I welcome Mr. Tom Newton, Mr. John Moore and Mr. Anthony Brophy. I remind everybody to turn off their mobile phones, and I draw 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 also remind members of the long standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I call on Mr. Newton to make an opening statement.
Public Transport: Presentations.
Mr. Tom Newton
I take it the committee received a copy of our previous submission. It will take me four or five minutes just to run through it and bring the committee up to date, and we will then take a few questions, if that is all right.
We welcome this opportunity to put forward our ideas to address the traffic and transport problems of the city and country. We are made up of people from all walks of life, but mainly from people involved in transport of some form or other. I have been around for almost 40 years and took part in almost all solutions over that time. I generally took a different view from officials as in most cases they took the wrong option and solutions were no nearer. My views got a deaf ear. The planners constantly got it wrong, and the proof is that they had to retry over and over again.
As I was getting nowhere I decided to set up this group in 1990 in order to get my views heard, but still with very little success. The only success I had was the invention of the bus corridor on the hard shoulder. It would have not come about but for the help of Austin Curry, a former TD, and Ray Barry, now a Garda superintendent. Officialdom took it over and gave it a new name - QBC - but were unable to finish it to its full potential.
Before we came up with our plan for the circle, we examined the city in detail. The centre was overloading and the outskirts were sprawling in an unsustainable fashion. The main flaw in transport was the radial system everywhere by the centre. It was very inconvenient, overloading the centre with congestion, and most inefficient. The planners, as we found out, were also aware of these problems but their solution was catch up. Their solution was not working so, from my experience as a bus driver in the constant congestion and on the ground, I could see the problems first hand and took a keen interest in the whole affair.
The radial system, everywhere from the centre like the spokes of a wheel, was the real culprit. Put a rim on that wheel to form a circle and everybody goes directly to their destination. The perfect solution was so simple and staring us in the face, so the circle was born, and because it was so simple all the experts wanted to ignore it, and still do.
There are three main parts to the circle - bus, rail and road - linked with a new breakthrough in technology by location, whereby work can be done in more than one location or at home. An example would be having a vehicle taxation office in more than one location. The bus circle is straightforward, with counter-flow on the quays and Marlborough Street being used for cross-city routes, taking most bus stances out of the centre. There are over 100 advantages to the counter-flow on the quays. The five main ones are: it segregates buses without taking space from other road users; it is self policing; there would be no shops or stores on the quayside; it makes terminal interchanging most convenient and it is the safest option, with terminals suitably covered from all types of weather, with quality waiting rooms and boardwalks for the benefit of all, including the handicapped.
The circle on the outskirts is not so easy to make attractive, so we chose one circle on the M50 hard shoulder for traffic freedom and very high frequency. A shopping centre would not survive without anchor tenants, so we put in an number of anchor routes to the city centre via the M50 that would work even if nobody wanted to go anywhere other than the centre. There would be bus stops along the M50 under each bridge, with a ramp to the bridge above, where the connecting routes and taxis would be waiting to feed into all adjoining areas in web fashion. My map is available; I see committee members already have it.
Regarding rail, an outer ring on the outskirts in circular fashion would be built in stages. First, Heuston would be extended via the park tunnel, now supported by platform 11, to Connolly Station and the North Wall/Spencer Dock. The Kildare line would then be joined at Lucan to the Maynooth line at Leixlip-Intel, a distance of just three miles. If no more of the circle rail was built, these three miles are the most important of all. They would increase rail efficiency by up to four fold as the rail line from Lucan in can be used as a one-way system with two lines inwards at morning peak.
Sorry to interrupt but could Mr. Newton go a little bit slower? I know he is very familiar with the plan, but the rest of us are trying to follow his proposals and he might just slow down a little, particularly in relation to the rail proposal.
Mr. Newton
Yes, I will start that again. We propose an outer rail line on the outskirts in circular fashion built in stages. First, Heuston station would be extended via the park tunnel, now supported by platform 11, to Connolly station and the North Wall/Spencer Dock. The Kildare line would then be joined up at Lucan to the Maynooth line at Leixlip-Intel, a distance of just three miles. If no more of the circular line was built, these three miles are the most important of all and would increase rail efficiency by up to four fold as a rail line from Lucan in can be used as a one-way system with the two lines inward at morning peak. Long distance trains would now stop at Lucan to re-fill, increasing their efficiency.
If the Luas had gone straight at the Red Cow roundabout, as we wanted, to Citywest and turned left into Tallaght and right into Lucan, we would then have a Tallaght to Blanchardstown rail link, which we would continue to Dundrum and complete more of the circle. If Irish Rail was allowed to build the rail by extending the Dart it would not take much more to complete the full circle by sending it to Blanchardstown. The circle allows us to maximise existing rail and its efficiency. For example, for heavy traffic coming in on the Drogheda road in the morning we would use the outward line for serving the airport and so on and maximise the rail.
The proposed location of the metro is madness. It will undermine the efficiency of public transport, with everybody having to go into the centre to go back out again, benefiting people who use the airport only a few times a year. It will take less than 1% of cars off the road. We have attached the full range of disadvantages in our submission.
Roads are also a very important part of the circle concept but their location is of utmost importance. The industrial corridor on the outskirts of the city is now visible, but there is no road link up from Dundrum to Tallaght, Citywest, Baldonnel, Leixlip, Hewlett Packard, Intel, Blanchardstown industrial estate and on to the airport. This area needs a link up road as it has space for all future requirements. Part of this road is already being built, with an interchange already built on the N4 and a bridge over the Liffey. All it needs is a connecting link from the Nangor Road near Pollyhops to the Celbridge road just two miles away. Fingal County Council wants to bring it from there to the airport, and it will be in the regional planning guidelines when they are published early in 2004.
Unfortunately, South Dublin County Council is linking it in the wrong place, leading to more congestion. I ask the committee to check this out. We are so near a solution we must not let it slip. It is too late to upgrade the M50 as congestion is already bad. It would take up to 2008 for completion, causing major congestion during that time. It would draw more traffic into the congested areas of Swords, Blanchardstown, Lucan, Clondalkin and Tallaght, and more traffic would use it with the upgrading of roads into Dublin from the rest of the country to link Belfast. It would be saturated within a short time of its completion and put back our bus plan by many years. The outer relief road west of Lucan must be completed to ease congestion on those areas.
Bilocation technology is a very important part of our plan also. Technology is used in almost everything nowadays, and it should be used to its full potential to ease traffic congestion. It allows businesses to have their premises in more than one location. Offices like the motor taxation office, where the computer does the running, can be side by side or miles apart, and this allows work to be located near the worker at home. It allows businesses in the centre with another office on the outskirts. Facilitating work or business on the outskirts, nearer the locals, would greatly benefit country users who can avoid adding to the congestion problem further in. It would greatly reduce travel time and greatly improve provincial bus services, with easier access for many people thus reducing car numbers into the city. It would make our roads safer by reducing the main element in road accidents - driver tiredness.
Bus efficiency fell to its lowest level in the late 1990s, just 23%. It has risen a bit higher since with the QBCs. The three main elements in this inefficiency are the radial system all by the centre; traffic is now a major cause of inefficiency and restrictive work practices. The first two factors are addressed in the circle plan, and for the third we have put forward a radial bus plan that would eliminate restrictive work practices, sick leave and absenteeism, thus offering an ideal solution for all employers.
We want bus depots to be located on the outskirts. The radial system is the most inefficient as the user keeps the seat mainly for the full trip and may still use it to go back to his or her final destination. It is very inconvenient for many and causes congestion. The circle is the most efficient system, with none of the above problems. In addition, the seat is used several times.
We want to make Dublin City best for business, entertainment, shopping and tourism. The circle plan will give this balance, with most of the work on the outskirts and easy accessibility for all forms of transport, including cycling and walking. We must avoid overloading the city centre. It must be able to cater for tourist growth over the next century. Most people will still want to go to the centre from the big number of housing schemes that will be built over the next 50 years or more.
One of our main objections to the metro routing is bringing people into the centre who do not want to go there and overloading it. We are closer to overloading it than we think. Look at Christmas week, when one cannot walk, shop or have a meal in comfort in the main area. We fully support the expansion of the centre area to the docklands.
We want a mainline rail station at Lucan west, the Kildare side of the Adamstown development. Almost 30% of people living on the outskirts of Dundrum, Lucan, Clondalkin, Blanchardstown and Swords have connections to the countryside, and it makes little sense to drag them to Heuston. With this station, many will get off and the train can take locals into the city for better efficiency.
The circle is a new approach. It goes for a head start as catch up rarely succeeds and costly ideas take too long. This concept may be difficult to take in from this short explanation but it is very simple, and I am sure that when committee members grasp it they will see the benefits. The big problem we face is the will to let public transport work. Every excuse is used to push it under the carpet. The safety card is usually played, but the committee will realise that safety is utmost in our minds.
This concept must stand on its merits. Authorities continually give us bus lanes where they are not essential, which can harm local communities. Our plan uses common sense and maximises existing facilities, making it the most cost-effective plan of all. Planning in isolation causes major problems and an overall plan must be developed. If Luas used a similar gauge we could link Connolly and Heuston stations with our similar trains, lighter than Luas, on the street using the caged safety net. This can still be done using the third rail concept. All is not lost and the future is bright. I thank the committee again for giving us this opportunity, and we are now available to answer questions.
I welcome the National Transport Users' Association. Mr. Newton is correct about the radial routes coming into the city centre. Everything has to come via the city centre and we need to develop the orbital bus services if we are to take some of the pressure off the city centre.
I have a couple of questions. The first relates to the Minister for Transport's proposals regarding bus competition or deregulation. What is Mr. Newton's view on that and how would it tie in with the bus element of his proposal? Does he see integrated ticketing as a key element in the implementation of this proposal? Second, Mr. Newton said he has presented this proposal to a number of different agencies and to all the transport gurus in Dublin. Why are they so opposed to these proposals? Third, I ask for an outline of the cost of implementing the infrastructural changes that would be required on the city quays to implement this proposal.
I will take Deputy Shorthall's questions, and then we will come back to Mr. Newton.
I welcome the group also. It is very important that we listen to the voice of experience in transport, and Mr. Newton has been a bus driver for a long time. There is a great tendency in this country to go for big, expensive ideas, and it is time we pulled back a little and listened to what people who are actually working the system have to suggest.
I am particularly taken by the proposals for the bus corridor - the circle - on the quays. It seems to make eminent sense to run it in the opposite direction so that the buses would stop on the quayside rather than on the side of businesses where there is a lot of conflict between buses and their users and people trying to get parking outside business premises and so on. There is no clear run for buses along the quays, and it would seem very sensible to run them the opposite way so that they stop on the quayside.
I have a few questions about the detail of the proposals. Is Mr. Newton suggesting that the traffic would continue operating in the current direction and that only the bus lane would go in the opposite direction, or is he suggesting reversing all of the traffic flow around the quays? I have noticed that the footpath is particularly narrow along the quays. What is Mr. Newton proposing for bus shelters along there? Would it entail a boardwalk and breaking into the quay wall to locate bus shelters?
Another thing that strikes me as a possible cause of difficulties is ensuring that people could cross the road safely to access the bus stops. The pedestrian traffic, by and large, is on the other side of the road on both quays. Has the group looked at the question of pedestrian safety in getting across the road?
Essentially, Mr. Newton is talking about two circles - an inner circle on the quays and an outer circle on the M50. Has he identified locations for the bus depots on the M50 route? The sketch presented to us is not terribly detailed, and I ask whether Mr. Newton has any more detailed drawings of diagrams to show us precisely what he has in mind for the M50.
Mr. Newton
Privatisation, as such, is not really an issue. To run our plan we must have one main transport provider, and we would then bring in private operators to work alongside it. For the linking up and feeding in services, private operators would play a major role. If we had two or three different companies operating at the moment we would still have the same problems. The problems must be solved first. We have major restrictive practices in our organisation. We must get our house in order and we are planning to do that. We have put that to many of our bus drivers and they are very much in favour.
As for who listens to us, we have put our proposals to many bodies. Like this committee, they gave us a very fair hearing. They gave us the impression they thought it a very good idea and so on, but when they went away they usually said that Luas or something else was better. They never turned our idea down. That is one thing in our favour.
We are looking for counter-flow on the quays on a trial basis. All it is is a two-way system. I remember when the quays were two ways; it was a two-way system just like any street. That saves one having to put in all the extra cost factors. It would just be a one year trial to see if people use the system. We estimate that traffic would get in and out from Heuston station in five minutes. The plan would not interfere with traffic because we can turn at various bridges without crossing traffic. At the moment, when buses are going into the city they are crossing two lanes of traffic and causing major congestion in the city.
Regarding the idea of the boardwalk, we would drop people off at Aston Quay, go across O'Connell Bridge and come back up the quays again, carrying people to their various destinations. We have the drawings here and will show them to the committee later. The bay where people are picked up would be on the boardwalk and would be covered in with Perspex. The whole facility must be made safer. Passengers would buy their tickets there, the bus would then load and go straight out of the city. There would be another bay at the Halfpenny Bridge. We have to make the system convenient for the user. The system must be attractive for the customer.
The cost of creating the two-way system on the quays is four times less than a bus corridor. Traffic lights just have to be reversed and right hand turns would be eliminated. All that has been looked after in the plan, and I do not want to delay the committee. We can go over those details at a later stage.
Deputy Shorthall mentioned that there are two spots on the quays where the footpath is narrow - at the Capel Street Bridge and the Halfpenny Bridge. We have addressed that problem with the Garda, and they were fully satisfied with our solution. At Capel Street Bridge we use a street behind the Clarence Hotel. It is still one lane going in, and the traffic stays as it is coming back out. For the quays system to operate satisfactorily, however, we must have two-lane traffic coming out or the system will jam up. By doing that we would remove about 30% of traffic. To make it even better, we would reverse the flow at Capel Street and do other things to take the pressure off Capel Street Bridge also. We spent many hours going through this with senior Garda members, and they were all satisfied it would work. There was another question about pedestrians crossing the road, but on the wide section of the quays where the stops would be there would have to be a two-lane system for overtaking. A pedestrian light is being put in place near Capel Street, but it is no use for traffic coming out of the city. With our contra-flow system, however, it would be ideal.
In our concept we want to eliminate four of the small depots. We would end up with the depots at Donnybrook, Phibsborough, Harristown and Lucan west. Even in the mornings we have empty buses running in and out of the city, showing the lack of efficiency at present. We need those four depots out of the way because we would have very few buses stopping in the city. We would take buses off the streets completely and down to the North Wall. Eventually, when Macken Street is finished we would go down there and turn because we want to link in with Spencer Dock also. We would be serving the Point if we had time to spare to go down to that turn. If not, we would turn at Butt Bridge and keep the buses moving all the time. The delay factor would be on the outskirts. We do not want the buses blocking the system. Have I covered most of the questions?
I have one question. If, as Mr.Newton said, people think this is a great idea, why have they not implemented it? This is basically what Deputy Shortall asked also.
Mr. Newton
The feeling I got was that the will to improve bus transport was not there up to a few years ago. Everyone thought that the Luas would come along and be a wonderful system, so the will was not there. I know within a few minutes of talking to somebody whether the will is there or not. One guy did get annoyed with me and said that a lower type of user uses the bus and that they cause congestion and pollution. That gave me the message that this proposal would not be accepted.
I see Mr. Keegan has changed position recently. He was totally opposed to the counter-flow at one stage but now I hear him talking about being all in favour of buses. I have exerted pressure on this and I challenge anyone to come up with a better system than the counter flow. We have listed over 100 advantages. CIE brought experts over from England to contradict me on this and argue that the present system is better. I was shocked at that.
I congratulate Mr. Newton for coming in here, and as I looked across and listened to his presentation I wondered why some of what he has been saying has not been implemented up to now. Part of the reason might be that if I was looking across at Mr. TomNewton, consultant to Dublin city transport or to CIE, we might listen differently to him.
Sitting on this committee for the last 12 months rarely, if ever, have I heard such honesty. We have had unions in here, and if the words "restrictive practices" had been mentioned there would have been a walk out. Mr. Newton, as a bus user and bus driver, has said there are restrictive practices. He has spoken about moving some of the bus depots out of town. If that was suggested by others, the word "rezoning" and development of apartments on present sites would be brought into question. Mr. Newton's honesty is to be admired. If we had a consultant telling us——
Does the Senator have a question?
I am coming to the point. If we had a consultant telling us that our buses were operating at 23% despite the investment we are putting in, we would be aghast. Mr. Newton, as a bus driver, sees it at first hand. He is saying that his contra-flow plan costs very little, does not take away road space and merely makes better use of existing road space. Listening to what he says in relation to the Park Tunnel, I have not heard others speak either about linking Maynooth to the Kildare line back at Lucan. I have not heard of the idea for that three-mile stretch before and I would like more details on it.
It seems Mr. Newton is saying that we have possibly 95% of a system in place and that very little is needed to integrate the existing system. As a member of this committee, however, I realise that we have given a consultant the job of looking at a metro plan. Our money would be well spent on looking at Mr. Newton's plan.
I have two brief questions. I missed the start of Mr. Newton's presentation, so I ask him to explain the background or the genesis of the formation of his group. Where did it come from? What was the idea? How long has it been around? Who are the members? Does the group have offices? Does it get funding and so on? Perhaps Mr. Newton could just elaborate on that a little.
My second question is not intended as a criticism - far from it because I was very interested in what Mr. Newton had to say. It is the first time I have heard Mr. Newton's presentation, and as a non-expert it is exceptionally hard to take it all in. I know it is a complex problem, and the solution may be simple or complex, I do not know. Is there any way Mr. Newton could formulate his proposals in a more user friendly way? I do not wish to sound negative in saying this and I say it to his credit, but could it be put in some form of presentation or screen display showing me what the traffic flows would be or whatever? I do not know whether Mr. Newton's group have the resources to do that, maybe it does not, but it would help his cause.
I join my colleagues in saying it is very refreshing and enlightening to hear from somebody who is at the coal face, and we have to take Mr. Newton's long professional experience into account. His suggestions are so interesting because they come from somebody who is involved in this on a daily basis and has a long record of involvement.
I found it very refreshing and useful, and we must treat Mr. Newton's views with respect. For the purposes of political persuasion, I would look again at the page of the submission entitled "Main advantages of bus contra-flow - the train track effect on quays". I would refine it and sharpen the aim. Mr. Newton might even be able to limit himself to 100 advantages as 124 does seem excessive. They are of varying degrees of significance, and I would hit right at the target and take out points like "it is the Rolls Royce of bus operations." It is up to Mr. Newton to prove that to us, not to assert it. That is just a point in regard to lobbying.
My questions are concentrated on the area closest to my heart - the metro. I notice that Mr. Newton damns it with faint praise. He said it is the best system - restraining himself from saying it is a Rolls Royce of a system - but that it is in the wrong place and so on. In an ideal world I would agree with him. The arguments about bus transport and the radial system apply also to the metro. Mr. Newton is right on that, and I have always felt that the ideal would be a circular system or two inter-penetrating circular systems, if we had the money, in the shape of the infinity sign, so that one could get to any part of the city.
It is a question of expense. Mr. Newton says the present system might need many more metro lines to be added in but that one is enough. Fine. First, does he accept that a metro is essential, necessary or even just a good thing? If so, where would he put the metro? At the end of the column on the metro he does not really have any concluding suggestions, unlike with the bus system. He does not state that this, that and the other needs to be done with the metro, so I would like to know what his ideas are with regard to the metro. I feel it is the best system and one that will shift large numbers of people. I do not want to go over the argument as we have had it over the last number of years in the Seanad and over the last 18 months on this distinguished committee. We have had considerable computing advice with regard to the number of users that can be taken off roads and so on. Thus, I first offer my presumptuous bit of advice about marketing Mr. Newton's plan and, second, I ask him about the metro. Is he in favour if it? Does he think there is a place for it? Finally, are there ways in which this committee can help in advancing those ideas with which we agree in discussion or which would be to the benefit of the city?
Mr. Newton
We formed this group in 1990 and the circle plan was put forward shortly afterwards. It is the best kept secret in Dublin. Luas has generated millions and millions of words of comment but 99% of people have not heard of the circle yet, even though I have gone to many places to promote it by putting up signs. I expect a bit of a return from the media, which must give balance. My biggest difficulty was with the QBC. I had to fight to get the bus corridor - I did not call it the QBC. With the help of one superintendent, we finally got it by the back door. It was not legal because it used a yellow line instead of a white line, so we then had to change to a white line. The DTO then took it up and everyone ran with the idea, but they did not look at our ideas for getting over the problems and did not finish the system in the city centre. It is embarrassing to see the QBCs working so badly when they could be ten times better.
The Kildare line would extend for three miles between the two existing lines. There is talk about building four lines and doubling the track from Lucan in. That would have been okay 20 or 30 years ago when we had the time to do it and could wait, but when the four lines of rail track are put in, with two lines each way, after the morning peak the tracks are idle. It is a very high cost for a system that will be idle for most of the day.
Our idea is to link the two together. There is heavy traffic in the morning on the Kildare line and coming in from the Maynooth line. We would use the other slack line going out, bringing long distance trains to Lucan and out of the city, and use it as a two-way system coming in. That doubles efficiency straightaway and allows the faster train to use the outer lane. It also allows country trains coming in to stop at Lucan. People can get off to go to the airport, Tallaght or wherever, and the train can fill again. Thus, we increase the efficiency of existing trains, which are very costly to run, and instead of going into the city people in those areas could take the train in the Blanchardstown direction. Thus, we get a four fold advantage without doing anything. That is the benefit of the three-mile——
How do people get out to the airport or wherever they want to go from Lucan? If all these people are brought in from the country and dumped in Lucan they are not going to be happy campers.
Mr. Newton
I say that direction. Initially we will have to facilitate people with buses as we cannot put the train track down overnight. I will answer the Senator's question about the metro because that will address this point also. We would like to present the plan better. It is so simple that I should be able to present it on one page for the customer to read, and Deputy Power is right that we are lacking in terms of presentation. We give out leaflets but I see people throwing them away without even reading them, and we know our presentation is wrong. It is a simple presentation to get right. We want customers to read it and they are not doing so. We are failing there. We are a voluntary group and do not raise funds.
Senator Norris referred to the 124 advantages we have listed for our bus system, but we have also boiled it down to the five main selling points. The Senator asked about the metro, and I would love to see a metro under every street if possible.
Not mine, thank you very much.
Mr. Newton
A metro, after all, is nothing other than an electrified train. The industrial circle in Dublin is already formed, and we want to contain that sprawl. It is already spreading from Dún Laoghaire to Dundrum, Tallaght, Citywest and Baldonnel in circular form, and there is quite a bit of the rail track there. We wanted the Luas to go to Newlands Cross, straight out to Citywest, turning left at Tallaght and extending for a mile and a half into the Lucan line. We would then have a line from there to Blanchardstown. When the new three mile track is linked up the train track will go as far as Blanchardstown. There are only four and a half miles from Blanchardstown to the airport and we would not be long putting the circle in place.
It does not mean that people would be travelling all over the place. The trains go the way the people want them to go, and that would give us four exits to the airport. That would become our metro because there is plenty of space in that area for future colleges and hospitals, and the likes of Intel are there already. There is potential for locating up to one million jobs in the area, so that is where the metro would go and where we would get people to work. This is where the provincial bus coming into the city can play a major role. The customers could now make connections and the metro would be a fast operation.
Would Mr. Newton have a circular metro?
Mr. Newton
Yes, the metro would become circular but that does not mean that the trains go in circular form. They go the way the people want them to go. When a train leaves the airport in the morning and goes out along the east coast because the other track coming in is full, one could turn and come in by the Blanchardstown line, by the Lucan line or go over to Tallaght. It depends on the mood of movements. Then, a train going out can pick the passengers up and people can interchange. We must make maximum use of the trains going out as well.
The ideal is to get the maximum efficiency possible and have every seat full. The circle even adds to this efficiency because the seat can be used several times. With the radial system the customer stays on the bus or train the whole way into the city. Even worse, they have to go back out again, making it even more inefficient. A good 20% or so do that, which kills efficiency. That is where privatisation comes in. With the radial system one can forget competition or privatisation because it becomes a very costly system. The radial system entails a single journey in the morning coming in and the bus returning half empty. A double journey involves coming in on one bus and going back out again, thus travelling twice for the one fare. Then there would be two different companies using the same routes.
A question was asked about integrating ticketing. I am not totally in favour of integrating ticketing. It is far better to have an integrating transport system. I would rather get home in half an hour without integrating ticketing systems than get home in two hours with integrating ticketing systems. I would not object to integrating ticketing systems, but for any company to survive under the radial system, integrating ticketing is very costly. We are prepared to go down the competitive route but all unnecessary costs must be kept down. That is what we are talking about.
A little disappointment I felt with Luas was the gauge. When Luas is finished there will be a straight line from Heuston Station down to Connolly Station, and we wanted to use the cage effect there. A regio sprinter train, which is lighter than Luas, could go down there, with the cage coming up and the train going through. It can be made to work. We need a solution fairly quickly and the bus is the solution. I would like to spend some time on——
Could you answer the questions of some of the other committee members?
Mr. Newton
Whose question did I not answer?
Mr. Newton has answered my question.
I welcome Mr. Newton, Mr. Brophy and Mr. Moore. I am interested to know what resources were made available to Mr.Newton's group to carry out its research. Did it have consultants, engineers or other experts available to it? How is the group funded?
Mr. Newton said he would be more interested in getting home early on a bus than in integrated ticketing. I live in north Dublin and use the local railway station quite a lot. Nine times out of ten there is nobody in the ticket office and people are being fined at the other end of the journey for not having a ticket, so it would be very useful if I could buy a ticket in a shop. There is no problem doing this in most countries.
That can be done.
Not where I live because CIE will not supply the shopkeepers with tickets. There is only one ticket outlet within two miles of me.
Is the Deputy talking about bus or rail tickets?
I am talking about rail tickets. Maybe train tickets can be purchased where Deputy Shortall lives but I cannot do so. In relation to bus corridors, we have a bus lane on the M50 that is rarely used. One never sees a bus in it, so I often wonder about having it there at all. Has Mr. Newton done any research on that? We have developments in north Dublin where thousands of houses were built without proper infrastructure being put in place, be it rail or bus services. In another part of north Dublin we have bus stops but no bus service, and CIE tells us that it does not have the resources to provide a proper service.
In relation to security on buses, Mr. Newton said we should make public transport attractive to the consumer to enable people to use it. There are people who fear going into the city centre at night because of the lack of security on buses when they are returning home. People are attacked from time to time on such journeys. What information or ideas has Mr. Newton on that? Link services to train and Dart stations are non-existent. We have people coming from two or three miles away, and parking cars all day. A link service would encourage consumers to use public transport more frequently.
I join my colleagues in welcoming the presentation from Mr. Newton, Mr. Moore and Mr. Brophy. Mr. Newton seemed to suggest towards the end of his last response that the bus was the answer to effectively all our transport needs, certainly within the greater Dublin area. I might be wrong, but he seemed to indicate that he comes from a bus background. If that is the case then there is probably a bit of a conflict there if he thinks the bus is the solution to everything, and he might comment on that.
The presentation certainly gives a lot of food for thought and there are some very good ideas in it. There seems to be a lot of discussion about the minute detail of putting the infrastructure in place, however, but very little detailed analysis of the true business case. It is certainly clear that the group understands the whole area of infrastructural needs and the logistics and management of a bus network. What is not clear, and it is something the group might consider at a later point, is an understanding of the needs of the consumer or an attempt to put in place some detailed business case or analysis for the changes suggested. It is not good enough to say that if you get people to Lucan they will then go to Tallaght, Blanchardstown or wherever. That needs to be mapped out before any serious consideration could be given to putting that infrastructure in place.
I know the Chairman is under tight time constraints so I will yield in the interests of getting involved later. I am very familiar with the presentation.
I have one brief question. Does Mr. Newton have a view on the concept of congestion charges like those introduced in London?
Mr. Newton
To answer Deputy Brady, we have no resources at all, no funding or no help. Our total spend to date is over €50,000 because we are so committed to the cause. We are not against integrated ticketing. I am just saying that we must get an integrated system as well. There are great options for a one ticket system, such as paying by the month or year and having the money deducted from one's account.
We want to see the maximum use of bus lanes. The DTO and the new body, the QBN, have been putting bus lanes all over the place. These guys must plan correctly, and when putting in a bus lane it must be situated so that it works in both directions. A typical example are the bus lanes they are putting down to Lucan village, while two lanes lie idle on the main road that they will not use. We cannot get them to use them, but now, on John's Road, which is very congested going inwards, they are giving us a bus lane outwards. It is obvious these guys do not understand transport that much, otherwise they would not be putting the bus lanes in the wrong place all the time.
Deputy Brady asked about north Dublin. The Lucan line, with the circle option, allows us to have a double inward line in the morning. If the line going out to Blanchardstown was good enough we could use the northern line as a two-way system coming in to get extra people in. There is huge demand in that part of the city. We cannot continue bringing everybody into the centre. That is why we want to put a lot of this on the outskirts and locate work there. Bilocation technology allows for this. There are approximately 80,000 people coming from outside the area into Dublin every day, but we do not have to bring them all into the city centre.
We are very concerned about security on buses, and with our corridor flow we would end up with half the amount of terminal spaces. They would be properly covered and supervised because only a very small area from O'Connell Bridge to Butt Bridge would have to be supervised, and cameras and so on would be put in place to make it very safe. That is why we have a major disagreement with clamping at night because women coming into meetings in hotels and so on are forced to make alternative arrangements, and nobody is thinking about safety. That is why we are concerned about the safety of cars. We are all for safety, but let us be realistic and safe.
Overall, we need the bus service to link into the train stations and so on, and that is where there is a role for the likes of the private operator because the cost base we are planning for would not be able to cater for that. There is plenty of room for the private operators to come in but we would expect them to work in a fair way. I have had discussions with some of the private operators and they are very favourable towards our concept because we all want a system that will work.
Senator Dooley asked whether we have set up a business plan. We by-passed the business plan——
I meant the business case as opposed to a plan.
Mr. Newton
Does the Senator mean from the perspective of the user?
I mean an analysis of the movement of people at the moment and a projection of the potential needs at a later stage in terms of where people will want to go.
Mr. Newton
To get over that problem we came up with a solution. Just as a shopping centre puts in anchor tenants, we would put in six anchor routes. If nobody wanted to go along the M50 the six routes would already be sufficient to carry people in and out. Thus, we already have a system with a very high frequency every two or three minutes to make it attractive to the user to go along the M50. Not everybody travelling on the M50 is going to the city centre, and there is huge potential to go everywhere else. We looked at all the jobs developing in various places on the outskirts.
The M50 bus concept would be made very attractive for the user. We must have a transport solution in place before we bring the jobs to the area, and this is a simple way of doing it at no extra cost. We have six routes coming in, and they would cater for such high frequency that nobody would have to go north or south on the M50. That is the way we would tackle it, with the system already in place before people even move to the outskirts.
Mr. John Moore
Deputy Brady said that we have bus lanes on the M50. Where are there bus lanes on the M50?
At the extension of the N32.
Mr. Moore
Now we are in business. That is what I thought the Deputy meant. I do not want to be sharp about this but that is not the M50. The M50 ends at the M1 junction. That area is at my own backdoor so I have to know about it. Sorry about that.
Mr. Newton
The last question I was asked was about congestion charges. The motorist is already creased and cannot take much more. We can put in a transport system that works independently of the traffic. Our concept involves a counter-flow on the quays and a bus lane all the way to Maynooth. Thus, we are actually giving motorists more space. Neither do we take any space from motorists on the M50. If the public transport system can be made to work and made attractive, allowing buses to get from Heuston and back in five minutes and involving the Luas and everything else, there would be no need for congestion charges. If we go ahead with our industrial circle, where most jobs would be located on the outskirts, there would be no need for it.
How much more can the motorist take? We all want quality of life, but our city is so small that we crucify everywhere outside it. Where does one draw the line with congestion charges? There are other possibilities, like giving people a tax deduction for using public transport, thus offering incentives rather than penalties. We hear different stories from London about how their system is working. When a new plan is brought forward we are all given the positives of how it is working, but there are a lot of negatives also. England is a different story because the population is so big. We would rather not hit the motorists anymore as they are hit severely as it is. If we can produce the goods and get buses in and out traffic free, why bother with congestion charges? That is a reason we would have no shops or stores on the quayside.
I thank Mr. Newton, Mr. Moore and Mr. Brophy for coming in and making their very interesting presentation. We would be delighted to get other information they might have as they develop the idea.
Mr. Newton
I forgot to bring the committee the map showing the three options for the outer ring road.
Could you send it to the Clerk?
Mr. Newton
Yes.
Great. I thank Mr. Newton and his colleagues very much for coming in. We appreciate it.
Mr. Newton
I thank the committee very much for having us and looking after us so well. Committee members gave us a fair hearing and did not ask us any difficult questions.
Sitting suspended at 3.31 p.m. and resumed at 3.35 p.m.
I welcome the National Roads Authority, represented by Mr. Michael Egan, Mr. John Fitzsimons and Mr. Brian Cullinane. I thank them for attending at relatively short notice as I am sure they are under considerable time pressure at the moment. I draw their attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee.
Mr. Michael Egan
We welcome the opportunity to address the committee. I apologise that our chief executive officer, Mr. Michael Tobin, could not be here today given the short notice.
The upgrading of the M50 Dublin C-ring is an objective of the National Development Plan 2000-2006 and is also provided for in the Government approved Dublin Transportation Office's Platform for Change 2000-2016, which sets out an integrated strategy incorporating public transport and other investment measures aimed at catering for anticipated growth in passenger movements in the Dublin area.
Traffic growth on the M50 has exceeded earlier expert forecasts. The situation is explained by many factors, including the record economic growth rates during the 1990s and the dramatic fall in unemployment levels - factors which combined to increase car sales and traffic volumes - as well as intensive industrial and commercial developments along and close to the M50. The trend to commute considerable distances to work in the Dublin area has also served to increase pressure on the M50. Traffic volumes on the busiest sections of the motorway now average 80,000-90,000 vehicles per day, while the M50/N7 Red Cow interchange is frequently catering for in excess of 100,000 vehicles each day.
Some sections of the M50 are already at or approaching capacity for a 2 x 2 lane motorway, which we have at present. The limited capacity of existing grade separated junctions, such as those at the Red Cow and the N4 Palmerstown interchanges on the Galway road, and constraints caused by the West-Link toll plaza are also inhibiting traffic movement and giving rise to extensive queueing at peak times both on the M50 and the radial routes feeding onto the motorway.
Further increases in traffic can be anticipated due to such factors as continuing growth in the economy, an increasing population, emerging commuting patterns and new developments such as the completion of the Dublin Port Tunnel in 2005 and the recently approved urban centre at Adamstown on the N4 which is expected to have a population of 20,000 to 25,000. There is a finite capacity to the extent to which an upgraded M50 can accommodate future growth in traffic volumes. Scope for improvements exists through the provision of a third lane on both carriageways, where warranted, using the present centre median - in other words, the grass area we are familiar with. Scope also exists to improve major junctions subject in some cases to significant constraints imposed by recent development and planning permission decisions.
I understand that this statement has been circulated so I will not go through it in full. I will deal briefly with the M50 upgrade proposals which got some publicity recently. The authority has for some time been looking at the scope to cater for the present traffic situation and for future growth in traffic on the M50. Some time back we outlined proposals involving expenditure of €700 million and the provision of a third lane over much of the M50 itself and significant upgrading of the major interchanges. The scale of that project and the costs involved presented difficulties to the authority because, as the committee is no doubt aware, the programme itself is under considerable funding pressure at present.
Against that background the authority has continued to review the proposals in conjunction with our consultants. Revised proposals which met with the approval of the board of the authority last week provide for the installation of a third lane on the M50, running from the M1-M50 interchange close to Dublin Airport as far south as the N81 road to Blessington south of Tallaght. As part of that package we will make significant improvements at the Red Cow interchange and the N4 interchange at Palmerstown. We are also planning to upgrade the M1 interchange close to Dublin Airport. These are the interchanges under the greatest pressure at present.
The total cost of the revised proposal is €316 million, including €37 million for the Red Cow interchange. In giving its clearance to this revised strategy, the board of the authority requested that further work be done on the interface at the Red Cow between vehicular traffic and the Luas operation. The consultants working with the authority have assured us that the existing arrangement for Luas, at ground level, can operate efficiently with the revised arrangements we have now proposed for the Red Cow. The board itself wanted further consideration given to that aspect to make sure that the traffic and Luas are not inhibited to any great degree.
The authority, in conjunction with the Dublin area local authorities, is pressing ahead as quickly as possible to complete the statutory documentation. We need a motorway scheme and environmental impact assessment, and we hope to complete that early in 2004 and publish it. It will then be a matter for An Bord Pleanála to adjudicate on whether the scheme can proceed to construction.
If we get the hoped for approval from An Bord Pleanála we should be in position to start work on the first phase, which would involve improvements at the Red Cow interchange, the Palmerstown interchange on the N4 and the construction of a third lane between both of those interchanges on the M50 itself, in March 2005. Funding issues clearly arise, but given the reduced costs of the scheme and the phasing of it, we would hope to be in a position to accommodate that in the current programme.
We are separately pursuing with the National Development Finance Agency the potential to generate further investment in the roads programme. We are currently looking at issues such as using future toll revenues as a form of security against bonding or borrowing.
In addition to this statement, committee members have been issued with a booklet of designs, photographs and drawings indicating the existing interchange arrangement at some of the major interchanges. We have addressed there the situation with the M1 close to the airport in section A of the document, the N4, which is the interchange at Palmerstown on the Galway road, in section B and the Red Cow-N7 interchange in section C. We have set out the current situation, the more elaborate and expensive scheme proposals and the proposals as approved. These are described in the cover of the document as being approved last week by the board of the authority.
We will be happy to elaborate or explain if committee members so require.
What is the difference between diagrams C3 and C4?
Mr. Egan
Diagrams C3 and C4 are actually the same document presented in slightly different diagrammatical form. We thought the C4 document would be simpler to follow given the colour coding——
One would not want to get lost there.
Mr. Egan
If one looks at C4, on the left is the Naas Road going towards Naas and on the right is the road from the Red Cow into the city centre. In the centre, from top to bottom, is the M50 at the lowest level. A series of loops are displayed. If one starts at the top of the page, if one is coming from Dublin Airport into the city, the free flow slip arrangement is displayed in orange. Thus, traffic will be taken away from the roundabout area of the Red Cow, so avoiding conflict for traffic. There is a light green light highlighted close to the orange one. If one is coming from Dublin Airport and wanting to move towards Naas without coming into conflict with traffic on the Red Cow junction - which is the major difficulty at present - one will be able to complete that manoeuvre by coming straight through, off the M50 along this new third level route and sail on in the Naas direction.
If one is coming from the Naas direction, in the bottom left of the diagram, and wishes to go onto the M50, we have displayed in pink the free flow slip. Again, that takes one away from the Red Cow junction proper. If one is coming from Naas, on the left of the diagram, and wishes to proceed south on the M50 itself towards Tallaght, one would then get onto the road displayed in green, another proposed new construction, take the loop towards the top of the diagram and move south, uninhibited, onto the M50.
One will also see displayed hatching areas. Four sets of traffic lights are envisaged there, two of which would affect traffic. If one came along the yellow route, a slip road serving traffic coming along the M50 from the Tallaght direction going north but wishing to go either to Naas or the city centre, one would encounter the traffic lights. Those lights will also facilitate the crossing by Luas. As I said initially, these are key aspects which the board of the authority has asked the consultants to examine further.
The consultants are very confident that this type of arrangement, even with those traffic lights, will not result in serious traffic disruption, with Luas operating at ground level, given the easing in the volume of traffic currently catered for on the existing roundabout. That traffic will, through a series of loops and new road constructions, be removed from the roundabout proper, which will clearly benefit Luas and traffic coming from the M50 and wishing to go to Naas or into the city.
I ask the delegation to elaborate on the difference between the earlier proposals and the ones now being proposed for each of the junctions. I presume there is a difference not only in cost but also in the traffic volumes that can be catered for. I note that Luas will still come in at road level, alongside that yellow slip road, on the Red Cow intersection. I do not know whether the delegation can answer this, but the proposals that were before the Minister in relation to Luas, for grade separation and putting it on stilts, would exceed the costs that the NRA is proposing for this very elaborate interchange. I ask the delegation to elaborate on why the Luas plan would cost so much more than a very elaborate road interchange.
It is stated that there will be virtual free flow at the Red Cow junction. Does the NRA believe that will actually happen with the realignment of that intersection? Turning to the M50 itself, the NRA is talking about using the green area, or median, in the middle of the M50. Would that involve the introduction of crash barriers? In relation to the NRA's projections on numbers on the proposed new M50, is the NRA taking into account the projections for the completion of the new inter-urban roads and motorways, including those of Cork and Galway, which will bring traffic at a much quicker rate and volume into the M50 interchange? When does the NRA hope to see those two motorways completed and how will they impact on the M50?
I thank Mr. Egan for the brevity of his presentation. What we requested today was a rapid questions and answer session on the NRA's precise proposals. What exactly is the status of those proposals at this stage? Listening to Mr. Egan today, it sounds like the NRA is going full steam ahead with them, but presumably it must await a Government decision on this. What kind of communication has the NRA had with the Minister up to now? It seems extraordinary that a State agency such as yours would be pressing ahead with this as if there were no difficulty, without obtaining the necessary approvals. Perhaps you would take us through the stages of Government approval.
Could you also confirm the implications of these plans, C3 and C4 for Luas, specifically on the proposed starting date for Luas, which is apparently August next year for the Tallaght line? Do these proposals have any implications for the proposed starting date? If you obtain Government approval for this proposal what is the period of construction that you envisage and the overall period of pre-planning, planning and construction? Also, what are the implications for traffic flow during the construction period?
I welcome Mr. Egan, Mr. Fitzsimons and Mr. Cullinane.
What criteria are used to establish the role to be developed or not? Is it traffic density or economy? I believe there should be no traffic lights on motorways. There should be another system. Have you carried out any surveys on traffic lights and the delay factor that is associated with them, as in the length of time it takes traffic to get moving again?
On the toll plazas, there are huge delays there, particularly at peak times. People regularly ask me, when they are going to the west of Ireland or Athlone, how can they avoid the M50 or what other routes can they take. It seems to me that if the upgrading of roads is based on the economy, it only revolves around Limerick, Cork and Dublin.
How many engineers and consultants are on the staff of the NRA? Deputy Shortall touched on this. In connection with long-term planning and forecasts, is there a long-term plan in place, such as a five year or ten year plan?
On objections, as Deputy Shortall mentioned, is there liaison between the NRA and chambers of commerce and with which other bodies do you liaise? What delays and costs have arisen as a result of the objections on your other projects? Do you have any recommendations on possible new legislation that could be enacted to eliminate these problems?
Mr. Egan
On the initial query on differences, one of the key differences is that the Luas will have an underbridge underneath the tracks for traffic coming from the M50. If the committee members look at the photograph entitled C2 they will see that the section in the bottom right of the photograph shows roads at different levels. That is the slip road I was describing. That is one of the cost factors. There is a further loop not catered for, which can be seen at the top left quarter of the diagram C2. It is not accommodated in the latest proposals.
One of the difficulties for us at the Red Cow was land acquisition costs in a situation where planning permission had been granted. That proved to be a serious constraint on the design that could be used there. However, we believe that the configuration on the diagrams entitled C3 and C4 will cater for the key movements particularly on and from the M50. The loss will affect traffic moving into town. If one is travelling up the M50 and wishes to move into town, one will have to meet the traffic lights at the top of the slip road. The slip road arrangement we are proposing will be a different configuration to what is there at the moment. It will be wider and will accommodate three lines of traffic, so that the throughput, on the green light, will be substantially more than at present. Again, the phasing will be significantly different given that we have eliminated much of the traffic conflict created by traffic seeking to move in other directions, by the means of this series of loops.
The question was, whatare the traffic volumes that can be cateredfor under your current proposals compared tothe original proposals? I presume the morecostly they are, the more traffic can be accommodated?
Mr. Egan
There will be no significant difference, surprising as that may be. What we have to appreciate is that there is a limit on the volume of traffic that can be fed into Dublin city centre. The Dublin Transportation Office's Platform for Change sets out the strategy that essentially sees the increase in traffic, or passenger movement demand, being accommodated by public transport rather than the car. The existing M50——
Is there not a difference of €400 million?
Mr. Egan
Sorry?
Is there not a difference of €400 million?
Mr. Egan
Approximately, between them, there is.
How can you account for that?
Mr. Egan
That is the entire scheme we are discussing, not just the Red Cow. I can explain that later on, if the Deputy wants me to.
The M50 is carrying, at its most heavily trafficked sections, anything up to 90,000 to 100,000 vehicles a day. It is operating at capacity. With a third lane on these heavily trafficked sections it should be possible to approach 120,000 or 130,000 vehicles under very congested conditions. That is the absolute limit. After that, the Dublin Transportation Office strategy is the safety mechanism to cater for future growth.
On the issue of the feeder routes to Dublin and Cork, we are seeking to improve access to the M50 as well as access from Dublin city centre on to the Naas Road.
On the point about the traffic lights, the new roads that are being planned by the authority, motorways and dual carriageways, will not have traffic lights. On the Naas Road, plans for a third lane are well advanced, extending the work that was completed in the last two years from Newlands Cross to Rathcoole. We will extend the third lane all the way to the start of the Naas bypass proper. In addition, we will have grade separated junctions at Newlands Cross, Johnstown and one other location. The traffic lights people are familiar with will be removed. Once one has gone beyond Newlands Cross and wishes to travel to Limerick or Cork, one will not see any further traffic lights. That is the strategy we are pursuing.
Deputy Shortall asked about the status of proposals for communications with the Department. She will be aware that a member of the Department sits on the board of the authority. We have been in contact with the Department and briefed them on the decisions taken by the board following the meeting last Monday. We are working in accordance with Government policy, as set out in the National Development Plan and as confirmed in the Platform for Change, that takes transportation in the Dublin area up to 2016. Upgrading of the M50 is part of that overall strategy. The Minister is aware that we have been working to deliver that.
The further detail on Luas is under review. The Minister has indicated that he is reviewing proposals on the Red Cow-Luas dimension and hopes to come to decisions in the next fortnight I believe. Clearly the National Roads Authority will be taking account of the Minister's decisions.
We have had discussions with Luas and their consultants to arrive at an agreed strategy. It is fair to say that the Railway Procurement Agency shares the view of our consultants that the arrangement displayed on diagrams C3 and C4, with Luas at ground level, can operate.
Assuming that the Minister has abandoned the hare brained idea of putting Luas up on stilts and that it is to go ahead on ground level and, if you obtained approval for this change to the junction, will that work have implications for the commencement of the Tallaght line?
Mr. Egan
No.
Work on the Tallaght line could commence next August and would not be interfered with?
Mr. Egan
Yes. We are not responsible for Luas, but it is our understanding that commencement of the operation relates to whether it will be on stilts. The RPA has indicated that there could be a substantial delay were it to be erected on stilts. In that situation, a new environmental impact assessment and statutory procedure would be required.
Assuming that does not go ahead, will any delay be caused by this work?
Mr. Egan
No. I do not know if Deputy Shortall wishes me to answer a specific relevant question given that I have dealt with the Luas issue. The timeframe for the work at the Red Cow outlined in documents and drawings C3 and C4 is two years. That work could commence in March 2005 given a favourable decision from An Bord Pleanála. The initial work would also incorporate the third lane from the Red Cow to the Palmerstown interchange on the Galway Road. That work would also include an upgrading of the Palmerstown interchange. That could be done within a two year timeframe.
The Deputy is correct in saying there will be significant traffic management issues and challenges to be dealt with as part of that project. At the best of times, it will be difficult given the sheer volume of vehicles on the M50. The intention would be to keep two lanes of traffic on both carriageways open while work continued on the third lane. We will examine how best to incentivise the contractor to complete the work as efficiently and quickly as possible. That would be part of the package.
Deputy Brady asked about the criteria for deciding which roads are developed. Again, I refer the Deputy to the National Development Plan and, in the Dublin area, the policy document, Platform for Change. I have already commented on the situation regarding traffic lights. I want to emphasise that the limited number of traffic lights at the Red Cow will result in dramatic and significant improvements in traffic flow arrangements there.
Are there proposals to introduce electronic tolling? If so, what does Mr. Egan think of providing free tolling during peak hours so as to eliminate traffic congestion?
Mr. Egan
There has been some improvement at Westlink with the opening in September of the new bridge. I accept that traffic congestion can and does occur at peak times. We have had discussions with National Toll Road officials. We are anxious to improve the level of service provided at toll booths. That could be done by increasing the uptake of electronic tolling and the provision of dedicated lanes for electronic toll collections. Under that arrangement, it should be possible for traffic to move through at reasonable speed in a barrier-free situation. That will dramatically increase the throughput at the toll plaza.
Members need not fear that the experience at the toll plaza at Westlink will be replicated at other tolled roads around the country - there are currently 11 in operation. Approximately 20,000 vehicles per day use the Drogheda by-pass. The toll plaza in place there contains ten toll booths which deal with the volume of traffic involved. The volume of traffic using that by-pass may increase to over 40,000 in the future. There are 14 toll booths at the Westlink plaza which cater for 80,000 to 90,000 vehicles. There is no comparison. It is under pressure and, in that regard, we are working with NTR to improve the level of service.
On opening barriers and operating toll-free booths, that could only be contemplated where NTR were compensated for a loss of toll revenue. It is a throw-back to the old toll scheme agreement which predates the National Roads Authority. That agreement was concluded in the mid-1980s. The new toll scheme arrangements will build in rigorous and onerous performance requirements in relation to the length of queues, vehicle numbers and the time cars or heavy goods vehicles spend waiting to pay their tolls. The new scenario provides that if a queue is more than six vehicles in length the toll barrier must be raised and the traffic thereby moves through without charge. That will be a standard feature to avoid the possibility of delays.
Deputy Brady also asked about objections and cost delays. As a result of delays, costs have been considerable. The high profile schemes are ones like the Glen of the Downs which will be completed tomorrow. That scheme was delayed for two years by legal challenges to the High Court and Supreme Court. Other legal actions have delayed schemes for lesser periods including a number of schemes currently at planning stage. There are at least two challenges pending before the High Court in relation to the Dublin-Cork route. Members asked if we have any ideas on what might be done in this regard. The Taoiseach's proposal for a national infrastructure board can bring about some positive improvements particularly where all statutory approvals can be addressed and delivered through that type of mechanism. A number of free-standing pieces of legislation in place, be it environmental protection legislation, waste legislation, national monuments legislation which would be important in the case of the Carrickmines motorway have the capacity, where a road scheme or other development proposal has obtained statutory approval, to subsequently delay the commencement of construction or completion of a project. We would hope the national infrastructure board could address that type of situation.
It is unlikely, we believe, that that mechanism would in any way erode citizens' rights to avail of the court system. In that eventuality, we would welcome a situation where the courts could deal more efficiently with the challenges that can emerge for road and other critical infrastructure.
I would like answers to the two questions I raised.
I am sorry. Senator Morrissey is next.
I thank the delegation for their presentation. What are the implications for completion of developments at the M50 and the outer ring - a plan which has been on the books of the county council since the three western towns concerned were being developed - if it has to cater for 120,000 to 130,000 cars per day?
I am surprised the report does not provide figures, by way of back-up for the committee, for current traffic volume as against future volume. It is my understanding that traffic levels coming from Naas at peak times are comparative to off-peak traffic coming from Navan at Scotts roundabout approaching the Blanchardstown interchange. There do not appear to be any plans for upgrading that interchange. It is proposed that approximately 120,000 to 130,000 cars will travel down from the N7 as far as the N3 in three lanes. Is it proposed that this traffic will continue on, in two lanes, to the airport given the awful congestion currently being experienced at that point? Will Mr. Egan address that? Will he outline the second phase to the NRA's plan for the N3? Stadium Ireland will be located 100 metres off the N3, which will not be upgraded. However, all reports on the proposed stadium state the M50 must be upgraded and a further interchange provided on the route. Is the NRA not examining that option?
Is that for a new prison?
All reports have proposed a further interchange. What are the NRA's plans in this regard? The authority has also planned for three lanes on the M50 until it meets the N3 and the port tunnel will connect with the Coolock interchange. Will a dedicated lane be provided for trucks? This work will coincide with the completion of the port tunnel which will increase traffic on the M50 because heavy goods vehicles will be rerouted. There is not a great incentive for truckers to use the M50 if it is about to be upgraded. What plans has the authority in this regard?
Has Mr. Egan figures for the volume of local vehicles using the M50? For example, approximately 20,000 cars travel along the N3 before exiting to cross to Lucan every morning and evening. How many cars exit the N7 and travel into Clondalkin? How many cars exit the N7 at the Templeogue interchange? If the authority's plan proceeds, will all local traffic be diverted to use the M50 instead of diverting it away?
I refer to C2 and C3 and the issue raised by Deputy Shortall. What is the difference in cost between C2 and C3? The reason I ask is that C2 is a straightforward free flow plan while C3 is a virtual free flow plan which uses four sets of traffic lights. Every expert to whom I have spoken says that when traffic lights are used on such interchanges, problems occur immediately. C2 is the better solution to the problem. Was the decision made last Friday in Limerick based solely on financial considerations or were there other considerations?
Mr. Egan referred to discussions with the NDSA. The NRA has reserved its position with regarding to tolling. Will he explain how the upgrading of the M50 will involve further tolling? Will the upgrading come under the ambit of the critical infrastructure Bill?
I welcome Mr. Egan and his colleagues. I share Deputy Power's concerns about signalling on the N7 interchange. Has consideration been given to extending the M50 to meet the N11? There is a greater volume of traffic coming from the M1 and when the M50 meets the N11, there will be a considerable increase in traffic. I am familiar with trying to get to the N7 from the M50 and the city centre and I share Deputy Power's concerns in that regard.
The consultants suggested the traffic signals would not cause a problem. Are these the same consultants who indicated the Luas would not affect the flow of traffic? Is the cost a factor? If the difference between C2 and C3 means that the NRA will not go ahead with the Ennis bypass this year, the authority should stick with C3 and C4.
Does Mr. Egan agree the Luas will not disrupt current traffic arrangements at the Red Cow roundabout and the hysteria surrounding it, propagated by the Minister more than anyone else, is a red herring? Detailed modelling has been undertaken which demonstrates that Luas will have no effect on traffic flow at the roundabout. Does he further agree this project is about increasing traffic on the M50 and has nothing to do with Luas?
Will he acknowledge that the DTO, the author of the Dublin transport document, A Platform for Change, has on several occasions made it clear the M50 upgrade project is the last one that should get funding in Dublin and it should only be funded if all the other public transport projects in that document are undertaken? Is it not correct that unless that happens, there will be a massive increase in volume on the M50 and it will be impossible to divert people to use public transport and the proposed public transport projects would be not be viable? The DTO states the M50 project should be the last to be funded, yet it will be the first to be funded, despite the office's advice.
Will Mr. Egan confirm the Galway interchange, B2, will go ahead as originally planned and that it has not been scaled back? He was quoted last week as saying this was the last throw of the dice and, if this did not work, the State would have to revert to road pricing or public transport. I presume he meant that when the M50 is clogged, the authority will try public transport. Does he not think on a planning basis that it might be better to build the public transport infrastructure first and then analyse what way to develop the city?
Mr. Egan
One of the early questions related to the implications of the Dublin local authorities' proposal for an outer ring. There will be none. The model developed by the DTO caters for the Dublin outer ring and based on the findings of that work the upgrade of the M50 is justified. I will link this to Deputy Eamon Ryan's query. I am not aware of a prioritisation of projects within the DTO strategy that would imply the M50 is at the bottom of the pile.
Mr. Egan has asserted it will have no implications. How will the traffic come to 120,000 if an outer ring road is built?
Mr. Egan
There is a list of projects and the M50 upgrade is included in the DTO strategy and the national development plan. The road network plays a vital role in the economy and caters for 93% of freight movement. This is not something the National Roads Authority has sought to encourage or promote, but it is the reality. The NRA would welcome much greater transport of freight by rail to relieve the network and to take the pressure from other road users. I have outlined the reality. Private passengers rely on the public road network for 96% of their movement in this country. That is the reality we are seeking to address.
There is a difficulty with the M50. A speaker expressed fear that the M50 may no longer be operating as a bypass of Dublin, which was its original intention. One must bear in mind the extent of Dublin's development and the analysis of traffic movements that has been conducted. It is well established at this stage that the M50 is being used for many short-hop trips, for a variety of reasons such as work, the economy, shopping and leisure. Some shopping centres have been built along the route. The NRA is trying to link these developments with strategies such as that on the N4, which I have mentioned. We are providing a third lane between the Palmerstown interchange and the start of the motorway between Lucan and Leixlip. These strategies will fit into the overall plan.
I have been asked to compare the costs of the C2 and C3 proposals. I mentioned a figure of €37 million, but the more elaborate figure with extra land take and extra structures is €44 million.
The M50 proposal cannot be catered for as part of the critical infrastructure Bill. I suspect that it is unlikely. I have already indicated that we are moving quickly to complete the statutory approval documentation. Work on the documentation should be completed by March or April of next year. It is clear that the critical infrastructure has to be drafted and debated in the Oireachtas. We are ahead of that posse. It is likely that we will have to pursue the proposal under existing legislation.
A point has been made in relation to the N4 interchange.
Are the C2 and C3 proposals based on financial considerations?
Mr. Egan
Finance has been a big consideration. We have moved from approximately €700 million for the master strategy, if one wants to use that term, to the more modest proposal which we believe represents very good value for money and will achieve most of the key traffic objectives set out in the more elaborate plan. This relates to the issue that was raised in relation to the Blanchardstown interchange on the N3. Our cost estimate for the full-blown solution at that location was €121 million. However, it would provide an extremely limited solution in terms of traffic movement. There would have been improvements in the movement of traffic to the city centre and the M50 slip road. Given that the M50 and the general Dublin region has a finite capacity, as I have said, the NRA does not believe that the plan represents good value for money at the present time. We are leaving open the possibility that we can examine further upgrades, for example, at the N3 interchange, at some stage in the future but it is not part of the current proposal.
I have been asked about the possible implications of adopting the more elaborate and expensive proposal for road schemes throughout the country, such as the Ennis bypass. I mentioned initially that the reality is that the programme is under funding pressure. Something has to give somewhere if we are to attempt to run with a €700 million programme. I will not finger Ennis specifically in that regard, but the projects we are trying to include in the programme at the same time as the phased approach to the M50 would suffer. That is the reality.
I will suffer the traffic lights at the Red Cow roundabout for the moment, if that is all right with Mr. Egan.
Mr. Egan
The NRA has been in communication with Sports Campus Ireland about its proposals and the kind of access requirements that will be needed. If access materialises as an established need, we will cater for it as part of a Sports Campus Ireland package and it will be funded from that source. It will not be a direct drain on the authority's funding for the roads programme. I have dealt with some of Deputy Eamon Ryan's queries.
Will the Luas affect traffic flows on the roundabout, as it is currently laid out, in any way?
Mr. Egan
I suppose there is a concern that any additional activity on the Red Cow interchange, which is congested at present, will not improve the situation and might worsen it. The NRA has a traffic modelling arrangement, or understanding, with the RPA. The movement of the Luas trams will be dictated by phasing laid down on the basis of traffic management considerations. The Luas system should not affect the operation of the interchange on that basis.
Why, therefore, is the Minister——
I ask the Deputy to allow Mr. Egan to conclude.
Mr. Egan
I would like to respond to a specific query put to me by the Deputy. The NRA has never set out to establish that what it is proposing to do at the Red Cow interchange has been specifically motivated by Luas. I want to be quite clear on that.
I did not——
Mr. Egan
I got that implication from the tone of the Deputy's question. I want to ensure that everybody understands the situation. The NRA is responding to the overall traffic situation. The Red Cow interchange is extremely congested at the M50. The authority believes that there is an onus on it to try to deal with the situation. As the Deputy mentioned, I have said that this is the last throw of the dice for the Red Cow interchange. It is obvious from the maps that no further land will be available after we have developed the third lane, because development has encroached on the roundabout. This is a common feature as one moves further up the M50 motorway. The fact that there is a median stretch of grass in the centre of the motorway means that we have an opportunity to develop a third lane. After this has been done, however, that will be it. Clearly, we hope the economy will continue to grow, people will continue to buy cars, the population will increase and traffic will grow. The question of how people use their cars is another matter.
Such a transport policy——
What about climate change?
Mr. Egan
The Dublin Transportation Office strategy encourages modal shifts.
It is not right to hope that everyone will own a car.
Mr. Egan
Greater uptake of public transport is the ultimate solution.
Is that why we are building all the roads?
Is Mr. Egan finished?
Mr. Egan
I think I am.
Several questions have not even been addressed.
Sorry, Senator.
Deputy Naughten is waiting for his questions to be answered as well.
I stopped Deputy Naughten earlier to allow Senator Morrissey to speak. I will allow the Deputy to speak at this point because he has sat patiently during this meeting, just as the Senator did initially. If I do not follow such an approach, the entire meeting will become chaotic. Can I comment on what Mr. Egan has said? The idea that we want people to buy more cars is somewhat over-the-top.
Hear, hear.
The unfortunate fact is that people will buy cars. Mr. Egan is probably right to say that the roads will fill up and people will want greater facilities. It is not something we want to see, however, as we want to see more people on public transport.
It was quite inappropriate for Mr. Egan to make that statement. We all suspect a hidden agenda on the part of the NRA, but it is completely inappropriate for him to express such an aspiration. The NRA's business should not be to suggest what the policy should be. Mr. Egan's remark is a direct contradiction of the stated policy in respect of transport in the greater Dublin area. I ask him to withdraw the comment.
Mr. Egan was probably saying what he thinks will happen, unfortunately.
Mr. Egan
That is the exact point.
He said that the NRA hopes that "people will continue to buy cars".
Mr. Egan
I am not setting out what might be advocated by the NRA or by official policy. The reality is that we have seen annual growth in traffic volumes and car sales of between 3% and 6%. The reality is that it is likely to continue. The NRA's perspective is that the critical issue relates to how people use their cars. They may use them for legitimate purposes, such as for leisure activities or to move away from Dublin on their holidays. The official strategy in respect of the Dublin area promotes modal shift to a major degree. The NRA fully buys into that strategy.
I wish to return to the two questions I asked earlier, the first of which related to the motorway programme. Regardless of whether we like it or not, the fact is that the completion of the inter-urban routes to the regions will encourage the additional use of the M50. People will be able to get to Dublin more quickly than they can at present. The improved motorways will speed up traffic coming to the M50. That is why I was concerned about the third paragraph in the initial presentation, which lists the further increases that will have an impact on the M50. It does not refer to the major inter-urban routes and this is why I was asking about the timescale for the completion of both the Cork and Galway motorways. Has Mr. Egan factored in the impact the inter-urban routes will have on the M50?
I also asked about the cost comparison in respect of the completion of a small bridge over the M50 to cater for two lines of track. It seems to be extremely expensive compared to the cost of the proposal by the NRA, which amounts to €37 million and which will involve considerable grade separation regarding roads leading into the intersection. Will Mr. Egan elaborate on why the NRA can do it so cheaply compared to the RPA? Will the upgrade of the M50 involve crash barriers?
In defence of Mr. Egan, he is being realistic in that most people will have their own cars and will have the right to own them. However, they have not got the right to drive them everywhere all the time. If we are to be realistic in this committee, we must accept this.
Will Mr. Egan confirm the position regarding the M9 motorway? As far as I am aware, it is going to CPO stage tomorrow. What are the budgetary constraints? Am I correct in suspecting that, if the Cork-Galway motorway is to go ahead, there will be no funding for the Waterford motorway? If so, the NRA will be forced to buy land for a motorway that may not be constructed. This is ridiculous and outrageous and reflects very badly on the Department and the Minister's interference with a so-called independent body. Why make preparations for this motorway if the Minister will not give the NRA the necessary funding? It is ultimately a matter of funding. We should invite the Minister to the committee to explain what his actions or lack of activity will lead to. I understand the M9 upgrade is on target and that all the CPOs have been dealt with.
Mr. Egan stated there is no problem in terms of the Luas interfering with traffic at the Red Cow roundabout. Would he agree that there are more options than those the Minister says he has to choose between, namely, the stilts project - I agree that this is a mad-cap notion he came up with himself - and the Red Cow upgrade? The decision on the latter project has nothing to do with Luas. Will Mr. Egan confirm that the upgrade will not affect the Luas and that the Luas will not affect the traffic on the roundabout?
The RPA presented to this committee a detailed cost analysis of the metro proposal. Will Mr. Egan provide to the committee members and others who are interested a detailed breakdown of the estimated costs for this project, showing the various cost allocations?
Consider the proposal for free-flow traffic arrangements at the Red Cow roundabout. Have models been created to demonstrate where the increased traffic will end up? How will gridlock be avoided at specific locations? Mr. Egan stated the NRA's task is to encourage modal shift. How would the upgrade project encourage it?
To return to two questions I asked already, how can one increase the traffic level between the N7 and the N3 from 120,000 to 130,000 - these are Mr. Egan's figures - and from the N7 to the N4 and through to the toll bridge and at the same time reduce it to two lanes from the N3 to the airport? To what speeds will the traffic be reduced given that we are told the figure of 90,000 is above capacity and that one section of the roads in question will have its capacity increased from 120,000 to 130,000?
Has Mr. Egan plans for a dedicated truck lane so maximum use will be made of the port tunnel? If I heard Mr. Egan correctly regarding local traffic, his plans have grave implications for an outer ring road. They would encourage traffic to come in as far as the M50 and filter along it. Will Mr. Egan supply us with the figures that prove his case? The traffic level on the N3 at Blanchardstown is greater than that coming in via the N7. Mr. Egan's answers today seem to suggest otherwise and that is why he is giving priority to the N7.
Mr. Egan
I apologise to Deputy Naughten for failing to respond to certain questions, such as that on the crash barriers. There will be crash barriers installed during the M50 upgrade.
On the completion date, the Kilcock-Kinnegad scheme is under construction and we expect it will open in early 2006. I have referred to the improvements and the third lane from the Palmerstown interchange to the start of the motorway beyond Leixlip, the purpose of which is to move traffic out of the city quickly. This project should be completed in 2007, based on our current programme. I emphasise that our projections, as of now, are based on an expectation of funding of €1.2 billion that the Minister indicated we should use for planning purposes over the coming years. If the Minister succeeds in securing additional funding, timescales will improve.
The Kinnegad-Athlone scheme would be completed by or in 2010. Similarly, the Ballinasloe-Athlone section would have the same completion date. We expect that the Oranmore-Ballinasloe east section, which is one of our PPP schemes, will be completed by mid-2009. The outer bypass of Galway itself is expected to be completed by 2010. All these dates are under review by the authority, as is the date pertaining to the Cork route, in response to a request by the Minister that we attempt to fast-track the Dublin-Galway route and the Dublin-Cork route.
In the case of the Dublin-Cork route, we anticipate that the Kildare bypass will be open in very early December, four and a half to five months ahead of schedule. The Monasterevin bypass is under construction and excellent progress is being made. It should open to traffic in the third quarter of 2005, possibly earlier.
South of Portlaoise, the Portlaoise-Cullahill section is expected to be completed by mid-2009 and the Cullahill-Cashel section by mid-2010. The Cashel bypass, which is currently under construction, will be completed by the end of next year. The Cashel-Mitchelstown section is due for completion by 2010, as is the Mitchelstown-Fermoy section. We anticipate that the Fermoy-Watergrasshill scheme, one of our PPP schemes which is now at an advanced stage of tendering, will open to traffic very early in 2006. The Watergrasshill section extending to the dual carriageway, feeding from the Cork tunnel, opened to traffic in the past month. The timescales are under review in light of the Minister's request to the authority.
I cannot explain the Luas costings. This is clearly a matter for the RPA.
Does Mr. Egan agree that the cost differences seem strange?
Mr. Egan
What I can say is that the NRA has gone to considerable pains to fireproof its costings. We have a pricetag of €37 million on the Red Cow roundabout upgrade project. In the interests of clarity, to get the full benefit of the Red Cow improvements set out in the drawings, it is essential that a further interchange be constructed between the Red Cow interchange and Newlands Cross, catering in the main for access to the Luas park-and-ride facility. It is shown on the drawings and is estimated to cost €15 million.
How much will it cost?
Mr. Egan
Our estimate, not that of the Railway Procurement Agency, is €15 million, including land acquisition costs.
Which is the greater estimate, that of the NRA or RPA?
Mr. Egan
I am not privy to any estimate the RPA may have. We reckon €15 million will be sufficient and the National Roads Authority is prepared to contribute towards that cost. There would be some benefit in terms of tracking movement to and from the M50 and into the Clondalkin area.
Senator Browne raised the issue of the N9. I understand the CPO for the N9 from Kilcullen to south of Carlow was signed yesterday, which sets the statutory process in train. The scheme must now be published and submitted to An Bord Pleanála, with which objections may be lodged. If it is approved by An Bord Pleanála, the National Roads Authority will have to meet the bill of funding the land acquisition.
We will have to review the scheduling of this project, taking account of the programme generally. We are working with the Department and the Minister on a multi-annual framework, for which we hope to receive formal confirmation. Once that has been obtained, we could publish specific, targeted start dates for this and other schemes.
Deputy Eamon Ryan raised issues concerning the Red Cow and the Luas project. The Minister has aired his concerns about the Luas project on a number of occasions. A decision on the matter is now the Minister's call and it would be wrong for anyone in the NRA to second guess what he will do or suggest what he should do. We have our strategy in this regard, which I have elaborated, and I have no doubt the Minister will take account of our views. Having said that, I wish to put down the marker that the board of the NRA has requested consultants to further examine the performance of Luas and traffic at the Red Cow roundabout. We will report back to the Minister and, I hope, assist him in concluding his decision process.
The model shows there will be no disruption to or problem with Luas traffic under the current system.
Mr. Egan
That is correct.
The Minister did not say there was a problem. It featured in a newspaper article.
He said it in the Dáil last Tuesday.
The Deputy stated it was the Minister's idea which he plucked from the air.
I would love to know from where it came.
It came from a newspaper article.
Mr. Egan
Deputy Eamon Ryan also asked for details of the costings. I would be happy to facilitate the committee in this regard. I provided a figure of €37 million for the Red Cow roundabout. The N4-Palmerstown interchange is costed at €63 million. The cost of main line widening between the Red Cow and Palmerstown interchanges is estimated at €33 million. This is the first phase to which I referred, the total cost of which would be €133 million. With regard to the other elements, the M1 interchange towards the airport will cost an estimated €48 million.
As regards the query on how we will get three lanes of traffic into two lanes, the later phases of the strategy we are pursuing involves extending the third lane, initially from the Red Cow interchange to the Palmerstown interchange. There will be three lanes northwards of this point until the airport interchange. We will also extend to three lanes south from the Red Cow to the N81, which is the road to Tallaght and Blessington.
That does not appearin the figure of €316 million Mr. Egan hasprovided.
Mr. Egan
It does appear in the figure. The point I was about to make was that I have now given the committee the costing of €48 million for the airport interchange. The balance, which covers the widening of the remaining sections of the M50, accounts for €183 million minus €48 million. Members can do the sums. The total cost is €316 million.
Where will the 40,000 extra cars go?
Mr. Egan
We hope the bulk of them will move up and down the M50 rather than into the city. Our work forms part of the overall platform for change strategy. I accept the Deputy's concern that Dublin city centre cannot continue to absorb traffic, which is the reason public transport must kick in at this point.
Is Mr. Egan saying people will drive up and down the M50 all day?
Mr. Egan
Luas will have a major park and ride facility and similar facilities may be constructed outside the M50 as public transport is developed.
This would still account for only 500 of the 40,000 additional cars.
Mr. Egan
Other agencies have responsibilities and are working to resolve these issues. We are simply contributing to an overall solution, as set out in the Platform for Change.
I thank Mr. Egan, Mr. Fitzsimons and Mr. Cullinane for attending this afternoon.
I have not received figures on the roads entering Dublin, which would back up the report.
The NRA will provide them in writing.
Mr. Egan
I assure the Senator that the volume of traffic entering Dublin on the Naas Road far exceeds that coming down the N3 to the Blanchardstown interchange.
I would like Mr. Egan to answer my question on the final destination of the 40,000 additional cars because his earlier reply, that they will end up on the M50, was not adequate.
The joint committee adjourned at 4.45 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 October 2003.