I welcome Mr. Joe Meagher, Mr. Tom Finn, Mr. Michael Reidy, and Mr. Diarmuid Ó Murchú of Iarnród Éireann. I draw your attention the fact that members of this committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make a charge against a person outside the House or an official by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Iarnród Éireann: Presentation.
Mr. Joe Meagher
Thank you, Chairman, and the members of the committee. We are delighted to accept the invitation to come here. I propose to make quite a short presentation on the interconnector tunnel and our integrated rail plan, and my colleagues or I can then answer any questions raised. I will first cover fairly briefly the background and our priority investment plan, that is, the key elements of our plan for investment to enhance capacity in the greater Dublin area over the next four years, and talk about the case for the interconnector and the feasibility study we have completed on it.
There is growing demand, as everybody knows, for commuter travel by rail in the greater Dublin area. The numbers we are carrying have grown by about 30% since 1995, and that demand is increasing and will increase further over the coming years, considering the population developments along the rail corridors. The problem is that we have limited capacity and very limited city centre access. We have really only got one line through the central area, from Connolly Station through Tara Street and Pearse Street and on to Lansdowne Road.
We have developed what we call a priority investment plan involving a number of separate projects which I will talk about. They are all geared, in their own way, to increasing the capacity for commuters in the Dublin area over the coming years. It is very clear that commuter rail can play a much greater role. It has enormous potential if fully developed.
I have put up a slide to highlight the main problem we have to deal with - the Connolly bottlekneck. The slide demonstrates that we have a number of different services all funnelling into one particular area and that one line into the central area. Sligo intercity would not be the most demanding of these but it is there. There are also commuter services from Longford and Maynooth which come through Clonsilla and Castleknock; the DART from Malahide and Howth; all the commuter services coming from Dundalk, Drogheda, Balbriggan and Skerries, where there is considerable demand for travel; and of course the Enterprise service from Belfast.
All of these are coming into the one area and we have to cope with them. Through the central area we have capacity for 12 trains per hour, so we must deal with all those routes with that limited capacity. Heuston Station is indicated on the side of the slide, where we get our intercity services from various lines, including Waterford, Cork, Kerry, Limerick, Galway and Mayo and our south-west commuters from places such as Portlaoise, Athlone, Carlow and further afield.
There is also of course the Arrow service from Kildare and Newbridge. We are often asked why we do not bring the Arrow service through the Phoenix Park tunnel and around into Connolly Station. There is no problem with the Phoenix Park tunnel. The difficulty is finding capacity for it in the central area. If we were to bring a train through at peak times it would mean taking out one of the trains from the various other services, and we really cannot afford to do that.
Could Iarnród Éireann not do the reverse and take one of those trains coming into Connolly Station around to Heuston Station?
Mr. Meagher
We could not really. Connolly Station is a central point, so to bring the train in there is to take up a slot. It does not ease the situation for us.
What Mr. Meagher is talking about are the bottlenecks between Connolly Station and Pearse Station.
Mr. Meagher
I am talking about the bottleneck into Connolly Station and through to Pearse Street. Progress has been made to date. Since funding became available in the late 1990s through the NDP, we have been looking to increase capacity and have done a few things. We have obviously done a lot of development on Heuston Station and Connolly Station, but in particular we have enhanced our fleet and bought modern and higher capacity commuter rail cars and more DART trains. I will show the committee a slide on that in a few minutes.
That slide shows the increase in fleet capacity now available for carrying commuters in the greater Dublin area. We have increased this fairly significantly, so a lot of progress has been made, particularly with the acquisition of the 80 rail cars - known as the 2900s - which were put into service towards the end of 2003 and in early 2004. That has helped the situation, but of course as we provide additional capacity the level of usage increases. Spare capacity on trains in early January is now being taken up. We are following our tail, to a degree, but improving the situation.
We have developed what we call a priority investment programme. It is well developed, objective and very simple in its goal - to increase peak rate capacity within an expanded commuter belt. I emphasise that all our priority projects are compatible with the DTO platform for change. In other words, everybody has bought into this package.
I will give the committee members a sense of what is going to happen - and I am sure they are well aware of this - in terms of population along the railway catchment areas. I have set out the various lines that we have and the sort of growth that is expected over the next number of years. One will see on certain lines, particularly on the northern line to Balbriggan, that there is enormous development planned. On that line the demand for rail travel will increase by a higher proportion than the proportion of growth in population. Between 20% and 25% of the population of Skerries, for instance, uses our service to get into Dublin. More want to use it. If Skerries grows by 40%, we can assume that much more than 20%-25% of that additional 40% will want to use the railway. They will be moving in there so that they can use the rail line to Dublin and therefore the overall percentage of population using the rail will increase. We must try to cater for that. There is an enormous task facing us, not only to cater for existing demand - there is much latent demand out there - but to be ready to cater for the growth as it happens over the coming years.
I have broken down our projects into those I call short term, that is, delivery by the end of 2008, and those I call medium term. Whereas there are other smaller projects, the key ones I highlight are as follows. The eight-car DARTs, the ongoing project we call the DART upgrade or DASH, will increase the DART capacity by one third. Following on that, our signalling upgrade project will renew the signalling in the central area and increase the capacity from 12 trains per hour to 16 trains per hour through the bottleneck, and we see that being delivered between 2005 and 2007.
There is a need to enhance capacity on the Kildare line. The big problem is that in the evening time, in particular, the vast majority of customers of our intercity trains want to travel some time between 5 p.m. and 6.30 p.m. or 7 p.m. Similarly our commuters want to travel at the same time. We have just two lines: one out, one in. If one sends out a commuter train stopping at many of the stations along the way, one cannot send an intercity train for another 25 minutes because it will be held up. We need to get some extra track and start a project of quadrupling. We are well advanced in the planning stage of that, starting off at Cherry Orchard and moving out towards Hazelhatch. That is an important project. We will then be able to serve additional stations - Adamstown on the Kildare line, Pelletstown on the Maynooth line, Grange Road on the northern line and others.
Of course we will need additional rolling stock. For some of that, the orders are in place. For others, it will come in due course. That will give us a certain level of capacity but, considering the population growth, not enough to cater for the demand in the medium term and therefore we must go further.
I should have mentioned Spencer Dock station as an option for increasing capacity in the broader central area. That is an important one, particularly if we are to develop capacity on the Maynooth line. We will be able to do something extra at platform 7 at Connolly Station but, in order to develop it further, that is particularly important. We are looking at doing something to lift the capacity through the central area and the interconnector tunnel is the main plank of our proposal.
Mr. Meagher has put a timescale on the short-term priorities. Could he give an idea of the timescale for the medium-term priorities?
Mr. Meagher
I will be giving that as I move through the presentation and elaborate on what we plan to do or what can be done. Obviously there will be further quadrupling, certainly on the Kildare line and perhaps somewhere we will put some quadrupling on the Maynooth line or doubling of track beyond Maynooth because it is all single track beyond there. There will be a potential to serve new areas. If we had an interconnector, the Dunboyne spur, the airport spur and others would open up. We would of course need additional rolling stock.
This summarises the sort of capacity increase in terms of fleet capacity that we will be able to offer up to 2009, if the priority projects of which I spoke are delivered by the end of 2008, that is, the Kildare quadrupling, Spencer Dock station, the DART upgrade, the central resignalling.
One can see how we plan to increase the fleet capacity for commuter travel. It will be quite significant. In the presentation, one can see the growth from 2003 to 2004. There would be a steep growth by 2006. That is one of the advantages of this plan that, as we move along and as we implement certain elements, one immediately gets benefit from them but they are all targeted towards a particular objective of an integrated plan in the long term. One is talking about significant additional growth, not all of which will be through the central area obviously because Spencer Dock is key to the delivery of that capacity, but an amount of which will be through the central area by the resignalling from 12 to 16 trains.
A slide in the presentation shows the committed fleet build-up to demonstrate what is happening. This is fleet which is either delivered and in place, or on order. The blue columns signify the DART fleet. When the DART opened in 1984 there were 80 DART cars and it was like that until the end of the 1990s or, indeed, 2000. We have grown the fleet to 114 DART units in 2004 but there are another 40 on order, some of which are for delivery later this year. With the DART upgrade, one can see the increase in the DART units in the slide.
Believe it or not, in the late 1990s we had just 17 diesel rail cars. These are the Arrow style trains. We had very old rolling stock operating until recently on many of the commuter trains. They were totally unsuited for it. However, we have built up the fleet to 144 in 2004 and there are another 36 on order, for delivery mid 2005 and for introduction into the service at the end of 2005, bringing the number up to 180. These are being maintained at the Drogheda depot. We will need more and we will be looking at another order in 2005, for service in 2008, as more of the priority projects are delivered. That gives the committee a feel for what is happening with the fleet.
The interconnector would link the docklands area at Spencer Dock and Heuston via St. Stephen's Green. Following the short-term programme of which I have spoken, the capacity through the city centre will still be limited. We will have capacity to take 16 trains per hour, but we will still have one line only and Heuston will still be poorly linked. We will be able to bring some trains through from Heuston around into Spencer Dock, but not through the central area as such. It will improve but it will still be poorly linked for people who want to get to the central area. They will have to get a train from Heuston, the 90 bus or else connect up from Spencer Dock. There is a need for something else and we believe we need the interconnector tunnel for what we call a decongested and cohesive network.
The interconnector is the missing link in the network. It is a railway tunnel that would be just over five kilometres in length linking Connolly/Spencer Dock with Heuston. It would have five underground stations: obviously at Docklands and Heuston, but in between at Pearse which would link with the DART——
Would it link with metro?
Mr. Meagher
It would of course, yes. The fourth underground station would be at St. Stephen's Green, where it would link with the metro and with the Luas line to Sandyford, and the fifth station would be at High Street. At Heuston, it would also link with the Luas coming in from Tallaght.
One can see the broad line of it on the slide in the presentation. In the docklands, it will link with the Luas, if the Luas is extended to the docklands. At Pearse, it will link with the DART. At St. Stephen's Green and at Heuston, it will link with the Luas. Obviously it will link with the metro at St. Stephen's Green as well.
The interconnector was first proposed when we completed a study in 2000. When NDP funding was made available in 1999, we knew the immediate projects that we needed to do but we knew that we needed to put together a cohesive plan into the future. We commissioned Ove Arup to work with us to put together that plan.
The interconnector was the proposal put forward to ultimately relieve the difficulty of accessing the central area. It was adopted by the DTO in its Platform for Change document, so it is established in that document as a very definitive plan for the future. It was endorsed by the strategic rail review - which was completed independently for the Department by Booz Allen Hamilton - as a key plank for the future. The review certainly saw it as critical, and it is included in the draft regional planning guidelines.
We have completed an initial feasibility study into the interconnector. On the steering group we had all the key stakeholders, the Department of Transport, Dublin Docklands Development, the DTO, the Luas and the local authorities. I will give some key outputs of the study. This was an initial feasibility study so we would see the estimates being within about 15% confidence, above or below. We are saying that quite openly. The capital cost was estimated at €1.3 billion, excluding VAT, which would vary, depending on the elements, between 13.5% and 21%. We estimate that it would allow a 40+% increase in peak rail use through the central area. The annual operating cost would be of the order of €25 million. The projections in revenue growth show that the revenue would certainly match the operating costs, and the feasibility study indicated a positive economic NPV.
The slide sets out the network we would get by putting in place the interconnector. There would be a line coming down from Drogheda, Balbriggan and Skerries through Spencer Dock. Trains could be operated through to Heuston Station and Kildare. There would be a line coming in from Maynooth, and a spur could be built to Dunboyne, which would come via Connolly Station, Tara Street and Pearse Street down to Bray and Greystones. The Tallaght Luas line would link in at Heuston, Connolly and Spencer Dock if extended, and the Sandyford line would link in at St. Stephen's Green.
It gives very good access into the key city centre areas and provides a cohesive, integrated network. With one change one can link with any point. If one comes on an intercity train from Cork or Galway one will change at Heuston and move on to the central area. If one comes from Belfast or Sligo or from an outer-commuter service from Portlaoise or Athlone one would get into Heuston and change. There is potential - which I will come to - for adding a spur if required to the airport, for example. The benefits are a fully integrated network serving almost all major towns within the 100 kilometre commuter belt; very good central penetration through running one point of transfer; more attractive rail services; better journey times; good interchange; and wider access to more affordable housing. That is a very important point.
We are aware of the proposal for the connection to the airport via the metro. If required to provide a connection via conventional rail there are two options that have been available for some time and been presented to the Department. One is a connection to the northern DART line, with a cost ranging from €300 million to €440 million depending on whether one provided a surface or underground connection at the airport. The other is a spur from the Maynooth line, which is a bit longer and therefore more expensive. The DART connection is preferred by the board because of cost and easier construction, but there are two options.
If we provided an airport connection with the interconnector in place, we would have wide-ranging national, regional and local rail access to the airport through the interconnector. If we had a connection off the DART line we could have a service, via the interconnector tunnel, from Heuston to the airport. Intercity or outer-commuter passengers would just change at Heuston, where there would be other connections elsewhere.
The question of the delivery of the integrated plan was raised, and our plan is a phased delivery, with each phase adding value. I have highlighted the fact that every element of the plan we put in place adds value. In other words, the benefit is not lost if nothing else happens. I have set out our targets for 2008, and we would have to move on from there. Our target would be to develop the interconnector and have it in place by 2012. The committee members saw on the earlier slides the sort of population growth that will take place by 2016.
The network we are showing, with central penetration and so on, is an attractive package, and fast-tracking could be done if required. It could all be in place by 2010 if required. Our plan is to target 2012 but it could be done by 2010. Elements of it would be attractive for PPP funding or procurement initiatives, and we would need assistance in the development of that. We have developed quite a significant project delivery team in Iarnród Éireann. We spent €350 million on it in 2003 and are delivering on time and within budget, but this would be a major project to take on board.
Our estimate of the total cost for the integrated plan is €3 billion, including rolling stock. That also includes all the elements already planned up to 2008. That would give us the entire network as described and set out, with the airport option if required. That would be the ultimate network of services, totally integrated with our intercity services, long distance commuter services, the Luas and the metro, and with very good penetration into the central area and very useful potential for journeys within the central area, from High Street to Tara Street, from St. Stephen's Green to Heuston, Spencer Dock or wherever.
I have tried to keep the presentation reasonably short, and we will obviously deal with any questions the committee might want to raise.
I will be brief and make just a couple of points. We have to look at all these plans in a new light following the CSO figures last week showing that the vast majority of the traffic congestion in Dublin is being caused by people from outside Dublin, in Meath, Kildare, Wicklow and west Dublin. We need to look at trying to get those people into the city centre as quickly and efficiently as possible by opening up the Navan-Clonsilla line and so forth, but none of that can be done unless we address the capacity constraints within the city. It is important to recognise that Irish Rail has done an exceptional job in delivering projects on time and within budget.
I have two questions. It is critically important for the future that we put the interconnector in place because we do not have the capacity between Connolly Station and Pearse Street, and no matter how it is addressed that limitation is there. In the short term, however, I notice that the plan does not draw in the Phoenix Park tunnel. I know there may be concerns in the short term in putting that in because it might serve as an argument against putting in place the interconnector, but as a short-term measure the Phoenix Park tunnel and Spencer Dock could help to address the current capacity problems. In that context, would it be possible to run services from Kildare via the tunnel and on to Balbriggan-Skerries, using the orange route north of the Liffey as an earlier point, in the short term, rather than going directly into Connolly?
I met with Mr. Meagher last week and he made this presentation to me. I just want to ask a couple of additional questions. His presentation makes reference to the need for further electrification and mentions it towards the end also. What is the current position in that regard? What are the cost implications of it? What are the implications for electrifying individual lines in respect of frequency, speed, etc.? How important is that in the overall scheme?
The other matter I want to ask Mr. Meagher about is the proposal for a spur to the airport from the DART line. He stated that was his preferred option, rather than going west of Finglas. Will he elaborate on why that is his preferred option? What kind of frequency of service could operate from the airport if Iarnród Éireann were to provide that spur?
On Deputy Shortall's point on the airport spur, I note there is no mention whatever in the presentation of the town of Swords, and particularly the link, as proposed in the metro proposal, between Swords and the airport. That is one of the heaviest used links in the entire transport system in the city and there is no reference to it.
While we are only looking at a draft, could he be more precise about the location of the airport spur? I note that on the presentation slide it appears to be somewhere north of Howth junction. While I am referring to that particular slide, I am very grateful to Mr. Meagher for his extension of the DART to Balbriggan and I just want to know when he will run with it.
The figures released last week by the CSO showing that, for example, 88% of the people of Dunboyne use private cars to come to town, emphasise the importance of looking at a Dunboyne rail link. According to Mr. Meagher's presentation, it seems he is proposing this for 2008. Along that line and increasingly along other lines, at either county council or An Bord Pleanála level, the delivery of houses is completely contingent on the delivery of extra rail.
I am wondering how Mr. Meagher can provide that rail link earlier than 2008 because there is planning permission granted along that line for approximately 8,000 housing units. I do not know the broadness of the catchment area Iarnród Éireann uses but, for example, there are 27,000 houses in the Dublin 15 area and the county council's figures will bring the number to 42,000 houses. When Mr. Meagher looks at the growth patterns, has he brought those housing figures into the equation and how broad a capacity does he consider? Is one mile from the station the corridor on which he is working?
What is Iarnród Éireann's view on the DTO's current position on park and ride? The DTO seems to be moving away from this concept as we would have envisaged it for the past five or ten years, that is, park and ride at a station. It seems that it is bringing traffic into a location and causing congestion. How is Iarnród Éireann working with the other authorities to bring passengers from outlying areas by feeder services?
There is a difference in the cost of the links to the airport - €525 million versus €440 million. What is the difference in the length of time it would take to get to the airport using a spur from the Maynooth line or a spur from the DART line?
How close in Mr. Meagher's short-term horizon is the Spencer Dock proposal? My opinion would be that Spencer Dock, over the past year or so, might have gone out on his horizon a little and it needs to be brought back in. That is the only way he will solve the problem, especially on the northern lines. Sixteen trains per hour will not be enough in any event and he must bring forward the Spencer Dock proposal. Will he address that point? What is the position of the Department on Spencer Dock and on funding his proposal?
I apologise that I may not hear Mr. Meagher's reply because the Order of Business in the Seanad will arise soon, but I will read it.
I take it from what Mr. Meagher stated about the nature of increases in passenger numbers that they follow any increase in capacity. That largely deals with the demographic argument we have heard repeatedly, that Dublin cannot afford sophisticated urban transport because we do not have a series of skyscrapers or a concentration of population. I take it Mr. Meagher's experience would suggest that this is not necessarily the case.
As usual, I see a large blank in the north of the city in the presentation. That is probably because of the geography of the proposal with which he is dealing, but largely the north city is left out of such proposals. Can Mr. Meagher be specific about the ways in which this will quite definitely link with the metro? Can he explain whether his proposal for an airport spur would replace entirely the alternative proposal for this service from the metro?
Mr. Meagher stated that he thought the full scheme could be done by 2012 but that 2010 was a possibility. Why not opt for 2010? Are there cost implications? What are the financial problems in that regard, if any? The sooner this plan can be delivered, the better. I would certainly support it strongly. It seems Mr. Meagher has done careful considered work. It is the kind of project the city of Dublin needs and I welcome it.
I would agree with Senator Norris. Next to the metro, this is the most important transport project in this city and I would fully endorse its immediate prioritisation for State funding. I say "Next to the metro", however, because it is important that we do not see this as a choice, that we have the option of providing a link to the airport via the DART line and running a rail interconnector as if that will solve our problems. Would Mr. Meagher agree that the possible connection between this interconnector and St. Stephen's Green, where there would be a metro station, provides the greatest possible capacity link to the airport, where the southside of Dublin would arrive on a metro line into that St. Stephen's Green station, the line would run right through the north city centre to DCU, etc. on a metro and would pick up on all the national traffic coming via Heuston or the other lines? I would be interested to hear his view on the real capacity for getting people to the airport and to Swords, as Deputy Glennon has said, via that connection at St. Stephen's Green with the metro. Would he agree that this provides the highest capacity increase to the overall rail system?
I would have a concern that if we run that spur to the airport as the airport link, yet again we will be developing one narrow line of the city. We are not developing the west, north-west and south of the city. In terms of a development plan, the introduction of the metro, in conjunction with the interconnector, really does develop the north, south, east and west of the city, which is what we need to do.
My second question relates to one of the last slides on the total costs of the integrated plan. It gives a figure of €1.3 billion for the interconnector, as Mr. Meagher said in his presentation. I would be interested to know what that total cost is for. There is a lot of debate about the metro costs. We have come to the fairly clear conclusion that it would cost €1.3 billion to construct but that there would be other possible additional risk financing or whatever costs. Is Mr. Meagher's €1.3 billion costing a construction cost or the overall final cost including financing and other aspects?
We are spending €1.3 million, for example, on two projects - the Clonee-Kells motorway and the widening of the M50. There has been no cost-benefit analysis of that, no questions asked on this committee amd no general analysis. When it comes to the benefits we would get from this €1.3 billion, I would contend that this project would come way ahead of any of those road projects in terms of the returns it would bring. I would encourage its completion, along with the other projects Mr. Meagher has outlined.
I welcome the proposed project. Regarding the estimated capital cost of €1.3 billion, how realistic is that figure and how can it be contained at €1.3 billion? Will Iarnród Éireann opt for a design and build strategy, which might avoid an escalation of costs afterwards, or does it have another strategy in mind?
I too very much welcome this presentation. It is only when one actually sees it that one realises the problems Iarnród Éireann has with the congestion at that bottlekneck between Connolly Station and Tara Street and realises the limitations on expanding public transport. It is a very good idea. I would concur with the other speakers in saying that it should not be an either/or scenario vis-à-vis the metro. If one looks at the population, the figures given for Balbriggan and further north and the projected growth, if we leave out the metro we will have further congestion.
Getting to the airport will be a slow and tedious process, given the figures Mr. Meagher gave us earlier, and if we had a metro that left from St. Stephen's Green, went right around and continued on through the airport to Swords, we would have a fantastic integrated system for the city. It would also relieve what will obviously be further pressure by the time this is built, given the population growth being talked about.
I would not like it to be seen as an either/or situation but I certainly congratulate Iarnród Éireann on this plan because it will have a huge difference in maximising public transport on the rail network in the city. I ask about the whole idea of Swords being left out of the plan. Swords is a key part of the metro plan because of its population. Is that an either/or situation?
Mr. Meagher
I will try to take the questions raised, and if I leave anything out committee members can come back to me. The first related to the Phoenix Park tunnel, and perhaps I did not explain myself well. We certainly intend to use the Phoenix Park tunnel in the short term to bring trains from the Kildare-Newbridge area into Spencer Dock because there is a demand for that. It would not be easy for us to provide a service from Kildare-Newbridge through to Drogheda at that stage because of the extent to which that line is congested already and the layout of the track.
One of the advantages of Spencer Dock in taking trains from either Kildare-Newbridge or north Kildare, Maynooth and those areas is that there is great separation at the junction. Thus, we can bring trains in there without any effect on the trains on the north-south line from Drogheda. That is an enormous advantage because the problems arise when one has conflict in terms of movement. We would certainly see Spencer Dock being utilised for bringing trains through.
Our plan is to electrify in conjunction with the building of the interconnector tunnel. Obviously, any trains through the interconnector tunnel should be electrified. We would see that as part of the overall interconnector project. Our plans up to 2008 do not include any enhanced electrification at that stage. We are simply concentrating all of the envelope of funding available on increasing the amount of rolling stock and enhancing the capacity in the central area, either by longer trains or more trains or the provision of an additional station at Spencer Dock. We are gearing all the funding to trying to get more people into the city.
Subsequent to that, with the building of the interconnector, we see electrifying lines eventually from Drogheda down to Kildare. We could have a Drogheda to Kildare link through the interconnector and a Maynooth to Greystones link through Connolly Station. That——
Is speed the biggest advantage of electrification?
Mr. Meagher
It is faster. The real determining factor is the interconnector. One could not successfully operate diesel trains through it, so one would therefore go to the expense of electrifying. There is also greater reliability with electrification.
We are obviously aware that the DTO plan provides for the metro service to the airport from St. Stephen's Green, with a further service through to Swords. When we developed our plan, we did not see it as an either/or scenario. If the metro is built, we still need the interconnector to enhance the capacity in the central area. It is a must-do to enable us to bring people to——
Would it be a nuisance to create a spur to the airport?
Mr. Meagher
Not necessarily. We see the interconnector as essential. The point was made by Deputy Naughten that one of the critical things we have go to achieve is to take people travelling from places like Meath, Kildare, Longford, Louth, Laois etc. off the roads and on to the railway line. That is what this project is primarily geared to do, with ease of change at places like Heuston Station and very good access into the central area and good movement within it.
We were asked what options we have for the provision of an airport connection and we said that there are two. The one to the DART line is the cheapest and could be delivered more cheaply. We are talking about a four-year delivery time, and it would not be much different for the one off the Maynooth line. We would be talking about broadly the same timescale.
We have not provided an option for a service to Swords. If it was decided to serve the airport by conventional rail, one of the options then would be to look at further developing it to Swords. I certainly would not rule that out, but we are not looking at it at the moment because we are aware of the metro plan.
Senator Morrissey said that we need the Dunboyne rail link very soon and asked why we do not push it forward sooner than 2008. The critical issue is that we first need to provide greater access to the central area and we really need Spencer Dock. We cannot start developing to Dunboyne without doing something in the central area. We see ourselves moving on Spencer Dock and then having the option of developing the line out to Dunboyne because we have the capacity in the central area to deal with it.
We are in the process of completing a feasibility study on Spencer Dock. It will be complete shortly. The process is as follows. We get funding to do a feasibility study. Once we have a feasibility study, that enables us to decide on the precise project and the size of the station, etc., to look at the issue of costs and then to seek funding from the Department. We would see ourselves going back to talk about funding for that project this year. That is our plan on Spencer Dock.
On park and ride and the issue of high density with the DTO, clearly it is better for rail usage if one can have high density development beside the railway line. That is the optimum situation and we would like to see rail lines with high density close by and the funding for us to develop the capacity. However, we certainly would not rule out park and ride. We would see Dunboyne as an ideal medium-term park and ride project. If we could provide a spur to Dunboyne and provide a good park and ride facility there, then one would be opening up the option for using rail to the population of Navan, from where people could drive or take buses to Dunboyne and complete the more difficult part of the journey by rail.
Senator Norris asked about the demand. There most definitely is a demand. The issue with which we have been trying to cope over the past few years is our lack of capability to deal with the capacity, particularly on lines such as those to Maynooth and Drogheda. We simply have not been able to provide the capacity and we are working as hard as we can to increase capacity. The 80 rail cars we have acquired are a help but as we provide that capacity we find that it is filled up because the attraction of travelling into town from places like Drogheda or Skerries by rail is simply far greater than by road.
What is the increase?
Mr. Meagher
The increase on the Drogheda line for commuters over the peak period is about 40% since we put on the rail cars. We have not increased the number of trains. We cannot do that, but we have increased the size of the trains. All the peak trains are now eight-car trains capable of carrying 1,200 or 1,250 people. We have increased the overall capacity, seating and standing, by 40% over that time.
We would certainly see there being a connection to the metro at St. Stephen's Green and it is part of the DTO plan. It would of course maximise the capacity to the airport on the northside, but our option is there if people wish to use it.
Do you see your option going out to Swords?
Mr. Meagher
It could do. We have not looked at that in detail at this stage. We were asked what is the option for connecting the airport by conventional rail and we have looked at that. There is also an option for serving the north city to a greater degree by coming off around the Tolka valley and going up there.
If one has the capacity enhanced in the central area, it does offer options for spurs. One could have a spur out at City West. That has been talked about previously. We have not put all of those on the plan but once one breaks open the congestion issue in the central area, it does bring forward those possibilities. Certainly we would not rule out some linkage through north central Dublin, if required, to do that.
I agree with Deputy Ryan that it should not be a choice between the interconnector or the metro. We need to build the interconnector in the medium term or else we simply will not be able to cater for the growth in demand that will arise from places like Dundalk, Drogheda, Balbriggan, Longford, Mullingar and Maynooth. Our plan would be to develop the network, as shown in our presentation, by about 2012 but I simply make the point that we could fast-track it by 2010. We would not really see it being delivered before that but, if required, we could fast-track it if provided with the funding and resources.
I was asked about the level of confidence behind the estimated cost of €1.3 billion. We have completed an initial feasibility study. The level of confidence is plus or minus 15%. It includes a contingency of 16% but does not include finance costing.
Is it just the construction cost?
Mr. Meagher
It is the construction cost including some contingency.
Is it single tunnel?
Mr. Meagher
Single tunnel is what we are including in that.
In the discussion about the metro, one of the biggest difficulties is where the tunnelling machine gets in and gets out. In this case they are starting tunnelling at Spencer Dock and finishing at Heuston. I would imagine it is easy enough to take a tunnelling machine out at Heuston but has Iarnród Éireann looked at the difficulty of getting the machine in and out at Spencer Dock? Is Mr. Meagher happy that this does not raise any technical problems?
The cycling figures were down in last weeks CSO figures and that was disappointing for somebody like myself. However, it is shocking that there are still more people cycling than there are commuting by train. If I remember rightly from the census, some 33,000 people stated that they used the train to commute. I was surprised the number was so small. To what number could it be increased if the interconnector tunnel is built? Does Mr. Meagher wish to comment on that CSO figure? Was it an accurate reflection of the number of people commuting by rail?
My questions relate to Spencer Dock which, in the short term, is obviously critical to the development of future services between anywhere in the country and Dublin. Has Mr. Meagher looked at developing Spencer Dock on the basis of a public private partnership? Similar stations have been developed in other parts of the world on that basis, where there would not be a cost to the State. It contains a valuable land bank which could be developed in conjunction with the station. As soon as the feasibility study is completed, could that be presented to the committee so that we could discuss it?
There is a general acceptance around this room that the interconnector is absolutely essential, that unless it is put in place the rail services will not develop any further because of the serious capacity problems. I would like to know about the contact Irish Rail has had with the Department and what noises Mr. Meagher is getting back from the Department. Are they well disposed towards it and has Mr. Meagher got down to the business of talking about the funding of it and a realistic timescale?
Mr. Meagher
I will pass the question on the tunnelling to Diarmuid Ó Murchú because he is our new works manager and he would have a better feel for that. The CSO figures have just come out. I did show in the slides the sort of fleet capacity increases that we would plan to deliver between now and 2009. We have increased peak fleet capacity from approximately 25,000 a couple of years ago to about 32,000. It will be at 40,000 in 2006 and 60,000 by 2009. That is the sort of fleet capacity we will be able to offer, which is fairly significant.
On the Spencer Dock project as a PPP, we must get the feasibility study, look at the cost of it and then look at how best it will be funded. We would say that there are elements of our overall scheme which would be suited to PPP funding. That is something on which we have had initial discussions with the Department. We recognise that we will be looking for elements of the overall plan to be funded in that way.
The Department has funded the feasibility study for the interconnector and was fully behind it. We have got that now. Our discussions currently are in regard to immediate funding needs for the projects required up to 2008 and associated rolling stock. The Spencer Dock project will come on to the agenda very quickly.
The DART is now on the agenda and clearly set out. We have not had detailed discussions on the funding apart from the completion of it. The Department was as anxious as we were to complete it and ensure that we would all know what the issues and likely costs were and how it would fit in. I do not think there are any problems in that area.
I asked about park and ride and the increased numbers of people who it is envisaged will be using the service when the project is finished. How are people to get to rail links? Is Iarnród Éireann speaking to those agencies about feeder bus services if there are not park and ride facilities at all these stations? We are talking about a dramatic increase in numbers.
Mr. Meagher
Yes, and there are all sorts of issues in regard to access, parking facilities and park and ride facilities. That is very much on our minds at a number of stations, and our group property people are looking at how we can develop those facilities. We were out quite recently on the northern line looking at some stations, at what the issues are and what we can put in place to increase the capacity for parking. There is no land available in the immediate vicinity of a number of stations so we are talking about major developments and multi-storey car parking. We will see that happening in the coming years.
I have one brief question in that context. We have the roll-out of motorways around the country. One is under construction at the moment, through the PPP process, to Kinnegad. That intersects with the Maynooth line somewhere quite close to Enfield. Was there any discussion at the time with the NRA or Meath County Council about designating a parcel of land there which could be developed into a park and ride facility to cater for people from the outlying areas? They could feed into it from the motorway, a good quality road, park their vehicles and go straight into the city.
Mr. Meagher
I will ask Mr. Finn to deal with that.
Mr. Tom Finn
We have not had discussions with the NRA on that particular topic but there is certainly such potential somewhere between Maynooth and Mullingar, where there are stations only at Enfield and Kilcock. There is perhaps potential for another station somewhere in the Kinnegad area. The committee will be well aware of the development that is taking place in the Kinnegad-Killucan-Rochforthbridge areas, which could naturally feed in to the system. Within our plan there are proposals to do something with the Maynooth to Mullingar section. It is single-track at the moment, and one initiative might be doubling part of that track to give us additional capacity. That is certainly one area where park and ride would be critical. Unfortunately, the development in that area has not taken place beside the railway line.
The big difference with what Senator Morrissey is talking about in regard to the Maynooth line is that all the new development there is taking place immediately adjacent to the railway line. Some 10,000 people, for example, are going into the Pelletstown development, and there is also the Phoenix Park development, Porterstown and Hansfield. That is the type of thing we are trying to encourage, where the higher density is created beside the railway line and we can cut down on the need for dragging people in by car. There is no question that there is potential somewhere on the M4 for park and ride facilities.
My point is that the only way we are going to solve the problem in Dublin is by having decent rail capacity and public transport, but we should also try to encourage people not to bring their cars into the city centre in the first place. The vast majority of the country does not have the type of service into the city that will be required for flexibility, so people will bring their cars into the city, just as the Members of this House do. We should have a park and ride facility, but not in Kinnegad. We have seen what happened in Maynooth, where there is not car parking capacity because all the development has taken place in and around the station. We should get a greenfield site that specifically caters not for local residents but for people who could commute into that location and easily enter the city centre.
Mr. Meagher
I take the Deputy's point. We see ourselves as enhancing the level of service from Longford and Mullingar quite considerably so that people can feed in along that line. I take the Deputy's point, however, and if we were to develop the spur to Dunboyne we would specifically look to develop some such facility. Thus, where we do not have a railway line going further, people could funnel in there and access a very good facility to park in. Mr. Ó Murchú wants to deal with the question on the tunnels.
There is a considerable area of land north of Sheriff Street which is part of our freight yard. It has good road access and we would be able to introduce the tunnel boring machine.
I have one other quick question. If this goes in we could have services running directly from Kerry to Belfast and from Wexford to Sligo. Is Iarnród Éireann thinking——
There could be a line from Cork to Belfast.
From Roscommon to Belfast.
One could go from Roscommon to Wexford or wherever. It opens up the whole national rail network. Is Iarnród Éireann thinking of running services from, say, Belfast to Farranfore, Killarney or wherever? My other question is in regard to what was said about funding and financing. Do I take it that the Department is looking at giving Iarnród Éireann a five-year rolling programme in the same way as the NRA? Can we expect the announcement in the near future of a five-year fixed finance programme?
Mr. Meagher
A programme of funding was announced in the budget for the next number of years. We are talking with the Department about very definitive plans for investment within an envelope of funding up to 2008 so that we know exactly where we are going and can take on board projects that will take up to that time. We are confident that we can deliver the priority investment programme that I set out within that envelope of funding. There is little point in talking about it otherwise. We certainly see ourselves as delivering it within that timescale.
What about Kerry to Belfast or Roscommon to Gorey?
Mr. Meagher
It obviously opens up that option or possibility in the medium to longer term.
I thank Mr. Meagher, Mr. Finn, Mr. Reidy and Mr. Ó Murchú on behalf of the committee for a very interesting presentation. It contained great ideas.
The joint committee went into private session at 10.40 a.m. and adjourned at 10.57 a.m. sine die.