addressed to Iarnród Éireann - I would not like to venture into that area.

I was trying to get you to say something controversial.

I would like to deal with a long list of questions. It is planned to restrain heavy goods vehicles on the quays when the Dublin Port Tunnel is in operation, particularly at peak times. We have to remove heavy goods vehicles from the city centre. It will not take long to travel from the port to the M50 when the tunnel is open. Deputy Naughten referred to a height statistic of 10% but that is not the case, as far as I am aware, as it is less than 2%. Of that, a proportion are car transporters with a big cab at the front. They can adjust their height and that is not the major argument. However, I understand that Dublin City Council recently held discussions with the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to see whether the amount could be made up. The difference between 5.3 metres and 4.9 is not huge. The 5.3 metre height is to allow a carpet to be put on a road underbridge; it is not for clearance but for maintenance purposes. It might be the difference between 4.9 metres and 5.2 metres. That is a Dublin City Council issue and we are not involved in it but the statistics are not as bad as people have said.

Rail freight is not a major factor in the Dublin area and it is long distance freight that is most affected. Most freight in Dublin has to be distributed by road because of the wide diversity of destinations for goods. Freight did not form a major part of our study.

In the past three years, the DTO has funded about 2,000 additional park and ride sites along the existing rail networks. There is a difficulty in implementing bus based park and ride and a significant study was done late last year which illustrates the problems of trying to implement that in a city such as Dublin. The key issue is the physical size of the city, and where park and ride sites should be located in the context of the onward trip by bus. Dublin is just too big for that. Bristol works very well in that six buses can serve a park and ride site because the trip from that site to the city centre is only 15 to 20 minutes. With six buses, a good service can be provided. It would be about a 40 minute trip for buses in Dublin and the number of buses needed to provide the required service all day makes it unattractive to any company planning to deliver it. We helped a developer and encouraged him to provide a park and ride plan for Dublin but he could not make it work.

It is not as easy as it appears to implement bus based park and ride whereas rail based will always work if the service is there. A study is being done on that at present.

Mr. Ryan

Rail based park and ride is considered different from bus based park and ride and is considered more viable. That is why the DTO funded the suburban rail parking spaces. On the new Luas lines, there will ultimately be over 2,000 park and ride spaces provided at various sites including the key areas of Sandyford, Stillorgan one and two, Balally, the Red Cow and Tallaght. The biggest one will be at the Red Cow with 700 spaces.

Will they be multi-storey or surface?

Surface. The Balally site may have two floors under a residential development and the Tallaght site may be a mixed development.

Deputy Naughten asked about the weakness of the DTO model and I accept that. Models are never accurate but they try to simulate reality to an accuracy of perhaps plus or minus 10%. The real weakness is not in the model, as it seems to calibrate extremely well, but in the forecasts. Back in the early 1990s, when the economic future was being forecast, people were very pessimistic. However, in 1993, the economy took off and for eight years there was constant 10% per annum growth in the Dublin area, which nobody predicted.

When the DTO started tracking what was happening in Dublin when the office was set up in 1996, we were among the first to start ringing the alarm bells that things were getting out of hand in terms of growth in traffic. We were not believed. When Platform for Change was being developed, we put down the figures for what we thought would happen in 2006 and 2016. People told us we were crazy and that those things would never happen. The DTO had to dumb down its forecasts or it would not have got them through the system. When the DTO survey was undertaken in 2001, we were already well beyond the 2006 projections.

We know that our forecasts are always going to be wrong but we do not have real concerns about the model. Deputy Naughten said that 60% of people travelling from the airport do not go into the city centre. That is recognised and is one of the real benefits of the proposed metro. There is not only a city centre connection but it links places such as Blanchardstown, Lucan, Clondalkin, Finglas, Tallaght, Sandyford, Kimmage and all the places in between. If a catchment map is put down along the corridor, a huge area of Dublin is linked directly to the airport. That is why we believe the metro is one of the better options.

In the longer term, there should be an inter-connection with inter-city rail. As in Switzerland, passengers should be able to check luggage into the local railway station, go about their business, arrive back in Dublin that night and have their luggage come off a conveyor belt. I have done it and it works. One can forget about one's baggage at the railway station and take as many trains as is necessary to get to the airport, and one's baggage will arrive in Dublin. I did that not long ago and the only mistake that occurred on the whole trip was that baggage that was to be shipped to Cork for one of my colleagues was taken off at Dublin and it had to be rescued for him. The mistake was made in Dublin not in Switzerland.

This should be thought about in terms of a metro connecting much of Dublin to the airport, with all national rail lines connecting to the metro. If one was coming from Cork to Dublin Airport, one would get off at Clondalkin and go from there to the airport without going into the city centre. If one had checked in in Cork, when one arrived in London or elsewhere one's baggage would be there also. We are looking at a network of integrated services where interchange between modes is part and parcel of our proposal. Passengers will not be holding their baggage all the way. We are looking further than that to ascertain how the network will work.

I was asked why funding was withdrawn for the road signs that Mr. Owen Keegan tried to put up last year. The DTO did not agree with what he was doing. There were problems with the signs and with whether the policy was covered by legislation. There was a difference of opinion and I believe new signs are now being developed.

Deputy Shortall criticised the DTO for lack of action. I accept the criticism to some extent but emphasise that we have no power except through persuasion, influence and establishing our credentials.

The office has no authority.

It is like the power of the Catholic Church.

It is like a committee rather than an authority.

I would not underestimate that. It must be borne in mind that, while it is easy to talk about organisations having authority and being able to ram things through, we are talking about local democracy, with county councillors and local residents' associations having an input. To some extent, even if the DTO had the power, it would be difficult to use and it might be very counter-productive in the long-term. When there is a structure involving the managers of the local authorities sitting in the same room with the deputy commissioner of the Garda and two assistant secretaries from the Department of Transport, consensus is required. We have managed to achieve that consensus, though perhaps more slowly than by other means. I come from a private sector background where decisions can be made and quickly carried out because there are fewer constraints. However, I question whether total power would be a good idea.

I want to make a point about big projects and the flow of traffic. We are constantly dealing with small projects but it is not that simple to produce solutions for traffic. We must get the extra capacity on rail - if we do not do so we will not be able to provide a service. Quality bus corridors are excellent. I think Deputy Ellis raised the point that they may well be reaching capacity and interfering with one another. We have not reached that point yet but we might.

Would Mr. McCarthy favour private operators having access to QBCs?

All buses are entitled to enter the bus lanes at any time, including minibuses.

They all have to have licences, obviously, but would Mr. McCarthy be in favour of expanding private sector input?

We are totally in favour of expanding the private sector.

Is he in favour of allowing for extra use of QBCs?

There is no issue in that regard because private sector operators have full rights to use them.

They should be encouraged to use them, but they do not. One of the traffic problems in Dublin City results from buses wandering around the roads at three miles per hour, particularly the city tour buses.

There may be a contradiction. Do they need a licence from the Department of Transport to operate?

It might be better to ask if there is support for the Minister's suggestion that so many extra routes be given to private operators that could——

We want to expand the public transport service by whatever means. We do not care who is the operator. We need an integrated system.

We accept that there needs to be a regulator setting the standards, including those for Irish Rail.

It is a lot more difficult than one thinks. Some people believe it is simply a matter of going out with a pot of paint. Dealing with the local authorities and agreeing on the final design is a horrendous process. It nearly always boils down to parking for the shopkeeper, the customer and the resident. It should be easy to get local authorities to work together but it is not. Some have the resources and some do not. Some consultants are interested and others are not. We are talking about cultural change. Even today, local authorities have no responsibility for public transport. Their responsibility is for road transport, effectively private cars and trucks. Their interest in buses will only be aroused if we persuade them to become interested.

We have managed to make some significant moves in terms of integrating land use and transportation and providing for walking, cycling and public transport in new developments, such as those at Adamstown and Pelletstown. A proper approach is being adopted in these areas. We have aroused the interest of the local authorities, which is a major step. I am not saying we had to push hard to do it because the planners are very much on our side. However, the local authorities do not have any real responsibility for public transport so the last thing some of them will do is give over road space to buses. They want the space for cars.

We have to make a case why the local authorities should provide bus lanes. They built the roads and have to maintain them and they allow buses on them, but the buses are damaging them so they do not see the connections. It is not an easy task but we have done reasonably well.

Regarding our underspend last year, we spent €30 million although we had €40 million. The local authorities suggest the projects, which we approve and fund. We did not get the take-up from the local authorities. We have to push constantly to have projects delivered. Most of the projects are public transport projects and the focus of the local authorities is elsewhere.

To which local authorities or agencies is Mr. Henry referring?

I do not have the breakdown.

Could it be acquired for me?

It could. I have no difficulty with that.

We recommended that a separate design office be set up which would co-ordinate, on behalf of the four local authorities, the development of QBCs and QBNs because we recognised the difficulty referred to earlier whereby one piece is built by city council and the other piece is not. This happened not just in the Deputy's area but elsewhere, and it was sorted eventually. It has taken some time to set up the office. That is partly why money was not spent in full in 2002. I accept responsibility that it should not have happened but it did. From now on, the director of traffic, on behalf of the four local authorities, will deal with them as one unit. Therefore, if a QBN is to be developed from Swords to the city, it will be a seamless project as distinct from one involving three local authorities.

I am not familiar with the exact QBC to which the Deputy was referring.

The same applies to them all. The problem is that the director of traffic will not have any authority over the other people involved. Again, it is a matter of slow persuasion.

The section 59 agreements between them will give them some authority to operate. I recognise what the Deputy is saying.

With regard to the alignment of the metro, the consultants and the RPA have looked at three alignments to develop a business case. They have not fixed the alignment in any way and there has been no real public consultation about it. They were just looking at a business case. The Minister indicated that an announcement might be made in the next few weeks regarding the next stage of the metro. The alignment will then be selected and real public consultation will begin then.

Will the consultation be after the decision?

No, the decision in question is one to go to the next stage of the process.

Are the three routes identified yet?

The three routes were developed for a business case but they are not relevant.

Mr. Ryan

One route in the outline business case was taken forward to Government out of the three routes that were being considered. One of the three that was being examined is as described in the Platform for Change. However, there may be potential for looking at other corridors not too far away. That is what the RPA has done and the DTO will obviously keep track of the outcome. If and when the outline business case is approved the RPA will then consult the public on the three routes it is now examining, as well as two or more city centre options. Once that stage is completed, it will then announce the preferred route. That might happen in June 2003.

It is fair to say that the Ballymun problem might be solved if one of the other routes were chosen. Also, the Luas line for Ballymun has not been abandoned. It is in our plan and should probably be the next to be developed.

Whenever a metro goes to Ballymun, there will be no need for a Luas.

What is the likely timescale for the implementation of the metro project?

We were hoping it will be implemented by 2007. That is optimistic, but chosen deliberately to keep up the pressure.

Mr. Ryan

The RPA's estimate is 2010. That would include a metro right into the city centre and a tunnel section in the city centre. There may be potential for opening sections of it before 2010. It is realistic to suggest 2010 if it is to be taken right into the city centre and over to St. Stephen's Green.

Do you have costings for the overall metro project as set out in the Platform for Change?

Mr. Ryan

We have a figure from 2001, which was €7.2 billion for the whole metro project.

That is a capital cost, which does not include the financing cost or inflation.

Mr. Ryan

That is an issue for procurement.

We understand that a memorandum is being prepared by the Department of Transport to go to Cabinet. It might take weeks or a couple of months, but we do not anticipate that it will take any longer. That is the crucial point because the RPA has already received expressions of interest from people who want to get involved in the design and construction of the metro. The RPA plan is to be in talks with or to have found a provider by the end of this year.

Deputy Power recognises the complexity of our problem and the importance of getting densities right. The Deputy asked if QBCs would be overloaded if private firms were allowed to operate on them. QBCs have quite a high capacity and, in the long-term, will have specified levels of service and capacity which will mean operators will not compete on the same routes. The regulator will be put in place to oversee that scenario which will negate the possibility of the problems foreseen by Deputy Power. Luas is the way to address capacity that cannot be met by buses. In our Platform for Change we have decided which corridors should be serviced by tram or segregated rail such as a metro. I apologise to Deputy Power for misreading that.

Senator Morrissey referred to Clonee, Dunboyne and Navan. We put a line to service those towns into our Platform for Change to support the strategic planning guidelines. Navan is growing and needs to become self-sustaining, but that will not happen without good quality public transport. Improving the road to Navan will increase the number of commuters while failing to solve any problems. Our proposal is based on regional development as distinct from viability. It will be very difficult for the line to break even, but we recommend it be built and its cost carried until Navan becomes large enough to make it viable.

Should we not look at short-term proposals like establishing the link to Clonee since the land is there?

Mr. McKay

In the platform for change, the indicative programme suggested that we build as far as Dunboyne first. We are at the mercy of Iarnród Éireann and Government funding in that regard, but it is something we would like to see established relatively soon.

We have many aspirations for the Maynooth line, which has great potential. It has a signalling system which can accommodate 12 trains per hour, but only three or four per hour use it. The problem is at Connolly Station where the line could interfere with other services. Minor works at the station would have the effect of separating the Maynooth service from the other tracks. Platform 7 needs to be modified along with some track. Such works are not on CIE's programme, but we keep pushing the matter.

We had a meeting with the management of CIE just before Christmas and they have agreed to prioritise the line in their thinking. An almost insatiable demand for a service is not being met by rail, when it cannot be met well by road.

I have no comment to make on the customer charter but I recognise what has been said.

We carried out an extensive survey of the congestion associated with schools before Christmas which was the largest we have done. Very interesting statistics resulted and details can be given to the committee if it wishes to see them. The number travelling to secondary school by car has increased by 17% over the last five years. Up to six years ago, you would not be seen dead being brought to school by your parents at that age. In the region of 49% travel to school by car overall.

Dropping children to school is one of the worst things that has happened in terms of congestion.

Senator Norris worked out some statistics and put his finger on some of the major issues. I thank him for his support of the metro. We need a high capacity system and this is a flagship project which interconnects all the others. That interconnection with the other projects will produce the network we seek.

Would it be useful for this committee to pass a resolution urging the completion of a metro?

I gather the Department expects to be able to present something to Cabinet very soon.

That relates to a service for the airport.

Mr. McKay

Our proposal is for a service from the airport to the city centre and south to Shanganagh.

How much would that cost?

Mr. McKay

That depends on how much is built in the first phase. We estimate the entire cost at around €4 billion.

What is €4 billion among friends?

The cost would be spread over six or seven years.

We did not start to build cycle tracks until 1997 and we have completed about 300 km, which is not insubstantial. We are pleased to see that the number of cyclists has doubled over the last five years.

O'Connell Street represents the great gap in the network.

We have not completed our network, the overall target for which is 600 km plus many local networks which we wish to see included in new developments. From day one, developments should include a walking network, a cycling network, a bus network and a road network.

One of the reasons for taking cars out of O'Connell Street - I sympathise with Senator Norris in terms of his street - is that we want the city centre to be a public transport corridor with a cycling network and improved pedestrian facilities. We require wider pavements because of the volumes. The entire area from city hall down should be virtually pedestrianised.

Perhaps 95% of traffic on O'Connell Street did not stop there prior to the work the city council is carrying out. The effect of the traffic was to damage the environment rather than to add value.

It is literally damaging a list one street now.

That needs to be addressed.

We do not necessarily agree with what Senator Norris said regarding parking facilities for flats. There is a large transient population in the flats and apartments of the downtown area, particularly in less spacious accommodation. Car parks are often empty or half empty because where a few people share a domicile, one of them will not take the parking space. It may be contracted to someone who does not live in the building. You can survive downtown Dublin without parking, which is not to say we are against it. On the other hand, we are not likely to promote parking facilities with residential developments downtown or elsewhere.

Mr. McKay

Parking spaces in the city centre are often contracted out for business use, which encourages commuters.

The problem is for people living in the city who are unable to get parking in their own area.

Mr. McKay

There is a balance to be struck.

In my constituency this happens a great deal. Many spaces are rented out to local offices which is unfortunate.

That is usually forbidden.

It is very hard to enforce.

What is the attitude of the Department to the construction by Dublin City Council of an incinerator in the middle of Dublin Port? There is no road infrastructure and every single refuse truck will come into that part of the city, which is already completely overloaded. It is a key strategic area for traffic coming in and out of the city, yet they are intending to build this. I cannot understand the logic. Why is it not being built on the M50?

If the eastern bypass was built it might make more sense, but I do not really have a view on that. It has not crossed our desk.

Mr. Ryan

I did not even know it was happening, I have to be honest.

Can you have a look at it and come back to us? It means 800 journeys a day along Seán Moore Road.

Is that up by the IGB?

Yes. You can come back to me on it.

The best figure you gave us was that there has been a 100% increase in cycling, from 2% to 4%, but can you give us the actual numbers?

They are not huge. We started from a very small base so we would expect some growth when we get the cycle tracks in. Our target is 20% overall, which is achieved in Copenhagen, although we do not think of the Danish capital as a cycling city. In terms of short trips under six kilometres we are looking for 30% ultimately. These are high targets.

Mr. Ryan

We have a number for the trip to work for peak hours, which is estimated at 15,000.

I asked a question about capacity. Do you have a target peak hour capacity across all the different modes of public transport? Many motorists feel they are impeded in trying to get through the city but have you looked at any measures to improve traffic flow in the centre of town? I am thinking in particular about pedestrian underpasses at main junctions, which are quite common in Brussels and other European cities. For example, there are huge tailbacks in each direction at the junctions of O'Connell Street and the quays when the traffic lights turn red. Have you considered having an underpass there to maintain the traffic flow going along the quays, on O'Connell Street and at other key junctions?

In terms of capacity, the way we approached the development of the public transport networks in Platform for Change was to look at where people wanted to travel around the whole metropolitan area on a network basis. We then looked at every element of that network to see what was the appropriate mode to service that need. We put bus networks where appropriate and trams where they were needed. Where trams were not sufficient——

They were political decisions concerning where the trams would go.

No. These decisions were based on travel pattern data.

Is that on the northside?

No. The only Government decision was that there was an agreement to build a city centre tunnel - not even the location of the tunnel, just the fact that there was to be a tunnel. The data that came through from our analysis produced the network in Platform for Change. There was no political interference in that. It was all to do with what the capacity requirements were for different parts of the network. That is the way we developed it.

Do you have a target capacity? Are you hoping that, in ten years' time, 60%, 70% or 80% of people will be using public transport?

We have a target, yes.

It follows from what has been said that we will be allocating traffic trips to the modes that best suit them, in terms of the needs for that mode. We end up with a figure in 2016 of 14% of peak hour morning trips on buses, which is 69,000, and 49% on rail.

It is in page 20 in the book.

It is in page 20 of the summary document. Some 49% of morning peak hour trips will be by rail, which includes metro, suburban rail and Luas. Around 100,000 of those trips will be made by metro and 37% of trips will be by car.

Bus travel is obviously the cheapest in terms of the infrastructure required to facilitate it, yet you are aiming to reduce the percentage of people using buses from 26% to 14%. It seems extraordinary.

The number of people using trains will increase massively.

That is the point.

That is right. It is a by-product of that.

At huge cost.

Not necessarily. May I make a point? Take, for example, Dundrum, which is near where I live: when the Luas line goes into operation many of the bus services which currently travel all the way into town will have to be reduced because people will not want it. They will go on the Luas.

It depends on what happens with Luas, does it not?

It is not a problem. It will be a better service. People will get in from Dundrum to St. Stephen's Green in 14 minutes, whereas it takes 45 or 50 minutes to do the same journey now.

But you are talking about people switching from bus to Luas, rather than from car to Luas.

There will be some of that but at the end of the day we want to get them onto public transport. Can I make one overall point, Chairman?

We would be the only city in the world that did not get people to go from a bus to a train. People will always go from bus to train.

One overall point has struck me: the fundamental issue is the quality of life. At the moment, many who work in this city spend three hours a day in cars travelling to and from work. During the week, therefore, they spend roughly half their working time travelling. With respect, that is the issue that has to be addressed politically. Are we going to allow people continue that or are we going to put them on rapid transport? That is why, unfortunately, the number on buses will decrease. Bus travel may be the cheapest but it is not be the most efficient from the point of view of commuters.

As a species, we have an instinctive travel time budget of one hour and that applies to all countries. That means 30 minutes in the morning and the same in the evening. We are now taking two or three hours in the morning, so we are well over our travel time budget and that is why we are suffering. That is why we find it is the wrong thing to do. As a species we seem naturally to have a 30 minute travel time budget as a constant.

Are underpasses being considered?

I have a problem with underpasses. You can get a big gash in the city that means a whole area of pedestrians cannot move at all. So, we do not think we need them. I know they are used in other cities but I do not have a personal preference for them. I think we can manage traffic without the need for underpasses. Certainly, you will not put pedestrians either over or under in the city, unless it is in a shopping mall; a combined shopping mall and underpass might work. My recollection is that there was an underpass where the spire is now, but it was closed because it was unsafe to use it. The only thing that can go underground is traffic and I do not think it is necessary.

I thank Mr. Henry, Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Ryan for coming in and providing us with a very interesting and informative presentation for which we are grateful. We asked you to come back to us on a number of things, so perhaps you could do so.

We will, Chairman.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 25 February 2003.
Barr
Roinn