JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT díospóireacht -
Thursday, 27 Oct 2005

Dublin Metro System: Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Frank Allen, chief executive officer of the Railway Procurement Agency and Mr. Rory O'Connor, project director of Metro, Mr. Pat Mangan, assistant secretary at the Department of Transport and Mr. Seamus Ryan, assistant principal of the public transport section in the Department of Transport.

I remind members that civil servants while giving evidence to a committee may not question or express an opinion on the merits of any Government policy or policy objectives or produce or send to a committee any document in which a civil servant, member of the Defence Forces, or a member of the Garda Síochána questions or expresses an opinion on the merits of any Government policy or policy objective. Accordingly, I ask members to bear in mind the constraints under which the civil servants from the Department of Transport appear this morning.

Everybody is aware of the privilege notice but I must read it again. I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that, while members of the joint committee have absolute privilege, this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I propose that we hear a short statement from each of the witnesses, beginning with Mr. Frank Allen. Mr. Pat Mangan has said that he does not wish to make a statement but is prepared to answer questions.

Mr. Pat Mangan

I will make a few introductory comments but not a formal statement.

Chairman

I call on Mr. Frank Allen.

Mr. Frank Allen

The Railway Procurement Agency welcomed the publication of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport's report on the Dublin metro in May 2004 and we are pleased to have the opportunity to discuss it with the committee. Before commenting on the report, the Luas service has begun operating, demonstrating there is a demand for high quality and frequent rail services. It is encouraging that the projections for passenger numbers will be fulfilled. It is relevant that since then much of the development anticipated, particularly in Fingal County Council and the plans for Dublin Airport, has already come to fruition.

The Rail Procurement Agency welcomes the conclusions in the committee's and consultants' report that the cost benefit analysis is robust and there is a positive case for a metro. O'Reilly Consultants questioned the cautious approach taken by the Rail Procurement Agency with which we agree. Our view is that if one takes a cautious approach with respect to costs and benefits and there is a still a positive case, one will be more confident in what happens in practice.

One criticism levelled at projects that have an optimism bias in their planning phase is that risks emerge later. We feel we have done a comprehensive job in considering the difficulties that have arisen in major projects in Ireland and elsewhere. We have tried to take this into account when planning projects.

The consultants and the committee had some comments on the route alignment plan that we had shared with them. The alignment is to be confirmed and some of these comments will be taken into account at the next stage if the Government decides to proceed with the project. The exact location of stops has not yet been confirmed. There have been extensive consultations with local authorities, CIE, Dublin Airport and others. Another phase will have to be done when the Government decides whether to proceed with the project.

The route will not merely serve Dublin Airport but will also cater for other major development areas on Dublin's northside. We welcome the committee and the consultants' recommendation that Swords be included in the first phase. Fingal County Council has stated that the implementation of its development plan in a sustainable way is dependent on a metro going to Swords.

Several years ago, there was much discussion regarding comparisons of capital costs. We welcome the conclusion of the consultants that the capital costs included in the agency's estimates are robust and very much in line with the Madrid metro project. We endorse the consultants' view that one does not know how much a project will cost until it has been tendered. The challenge to us is to ensure there is a competitive bidding environment and we get the best price. The comments by the consultants on that point are welcome.

The consultants analysed various options in the procurement and financing strategy. It is worth noting that the mandate to the Rail Procurement Agency from the Department of Transport was to develop a metro as a PPP project. This is the basis on which we submitted our proposals to the Government. I believe this is the appropriate way to proceed. The consultants had a wider remit and examined other options. However, this area is more complex than can be captured in one chapter in a report. After the report's publication, I had discussions with the consultants to understand how they reached some conclusions. In some cases it is not clear from the analysis how these conclusions were reached. In others, giving a private company a concession or franchise for it to build it for little is not supported by the consultants' analysis and it has not happened elsewhere. Some of the conclusions reached by the consultants could do with a closer look at the complexity of the area and what has happened elsewhere.

The report strongly supports capturing development gain. If public transport is placed in a particular area, some people do well out of it. It is appropriate that some of this benefit is captured to help discharge some of the costs of a project. The agency supports this and Fingal County Council has said that if a metro includes Swords, it would introduce a scheme to capture development gain.

The consultants reached the conclusion that the metro project should be developed by an organisation other than the one responsible for Luas. From the Rail Procurement Agency's point of view, we are discharging the mandate given us. We have prepared a business case as asked by the Government. If the Government decides to proceed with this project, the Rail Procurement Agency is keen and available to proceed on that basis.

We believe that the outline business case submitted by the Rail Procurement Agency to the Government, subject to much discussion, is a robust case for a metro and demonstrates there is a real need for the service. Developments since the business case was prepared have confirmed this. We welcome the conclusions of the committee's report and that they share the main conclusions of the business case.

Mr. Mangan

Like the Rail Procurement Agency, the Department of Transport welcomes the committee's report as a valuable contribution to the Government's consideration of a metro project. We welcome the consultants' conclusions on the robustness of the cost benefit analysis prepared. We have noted the comments made on the conservative nature of certain underlined assumptions. The Department welcomes the consultants' comments on the agency's project costings. We agree with the conclusions in Chapters 5 to 7, inclusive, which deal with the Bus Éireann, Iarnród Éireann and "do nothing" scenarios.

We note the committee's support for the extension of a metro to Swords. Similar submissions have been received by the Department from Fingal County Council. We agree with the committee's view on the desirability of integrating the metro with existing public transport but that is without commenting on the merits of the proposal which will have to be considered as part of the development of the project.

We also note the report's other recommendations. Some of them are relevant to the current status of the project and are being considered in that context. Others are relevant to later stages of the project and more specific to the Rail Procurement Agency as project promoter.

The metro is one of a large number of project proposals and investment strategies currently being considered as part of the deliberations on the preparation of the proposed ten-year capital investment framework for transport. As the Minister for Transport indicated in replies to recent parliamentary questions, he expects to bring proposals to Government shortly and will publish the details once Government decisions have been taken on the investment framework.

Chairman

Since Luas came on track, everyone has seen its success. I understand that the RPA will meet its projected capacity much earlier than indicated in the original proposals. Does Mr. Allen see similar circumstances arising with regard to a metro to Swords? We are talking in terms of a metro to Swords rather than to Dublin Airport because we need to get a wider benefit rather than simply bringing it to the airport, with the general public north of the airport having problems of access. Does Mr. Allen still feel that the user number projections for a metro to Swords are realistic, or that they would be exceeded?

Mr. Allen

The Chairman might recall that weeks before the launch of Luas, a public debate about its projections took place. A distinguished transport economist had estimated that Luas would achieve approximately 45% of our projections. At the time, we had a degree of confidence that our projections would be realised but they were simply projections. The experience of the past 18 months gives us a higher degree of confidence in our approach to that transport modelling.

We continue to revise our projections for all our projects and are now taking a more optimistic view. For example, we have been pleasantly surprised that passenger numbers on Luas in the off-peak periods are exceptionally high. At times, they are higher than during what is traditionally regarded as the peak period. This has demonstrated that people are using public transport much more to go shopping and to go out in the evening and we must take that into account.

We will be revising our projections, no doubt upwards. One of the great strengths of road projects is that once the fixed infrastructure is put in place, one can increase capacity with relative ease. One of the strong arguments for a metro is that one can increase capacity substantially. The basis for our metro projections is that we would consider perhaps having carriages of 60 metres in length — or perhaps longer — at the initial stage. I would be more optimistic now that the passenger numbers we have projected would be achieved sooner than what we might have put in a more cautious projection before we had the operating experience of Luas.

Chairman

I presume that the RPA will ensure that if the metro proceeds, it will be totally integrated with Luas. We all know we must get that right this time and put in place a system that will allow a person to set out on public transport at one end of the city and finish up on public transport at the other, without, as in currently the case in certain instances, having to walk half a mile or a mile and a half.

Mr. Allen

That is a very high priority in all the plans we are considering.

Deputy O. Mitchell

We are having this discussion to impress on the Department, rather than the RPA, that we want the metro included in the ten-year plan. All the rumours are that it will be included and if so, that is great. However, we must learn the lesson that such long-term infrastructure must be included ahead of demand, if at all possible, because we always seem to be playing catch-up.

Luas has been a tremendous success and I am its biggest fan but it has not solved, nor was it intended to, the Dublin traffic problem. We are not coping with or meeting the increased demand. It is taking so long to get public transport projects going that demand is outstripping our ability to deliver. Accordingly, it is essential that a metro goes ahead. There has been talk about changes to design and so on. I understand that we may have a city centre, rather than a Charlemont Street, start for a metro but I am not sure if that is true.

Certain crucial aspects have been mentioned, such as extending the metro to Swords rather than merely to Dublin Airport. The airport is such a high-demand destination that to have it as the terminus for a public transport system and to be dragging cars in from all over north County Dublin, as well as from Louth and Meath, would be disastrous for the road system and for the airport.

I am also concerned that the metro should not be a stand-alone project, that it should connect with the rest of the public transport system. It is also essential that there is a critical path of project delivery and that we do not end up with a Dublin Port tunnel situation, realising in the month before its planned opening that there will be traffic chaos at both ends. Whether it be traffic management or infrastructure, with regard to light rail lines or whatever else, there should be some sequence to the work. If it happens at all, it should flow smooth and seamlessly rather than in the seemingly fractured way of the Dublin Port tunnel. I understand now that the port tunnel is to run another six months late and will not be opened until this time next year.

I have been going on about the port tunnel because it is a project of a similar order of magnitude to a possible metro. We must learn lessons from the failure. Clear and detailed specifications are essential. There was talk of the metro being a PPP, a public private partnership, but I do not know if that remains the case. Regardless of whether it is, there is a need for a major ratcheting-up of project management expertise within the RPA or wherever. Right from the start, the design, procurement, construction, delivery and traffic management must be first class because, as I am sure everyone is aware, this has the potential to be a total disaster, It can be done properly provided it is planned properly but it has the potential to be a disaster.

I understand that a metro station can measure 250 metres by 250 metres, which means a huge hole, with a great deal of dirt and rubble to be transported. That is just one station and if one thinks of it anywhere in Dublin, it has the potential to stop the entire city. It is, therefore, shockingly important that project management expertise be brought in from the first day in order to deliver the project.

Regarding the Dublin Port tunnel, the Minister's public relations people criticised me for saying that it might cost €1 billion. I understand now that we will be lucky to conclude the project at that price. The project overran massively because the time was not put in at the planning stage.

Chairman

We are discussing a metro, not the port tunnel.

Deputy O. Mitchell

Nevertheless, the lessons are there. The metro will involve us digging a big hole in the ground. I am assuming that we are still talking about a hole in the ground and not an elevated metro. Whatever is involved, it is important that it be fully segregated because we always underestimate demand in respect of every public project. I hope we get the demand for the metro right. We must all be aware that the situation will get a great deal worse before it improves but the metro is for the future. It is a big investment and we must get it right.

Deputy Shortall

I thank the delegation for the presentation. I have some questions about current thinking within both organisations in respect of the metro. Are they working on the original route involving Swords, Dublin Airport, Ballymun, DCU, Botanic Road, the Mater Hospital and O'Connell Street? Is that the route still envisaged?

Regarding capacity, can the delegates produce figures showing the relative capacity of a Luas-type service for Swords and Dublin Airport compared to a metro-type service, with the corresponding costs involved?

On the question of capacity, are we talking about a system that would cater for three-car trains, or do we accept the need to plan for the future, learning the lesson that the demand for public transport has been massively underestimated in the past? That debate is over now and people will use good-quality public transport if it is available. Luas has proven that, and we must be ready to cater for the population in 20 years. Obviously, we do not want any corner-cutting at this stage, since that would prevent future expansion.

Has Mr. Allen done the sums regarding a metro compared with a Luas system to serve the north side? Everyone agrees that one must have connectivity and integration in the public transport system. However, the metro line as originally proposed could not have integrated with the other rail systems because of the gauge. Has a decision on the gauge been taken?

A great deal of public concern was expressed a year or two ago when there was talk of spending over €4 billion to provide a northside metro. This committee went to Madrid and saw what was done there. We found it very hard to understand how the costs in this country could be so completely out of line with those elsewhere. In a very quick exercise, that cost estimate was reduced. I believe there was an element of smoke and mirrors in that, since the specification has been reduced substantially. We are talking about basic construction costs. At this point, does Mr. Allen have a ball-park figure for what a northside metro line would cost?

Senator Norris

I want to go for the Order of Business in the Seanad, specifically to rattle this special cage about the metro. I very much welcome the fact that we are having this meeting and that we are now apparently at last all on board. That is very important, and we should send the message out from this meeting that we have had our report and an extensive and detailed discussion. The questions asked by Deputy Shortall were very important, and I look forward to hearing the answers.

Essentially, right across party lines, this committee fully supports a metro. Mr. Allen said that there is now a positive case and I am very glad to hear that. There were occasions when spokespersons from the RPA got things wrong or simply did not know. I recall a series of rather unfortunate interviews where costings were discussed on a morning radio programme.

I am very glad that we now have factual evidence from the group that examined the consultants' report. It states that the cost-benefit analysis prepared for the Railway Procurement Agency shows benefits in excess of costs. It also goes on to say that doing nothing would actually cost the State money. It seems to me that it could not possibly be clearer.

In general, the cost-benefit analysis prepared for the Railway Procurement agency understates the benefits. As Mr. Allen quite clearly said, it was proper that they be cautious, since they have the right to take a prudent view. On the other hand, this is a very positive thing for us, and the consultants also recommend that it is a suitable project for a PPP. Finally, it strongly recommends a metro system for our capital that will not only connect the city to the airport but also to Swords. The study concludes that the significant cost of providing such a system is more than justified by the economic, environmental and social benefits that it would bestow on the capital city's inhabitants and, by extension, the country as a whole.

The message must go out of strong endorsement, and we should send a message to the Minister with the minutes of this meeting reminding him of the conclusions of this report. I say that because this committee has played an extremely important role. We are now hearing the Madrid example cited all over the place, and I am delighted, since it was I who suggested that we bring Professor Melis over here, and we learnt a great deal from him. It is very important that we continue to push this.

Regarding the Luas, God knows that I am not a begrudger. It is an expensive bauble and has not had the slightest impact on traffic, as far as I can see. Any inhabitant of Dublin will say that. There may have been a marginal statistical impact, but as we always said, it did not have the effect that an underground would have, and we all know that. Let us not fool ourselves on that matter.

It is important that we push ahead and give a strong indication, particularly now while the matter is being discussed, and allow ourselves to be as positive as possible. I look forward to the announcement that this investment will be made, and I propose that, just as Deputy Glennon suggested during our private session that we monitor road safety, this committee should continue to monitor the metro in the most helpful manner possible.

I hope that the station in O'Connell Street will be slightly towards the northern end and that the name "James Joyce Central" might be considered.

Chairman

It could be "David Norris Station".

Senator Norris

No, I am far too modest, one of my greatest qualities.

Mr. Allen

I appreciate Deputy Olivia Mitchell's expression of support. Perhaps I might very quickly go through the points. We fully support the extension to Swords from the airport. It would not make sense to build that section as a metro unless it led on to further metro lines. This has been costed, presented and scaled as the first phase of a more extensive metro.

That also relates to the suggestion regarding a critical path for delivery of projects. I entirely agree with the comment that planning and ensuring that as many decisions as possible are made at an early stage before we have men out digging the streets will mean time well spent — of that there is no doubt. Deputy Olivia Mitchell was quite right to point to the likelihood of disruption arising from station boxes. That was part of submissions to the committee, as well as appearing in the report, and people have said that one must do things in parallel. There is a very strong case for that, since one would then be able to have the opening day as quickly as possible.

However, people must realise that, if one does that, and has several station boxes in the dimensions that she suggests open in the city at the same time, it will have an impact. There are decisions for us to make as a community. Do we want to move ahead and get it open as quickly as possible, doing a great deal of work in parallel? That would mean more disruption. Do we try to minimise the disruption at any point and do things sequentially? Those are important decisions to make. We will not be doing so alone, since the local authorities and so on will be involved.

Senator Norris

I am sorry to interrupt, but that is an important point. The lesson of Madrid is that we must do the work in parallel. When we do it sequentially, it leads to cost over-runs. I would be very interested in what my colleagues think, but I would say that we should get the pain out of the way in one go as far as possible.

Deputy O. Mitchell

Is Mr. Allen suggesting that, as part of the project, we build several stations at the same time, or a part of the metro, opening it and moving on?

Mr. Allen

Absolutely not. Nothing will open until it is all complete. The point is that the way one builds metros is to build station boxes, after which the tunnel-boring machine comes along underground. There is sometimes a perception in Dublin that, because it is underground, one will not notice it until the morning it opens. That is not the case. As a community, there is a question about us doing everything in parallel, as has been suggested by committee members, by Professor Melis and by others, with disruptive consequences during the implementation phase, or whether we minimise disruption in the city centre by doing it more sequentially.

Chairman

Has the RPA done two costings, one for doing it in parallel and one for doing it sequentially?

Mr. Allen

We have taken it into account with some of the revisions to our costs. I do not accept the suggestion that it is a question of smoke and mirrors. We took the view that tunnel boring machines would operate for a certain number of hours per day and we were guided by the experience for the Dublin port tunnel, where the tunnel boring machine worked for 16 hours per day. When he was before the committee, Professor Melis said not to stop it. That has important implications for costs. Some of the revisions to our costs take into account the fact that it is done quicker. Professor Melis gave me good advice when he told me not to do any EIS or not to consult the public as both would cause delays. He has been very successful in the building the metro in Madrid without doing any EIS or consulting anyone. The environment in Dublin is somewhat different and I am pleased that is the case. People make comparisons between one system and another, but demand that there be more consultation than there was for Luas and that the advice of Professor Melis is followed. There is a conflict in such a demand and the RPA is not going to resolve that.

I am sure we will be back at this committee on the issue, there will be discussions with local authorities and with the public. I disagree entirely with Professor Melis that we should not assess the environmental impact of opening up the six station boxes in the city. Professor Melis has said that will cause delays and it most certainly will do so. However, we cannot deliver a metro at the pace, speed and cost that it was done in Madrid, because we have a very different legislative environment.

Chairman

I totally agree with Mr. Allen on that, but all the consultation should be done before the RPA starts. People should know exactly what will happen and will not raise a racket half way through construction, claiming they did not know it was going to happen. The full details should be put to the public before it starts and people should be given an exact schedule on how long the inconvenience will last. They should be informed in what area and in what month construction will happen.

Deputy O. Mitchell

It will be a year and not a month.

Chairman

If the public is made aware that there is a starting and finishing time for the inconvenience, they will accept it. However, if they are told that it may or may not finish at a certain date, the public will quickly become annoyed.

Senator Norris

The port tunnel was under quite a high proportion of residential land. The metro will be going under the central metropolitan area where there will not be residential disturbance to anything like the same extent. O'Connell Street is virtually closed to traffic anyway, with the exception of buses. The disruption there is less severe there than it would be elsewhere. As a conservationist, an environmentalist and even a member of that hated body, An Taisce, I agree that an environmental impact survey must be carried out. However, I think we should push ahead as quickly as possible. To the extent that it is feasible, we should have continuous drilling. We must respect people's lives, but it is an important point that we are going under the central metropolitan area.

Deputy Shortall

Legislation is needed for that, but we have not yet seen the critical infrastructure Bill. A key thing in Madrid is that there were a number of different contractors on the one route. Professor Melis took particular pleasure in playing one contractor against the other in order to get the best price. Will the RPA be able to have parallel work going on if it is just dealing with one PPP contract?

Mr. Allen

Whether the work is done sequentially or in parallel, it is not just a question of playing one contractor against the other. These issues will be the subject of public consultation, discussion and a public inquiry, something that does not occur in Madrid. The agreement on the likely hours of drilling and so on is done with the contractor. The contractor comes back and we negotiate the shortest time possible within those constraints. Whether it is a PPP project or whether it is playing contractors against one another is a different issue. With a PPP, the work can be done sequentially or in parallel. These are choices that need to be made long before a contractor is brought on board. To the extent that it is possible to do that, we would support it. Sometimes it is not quite as easy to indicate when exactly work will take place, due to technical and construction reasons.

For previous projects, we have had many public meetings. It is not until a digger is on the street that people actually focus on what is going on. We have meetings, we write to people and publish information in local newsletters, but it is not until the diggers are on the streets that people call us and claim that they knew nothing about the digging. We are absolutely committed to having extensive public consultation. I completely disregard the advice of Professor Melis not to consult with the public. We will consult extensively. The EIS is part of EU requirements and part of our own requirements here. That is not the case in Madrid, as it is a different environment there.

To be fair to the consultants, they asked to compare like with like. Professor Melis took into account the cost of materials in Ireland and spoke to Spanish contractors who are working on NRA programmes here before coming up with his cost estimates. They were almost identical to ours, but one major difference was whether a single tunnel or twin bore tunnel was built. This report suggests that we have a single tunnel. All our plans and proposals have been based on current Irish law and guidelines. Professor Melis operates in a different environment where he is his own safety inspector. There is no independent rail safety inspectorate in Spain. If the professor decides that a single bore is the way to go, then single bore it is. In Ireland we are guided by an independent rail inspectorate and that is exactly as it ought to be.

Our proposals were prepared on the basis of what the railway inspector told us were the guidelines in place. If there is a significant difference in cost between a single bore and twin bore, that is not just a question for the RPA to sort out. We are not arguing for a single bore tunnel, because emerging international best practice is for twin bore tunnels. When people say the project must be done exactly as it was done elsewhere, due regard should be had to whether the legislation on the environment, safety and so on correspond.

To turn to Deputy Shortall's questions, the final route which would be put to a railway order public inquiry must be the subject of public consultation. As a next step, if the Government decides to proceed with a metro system, the RPA would have to proceed with it. We are considering the route described by the Deputy. The precise location of stops would be subject to change for various reasons — consultation and otherwise.

Deputy O. Mitchell

There are rumours that the route would begin north, not south, of the River Liffey and not connect with the existing Luas line. Is that a possibility?

Mr. Allen

It would begin south of the Liffey

Deputy O. Mitchell

Would it begin at Charlemont?

Mr. Allen

The proposal we included in our case to the Government was that passengers would get off the metro downstairs at St. Stephen's Green, go up the stairs and get on the Luas and travel to Sandyford.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I am glad everyone is in agreement that this would be a metro to Swords, not just the airport.

Senator Norris referred to the Spanish practice of enduring all the hardship at one time. Would it not make more sense to build a metro from Sandyford or Cherrywood to Swords rather than from St. Stephen's Green to Swords, given that the short connection from St. Stephen's Green to the existing Luas line, wherever it connects, would result in a huge increase in patronage on the proposed metro line? Why not make sure that the line would be linked in the first phase rather than included as part of a second stage, which I understand is proposed in the RPA presentation to the Government?

Mr. Allen

I will respond to Deputy Ryan and then Deputy Shortall.

Chairman

Deputy Ryan should not have intervened at this stage.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I apologise, Chairman. I thought my question was a follow-up to Deputy Olivia Mitchell's.

Mr. Allen

I will come back to the Deputy on the matter. I will ask my colleague, Mr. O'Connor, to deal with some of the questions on capacity to Swords.

Mr. Rory O’Connor

With regard to capacity of Luas versus metro, we considered a Luas route to Swords and its capacity capability. The capacity of the Luas system is limited to between 10,000 and 11,000 passengers per hour due to constraints in crossing road junctions and so on. That would be sufficient for the Dublin Airport-Swords corridor for a number of years but, ultimately, a higher capacity would be needed. The metro would be capable of being extended to carry 20,000 passengers per hour per direction. To put the matter in context, following enhancement, the DART now carries 11,000 passengers per hour whereas the metro would carry almost twice that number. This would involve 90 metre trains, for which we propose the infrastructure should be developed. However, the service would begin with shorter trains to meet the existing level of demand.

Deputy O. Mitchell

What of the gauge?

Mr. Allen

The gauge for metro would be the same as that for the Luas — the standard European gauge. It would not be an issue. We would have to have the same gauge as the Luas line.

With regard to Deputy Shortall's point on costs, we are pleased that competent work was carried out for the committee by its consultants. They examined the issue in detail — the RPA opened its files to them entirely — and reached a conclusion, as confirmed in their report, that the cost estimated by the RPA was a professional and competent one which took account of Irish construction conditions and costs and the experience in metro systems internationally.

A question arises as to what constitutes a metro system. While there is a view that a metro is a metro, there is a wide of range of systems and the variations in specification are reflected in the variations in cost. When the RPA was challenged to present a more affordable cost figure, we agreed it was possible to do so. However, when we did, we presented a menu of options. For example, as station boxes are expensive, to remove two stops would reduce costs correspondingly, or, alternatively, some aspect of station specifications could be changed. Any project we are considering here would be on a par with top class metro systems internationally. For example, the platforms of the most recent metro system to open, that in Copenhagen, are 40 metres long whereas we propose 90 metre platforms for Dublin. It is not the case that we are planning a budget system that would be overtaken by events before it opened.

We welcome the conclusions of the committee's consultants who considered copious files and details with regard to how costs had been prepared. When Professor Melis attended the committee, he stated his estimate for the specification we had included was well nigh the same as the RPA's. We welcome this conclusion. There is a significant difference between single bore and twin bore tunnelling in that, as one would expect, it costs more to bore two tunnels rather than one. Those who considered the detail of the RPA plan have concluded that the costs were competently prepared.

I also welcome the conclusion of the consultants that the cost of the project would equate to what we could achieve on the market. If we were to go ahead with the project, we would have to ask the market to commit millions of euro in preparing bids to do the work. Therefore, we need to convince the market that it would be a serious project. There are no more than four consortia in the world that would have the range of skills that could be brought together to do all the work involved in the project. The task for us is to convince them that this would be a real project to which we would be committed and to get them to compete against one another. That process would decide the costs involved.

While I welcome the endorsement of Senator Norris, I disagree with his point that the Luas has not had the slightest impact on traffic volumes.

Deputy Shortall

It has had no effect on the north side of Dublin.

Mr. Allen

Senator Norris is correct that the Luas has had no impact on traffic in parts of the north side because it does not operate there. However, the numbers travelling on the Luas are similar to those travelling on the DART. If some claim it makes no impact on traffic, I am puzzled by this.

Deputy O. Mitchell

We could find out by closing them both down for one day.

Mr. Allen

We would rather not do that. With regard to the naming of stops, I very much look forward to being at a stage where we would have to consider the choice of names, but we are not quite there yet.

On a previous occasion Deputy Eamon Ryan asked why a tunnel boring machine, when in the ground, did not just continue to bore tunnels. It is a fair question. The issue for the RPA and the Government is the scale of the work involved. Decisions must be made as to how much one bites off at any one time in terms of cost, complexity and so forth. The RPA began by considering the full costing for the complete metro system included in the document, A Platform for Change. In terms of encouraging interest in the project among international consortia, the affordablity of the project within a certain timeframe and the capacity of the construction sector to do so much work at the same time, we quickly realised that the project would need to be undertaken in chunks. The proposed metro system which would run for approximately 18 kilometres from St. Stephen's Green to Swords through Dublin Airport would be a substantial project, more substantial that other recently built metro lines, for example, the Copenhagen metro. If one considers what is undertaken elsewhere, it is an extremely big project.

One could argue that we should add another little bit, probably from St. Stephen's Green to where one might develop a tunnel portal. It would probably be in the Beechwood area. In our submission to the Government, we have taken the position that a project of manageable proportions would be from St. Stephen's Green to the airport and onwards to Swords. We thought that merited attention. The undertaking of a complete metro line from Swords to Cherrywood would be an enormous project which we would not encourage at present. However, as Deputy Olivia Mitchell has suggested, once a start is made, one has begun a process to carry out further phases. That is our advice to the Government.

Deputy Glennon

I welcome the representatives from the Railway Procurement Agency and from the Department. I was particularly struck by the positive nature of the discussion on the part of the agency. However, Mr. Allen's last comment struck me when he referred to the metro to the airport and onwards to Swords. At all times, this joint committee considered the project as a metro to Swords which served the airport. It was always addressed in this way.

I note Mr. Allen's support for such a project, particularly his comments in respect of the positive contribution to the discussion and process by Fingal County Council. However, I am somewhat perturbed by the comments from Mr. Pat Mangan in respect of the committee's report. He merely noted its comments regarding what he referred to as the extension to Swords. I ask him to elaborate on that point. In my firm view, which I believe is shared by my colleagues, it is essential that this project goes to Swords.

I was slightly amused by Deputy Eamon Ryan's suggestion that it also should extend to Poulaphouca or somewhere on the southside. I will take this opportunity to welcome everyone to the northside from a transport perspective. They would be made welcome and would discover that the natives do not have hair growing on the palms of their hands, but are welcoming people, particularly when it comes to a project like this. Hopefully, when the members stand at St. Stephen's Green they will look north immediately and will not look over their shoulders.

Nevertheless, I seek clarification from Mr. Mangan regarding the Department's attitude to the committee's report which recommended a metro to Swords and not to the airport with a possible extension.

Deputy P. Power

I also welcome the delegations. I wish to concentrate on the costs and financing of the entire project. First however, can Mr. Allen confirm if all the Railway Procurement Agency's projections are based on a twin bore tunnel or a single bore tunnel? The committee has heard Mr. Allen's comments regarding a competitive bidding environment and I agree wholeheartedly with him in this respect. It is obviously based upon a PPP type of procurement.

For the sake of clarity, is the Railway Procurement Agency proceeding on a PPP-only basis because that was its mandate from the Government, or has it examined alternative or traditional methods of procurement? Is the agency absolutely wedded to the PPP method of procurement? Assuming this is the case, I note Mr. Allen's comments that it will require substantial Exchequer funding, notwithstanding the fact that it will be on a PPP basis. Can Mr. Allen estimate what he would currently expect the level of contribution to be, in either percentages or hard figures, from the Exchequer towards such a project? What is the agency's current estimate of the overall capital cost of the project?

As far as the expertise and experience gained from the Luas project are concerned, I want Mr. Allen to elaborate on the lessons learned. Is he now satisfied that the Railway Procurement Agency has the competence to undertake a project such as this? He has stated a number of times that it is an enormous project, which is accepted by the joint committee members. I want to hear more reassurances that, on foot of the Luas project, the agency has all the structures and competence in place to undertake such a project.

If, under the ten year transportation plan, the agency was given the green light, can Mr. Allen estimate when the agency would be in a position to start work and when would it be completed? I understand these would be guesstimates rather than estimates, but I would appreciate Mr. Allen's best shot at them.

Senator Morrissey

My questions are similar to those of Deputy Peter Power. I want to ask specific questions about the bidding process. In the light of recent statements by both the Department of Transport and the Minister for Finance regarding fixed price contracts, how does the Railway Procurement Agency propose to proceed with them? As Mr. Allen has noted, there are only approximately four major consortiums in the world which might be able to carry out this project. We are still far from establishing whether we will have 24 hour tunnelling, environmental impact statements, consultation or twin bore or single bore tunnels. Hence, I believe we are some years from establishing what a bid might be because for a fixed price contract, no one will bid until the other matters are resolved and they know the risks.

A metro project is about time and costs. One must eliminate the risks of planning delays, 24 hour tunnelling and all the unforeseen possibilities that might develop along the way regarding objections or, as Mr. Allen has noted, a person who did not think that a digger would be put outside his or her front door and who then calls a halt to the programme. In the future, fixed price contracts will be much different to what we have experienced to date, because with a fixed price contract, the contractor buys the risk. Hence, contractors must be assured that everything has been dealt with in advance because they will have taken over the risk once they start.

As far as the Swords issue and Government financing for it is concerned, Fingal County Council has stated that it has already included approximately 50% of the costs of the metro from the airport to Swords in its accounts, from levies which it has imposed on developers, from intended future developments and from future densities and rezoning it intends to introduce to the Swords area. Hence, it can finance that section of it. If that is the case, what other discussions in respect of private funding might be underway?

I am rather confused, some two years after the joint committee began to discuss this issue, as to whether a single bore or twin bore option is being contemplated. I am disappointed that a clear direction has not been given. Mr. Allen appears to indicate that the option for a twin bore tunnel might be taken. I want to know the reasons. Could Mr. Allen address the deliverability of these plans under the fixed-price contract? Contractors will be very dubious and careful about a fixed-price contract because we have no experience of them and the metro system might be the first and largest project to use such a contract. A considerable amount of pre-planning work must be done. When will digging commence?

Chairman

The specifications given to those contractors will determine the pricing.

Senator Morrissey

There are no changes.

Chairman

Neither the committee nor Mr. Allen is in a position to do this.

Senator Morrissey

We are talking about project management expertise. The Government has given very clear guidelines; it is to be a fixed-term contract.

Deputy O. Mitchell

It does not apply to a PPP.

Senator Morrissey

This would be a fixed-price contract.

Deputy O. Mitchell

It cannot be a fixed-price contract if it is a PPP.

Senator Morrissey

I want to know whether it is to be a fixed-price contract. We should ask the people who will carry it out.

Deputy O. Mitchell

They are two different concepts.

Mr. Allen

I accept Deputy Glennon's point that the new system should be described as a metro to Swords that serves the airport and many other areas. The RPA has never called it the airport metro. I am not sure if there is a strong business case for a metro that would serve only the airport. We have described it as an metro that serves Dublin City University, the Mater Hospital, the airport and Swords. If we erred in describing it as the airport extension to Swords, it was because the programme for Government asked for a metro running from the city centre to the airport and we responded. This was part of the request that came to us. We continued to cost other aspects of it, including the extension of the line to Swords. The fact that there has been greater focus on the city centre to the airport line probably arises from that provision in the programme for Government.

Deputy Peter Power and Senator Morrissey asked about the merits of single bore versus those of twin bore. From our perspective, we can only come up with costs, designs and specifications based on existing legislation and guidelines, which clearly stipulate that twin bore must be used with a tunnel of more than 1 km. It has been suggested that there is a degree of confusion arising from arguments among a number of people, including Professor Melis, who is here today. Our position on the matter has been very clear and we have indicated that if our legislation or guidelines were different, the other option would be cheaper. However, we can only prepare plans and costs based on existing guidelines and legislation. The legislation and guidelines are explicit about when twin bore must be used, which is what we are using for the metro. I do not anticipate that legislation and guidelines in this area will change in the near future and we are not asking that they be changed.

We are looking exclusively at a public private partnership arrangement because it is the very clear mandate that has been given to us. As part of any PPP project, the promoting agency, which is the RPA, must establish comparators and justify why one option should be favoured. We have responded to the mandate given to us to proceed on the basis of a PPP and are not looking at pursuing it through other contractual methods.

With a PPP contract, a private company does not take money out of its own pocket and contribute to it in same way as the Government traditionally would have done. A PPP is virtually funded upfront in its entirety by a private sector consortium. It is paid over possibly a 25-year period of operations rather than during the construction phase, as happens with traditional procurement. The Government still pays for a PPP but in a different way. It does not pay for it during construction. In a classic PPP project, nothing is paid for until the day operations commence. This payment continues throughout the life of the project.

Deputy P. Power

I fully understand that this is the normal way a public private partnership operates. However, my clear understanding from our hearing stage was that a consortium would not come in unless there was an additional upfront lump sum, rather than an arrangement whereby it would be spread out in terms of a concession over a period of 25 to 30 years, because of the size and scale of this project. I bow to Mr. Allen's expertise regarding the international consortia which are available to carry out this project. This is why I asked whether a percentage of the overall capital cost would be expected to come from the Exchequer. I understood this was the case arising out of our hearings but I must re-check the minutes.

Mr. Allen

I understand the question but I did not understand that this was the context to which Deputy Peter Power referred. The scale of this project is large by international standards. There have been other projects of a similar scale but very few that were larger so it is a challenge to deliver this project. We are going to the market on the basis that it would be funded in full at this stage.

Fingal County Council proposes to put a levy scheme in place. We hope to possibly enter into commercial agreements with other developers about the location of stops for which we would want cash. The more cash we can get at earlier stages, the smaller the amount that must be funded through the consortium. We propose to go to the market on a PPP basis if the Government decides to proceed with this project.

Senator Morrissey

Some members of the committee and I are confused. The Government will end up paying for this project over 25 or 30 years. Is this one of the reasons the Government is looking for fixed-price contracts? When Mr. Allen says that the RPA is going to the market and that a consortium will pay for the construction of it but get its money back over a 30-year period, it means that the Government will effectively pay for it over a longer period of time. Will it be done through a fixed-price contract?

Mr. Allen

I will address Deputy Peter Power's questions and then answer Senator Morrissey's question about fixed-price contracts. We have not recently updated the capital cost. We prepared an outline business case and presented it to the Government. If the Government decides to proceed with it, which we hope it will, we will immediately examine what has happened in construction indices. We will examine station locations and costs of property acquisition. The information we provided to the consultants, which is reflected in the report, was the last comprehensive assessment and it is a major undertaking to revisit this. If the Government decides to proceed with the project and asks us to proceed with our work, one of the first things we will do is examine the alignment to see if development has taken place that would interfere with earlier plans, examine the developments in the construction sector and re-engage with the market. We do not have updated construction costs but we will obtain them once the Government decides to proceed with the project.

It is always risky to give an opening date before the decision to proceed with the project has been made.

Deputy P. Power

If the Government gave the green light on the transportation plan, what would be the RPA's next steps?

Mr. Allen

The next steps would be parallel. A railway re-application, which is akin to planning permission for a railway, would be prepared. We would immediately re-engage with the international market through a bidding process. An approximate estimate is that there will be a three year pre-construction phase and a four year construction phase.

We have been told to do this as a public private partnership, the nature of which would involve us in signing a concession agreement with a consortium which would bring together various parties. This agreement would stipulate that the consortium would provide a railway service according to the current output requirement of the railway order for a certain period and we would pay it a certain amount per year. The full nature of the PPP runs to tomes in terms of length but this is its essence. Back to back with this agreement, the consortium would enter into a construction contract with another consortium, for example, and the nature of the contract would be at the discretion of the former, as one does not tell such bodies how to go about their work in PPPs.

I worked in this business for many years. It would not be a fixed price contract but a design, build and maintain contract. One of the great strengths of PPPs is that the contract forces the people who are designing today to take into account that they may not be fully paid for another 22 years and design it in such a way that cracks do not appear by that time. The guidance the Minister for Transport has given people in recent public discussions is that there should be different types of contracts. While they are not mutually exclusive, I am not aware of any PPP fixed priced contracts like those described recently. PPP and fixed priced contracts have different natures.

Senator Morrissey asked how one could expect people to bid if they do not know whether they can tunnel during the night and so on. One cannot. From public consultation, other methods and international experience, it is clear that contractors will not fix a price until the EIS and planning processes have been completed and one has given the contractors chapter and verse as to what exactly is to be done and what type of facade appears at the station stop, for example. If one needs a certain specification for a bus interchange at a particular location, the contractor must be told.

Until all of this and the public consultation are out of the way and an enforceable railway order is in place, one is only talking with the contractors. They may be extensive discussions but no one could lock in a price as there is no way contractors could commit to a price if they did not know the rules of engagement. We would begin to re-engage. Part of the process would be our indication of the type of contractual structure and a request to bidders to consider it, what changes they would require and so forth. However, receipt of the absolute amount of money will be a long time off for a construction company bidding on this project. It must be, which is true not just of railway projects but road projects in general.

Senator Morrissey indicated that Fingal County Council has money in the bank, which is not my understanding of the matter. The county council is proposing to put a levy scheme in place that would result in the collection of levies if a decision is made by the Government to proceed with a metro to Swords. I have spoken with the council as recently as this week but the levy scheme is only being discussed and there is no money in the bank.

Senator Morrissey

Fingal County Council has earmarked land for rezoning and decided on the levies to be imposed subject to a metro system going through it.

Chairman

We are not speaking about rezoning.

Mr. Mangan

Deputy Glennon should not read anything positive or negative into my comment. The situation is that the Government is considering the entire package and decisions will be taken on the metro, including the Swords issue.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

It is a pity that the Progressive Democrats are not running and building this system as they said in 2002 they could have it completed by 2007, two years earlier than Mr. Allen's given date. If the Progressive Democrats believed they could do it in five years, it would have been useful had they done so.

Senator Morrissey

Who said it will not be finished on time?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

The PDs said it would be done by 2007. I need to hold Deputy Glennon's hand and tell him that Poulaphouca is on the western side of the Wicklow Mountains. There are rumours about what happens to the heads of second row players.

Chairman

We are not talking about rugby today. The Deputy should proceed to his question.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Sandyford is on the other side of the Wicklow Mountains in south Dublin. I accept Mr. Allen's point that this will be a big project, but does he not acknowledge that we changed the Luas bridge in Dundrum to be able to take a metro, for example? We widened the tracks and changed their alignment. It is an 18 km project, which is quite large, but the extension I am talking about is 2 km from near St. Stephen's Green to wherever the metro's porch light would be brought south of the canal. A certain amount of small works would be carried out on that line, which has been designed to take a metro.

What would be the alternative? Is Mr. Allen suggesting we will return to the issue in five or ten years, reopen the St. Stephen's Green box and put a second boring tunnel in for this 2 km section? Will we leave the boring tunnel for five or ten years and turn it on again? Turning it from a 18 km project to a 20 km project and carrying out small ancillary works in the future makes more sense than reopening everything years later with all of the city centre disruption incurred and costs involved. I do not understand why it does not make sense to increase the length to 20 km, even if it is a large project. It would allow Deputy Glennon to see the glory of Sandyford and beyond. I do not see the logic in putting in a new boring tunnel in the future. Are we not missing a significant opportunity to make this a long line if we do not do as I have suggested?

The issue of levies is crucial. We have failed to operate the levy system in terms of building the extension to Cherrywood. There have been difficulties in getting agreement. If we take the decision to go ahead with this project quickly, which I want, any developers along that line will be in strong bargaining positions and will not agree to any levy because they know the project will go ahead anyway. How could we avoid handing over several billion euro worth of development gain to everyone along that line if we do not get an effective levy? Is there another way to get some of this paid back from existing businesses that do not require rezoning, for example?

We have been told that a possible four international consortia could take on this project. Could the delegates confirm whether they numbered among the 18 consortia that made initial expressions of interest in November or December of 2002 in response to a request from the Government? Will they be taking us seriously given that we asked for expressions of interest in 2002 and are still here three years later? How would it be viewed internationally that the Government asked for these expressions in the European Journal and then spent three years humming and hawing?

Deputy P. Power

The Government asked for expressions of interest and then began to negotiate.

Deputy O. Mitchell

One of the tragedies of a late decision on the metro is that the building levies from the construction that took place in north County Dublin over the recent years were not captured. In the case of Cherrywood, two years of levies have been collected from the Sandyford area by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. It is not the developers who ultimately pay these. While they pay them up front, the cost is passed down to the house buyers. Even the smallest apartment incurs a levy of €10,000. Ultimately, it is not the developer who pays the greater portion. As much as possible is passed on.

No decision has been taken and we should not infer from responses to the following questions that a decision has been made. Has any thought been given to investment in the project and making the project part of a consortium, including the National Pensions Reserve Fund? This has been a monopoly concession for 20 to 30 years. The public would be happier if there was some payback. There should be some public input into management and operation, given our experience of privately provided infrastructure. Under competition law, the same investment must be offered to any bidder.

How much should be undertaken at one time? If the metro were to start at St. Stephen's Green or Charlemont, another project that would have to be considered would be the interconnector, beloved of CIE. That company intends to have an interchange at St. Stephen's Green with the metro. Is the Department satisfied with that arrangement? We have stated the site is a big hole and this will be complicated by a mainline rail station above, below or beside it. Has this been considered? I am not opposed to the interconnector but I question whether the design is optimal. Building another station beside the metro may have an impact on construction. Could these events happen simultaneously?

Deputy Shortall

I want the delegation to confirm that all stations will be built from above and that no boring will take place. Can the majority of the work be done underground or is it necessary to dig down across the expanse of the station?

The line to which the delegation refers will cross the Tallaght line on O'Connell Street. Has the RPA considered having a station there, as opposed to the Gresham Hotel? It makes it less attractive to change lines if one must walk the length of O'Connell Street. This must be seriously considered.

I refer to a recommendation in the report by this committee. With major public and private investment in the regeneration of Ballymun, it was strongly recommended the metro line remain underground until north of Ballymun. The original idea was that it stand on stilts through the main street. This would be an enormous eyesore and a cause of major environmental problems in an area in which we seek to develop confidence.

Mr. Allen

I will respond to the questions in sequence. Deputy Eamon Ryan referred to the extension. It is reasonable to state that the continuation of the tunnel-boring machine for another two kilometres is not a major increment, but it is more than this. Describing this as a metro line to Cherrywood would not be accurate and would not reflect the concept we have of the degree of segregation. The location of the gated stations would require a considerable amount of work south of Beechwood.

We would make a decision in consultation with the contractor on whether to leave the tunnel boring machine in the ground. Often the machines are left underground as this is a cheaper option than extracting them. We see this north-south metro line as part of a longer development including an orbital metro line that would connect at St. Stephen's Green, as envisaged in A Platform for Change. At that stage, it would be appropriate to use the tunnel-boring machine for a line in the direction of Kimmage.

We have described the proposal put to Government and the rationale of doing it on that scale. We concluded the scale was manageable. I note the suggestion that it be extended but these are the proposals before Government.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

If one leaves a machine in the ground, and it makes sense to continue boring in five or ten years time, is it possible to turn the machine on again?

Mr. Allen

Yes. It is slightly unfair to describe the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown scheme as a failure. It has been in place for two years and substantial amounts of money have been collected. Agreements have been reached with developers on contributions in addition to the levies. It was the opinion of the RPA that a major windfall gain accrued to property owners in that alignment. It decided part of that gain should be captured and the RPA would not proceed with a railway order until the property owners had signed up to make additional contributions. This was an appropriate policy decision to capture windfall gains.

When I stated that four consortia would be capable of undertaking this project, perhaps I should have said four, five or six. The number is limited and they are included in the people pre-qualified in the earlier phase. We pre-qualified civil works construction companies individually, namely, those that have the entire range of skills, including mechanical and electrical skills. After achieving this status individually, they could form consortia. The consortia would be composed of many of the more than 18 companies of individual skills. Most of the companies that we wanted to show interest submitted expressions of interest and were deemed pre-qualified at the time.

It will be a challenge to ask them to remobilise teams that have worked on this if the Government decides to proceed and there will be a remobilisation period.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

Have teams been set up for this project?

Mr. Allen

That probably overstates the situation. Groups are put together and certain people in the company are designated to prepare documentation for pre-qualification. In my experience, staff in the business promotion section do this and the serious work of design and costing takes place when we invite companies to tender. We have not done so yet and companies did not spend much money. We must re-engage with the companies and assure them we want them to spend time on this. I have covered all of Deputy Ryan's questions. Deputy Mitchell asked whether the first-time home buyer or the wealthy developer pays. My view is that if one provides a world-class transport infrastructure in a neighbourhood, the developers will sell the apartment to the first-time home buyer for the highest price they can get.

Deputy O. Mitchell

I do not dispute that.

Mr. Allen

Developers gain a windfall and we want to capture it. We have succeeded in doing so in the case of the extension to Cherrywood.

Deputy O. Mitchell

I do not dispute that.

Mr. Allen

We must do so in northbound areas also. The planning authorities, Dún Laoghaire Rathdown in the case of Cherrywood, and Fingal, are entirely on board.

Deputy O. Mitchell

I accept that and I do not dispute it. It is a great idea. The tragedy is that we did not start earlier on the north side.

Mr. Allen

The question was asked as to whether the National Pensions Reserve Fund could be involved. We fully brief the National Development Finance Agency on all that is done. It is part of the National Treasury Management Agency, NTMA, group. We would welcome its continued involvement. It was pointed out that issues exist on whether they support one or other and will be worked out in due course. Deputy Mitchell's point that it would be good for the public sector to have an input into the running of the——

Deputy O. Mitchell

No, I feel that a benefit could be gained, such as a pension.

Mr. Allen

I agree. We fully support that. In a PPP one states to those working that they may work and if it is not done properly they will be penalised. However, it creates a conflict if we also tell them how to do it. The Department will respond to questions on the interconnector. We had dialogue with Irish Rail on co-ordinating that and discussions are ongoing. That question was directed at the Department.

To answer Deputy Shortall's question, it is technically possible to mine stations underground at an enormous cost. The advice of Professor Melis and others on how to do it in an affordable way in terms of time and money is to use station boxes. If a decision were made not to do it that way a much larger budget would be required. Constraints exist regarding where a station box on O'Connell Street can be placed precisely. It would involve a longer walk from the Abbey Luas stop to the metro station. The precise location must be worked out, but on a street such as O'Connell Street there are significant constraints on what one can do.

Deputy Shortall

Why would it be easier to place it at the Gresham Hotel rather than further down outside Clery's or under the Luas line?

Mr. Rory O’Connor

It depends on where one wants to go northwards from O'Connell Street and how one will arrive at O'Connell Street from the south side. We want the metro to integrate with the DART so we want a metro station that will interchange with Tara Street DART station. That station must be between D'Olier Street and Tara Street, that is a little to the east of O'Connell Street. Underground tunnels must be built to minimum radii. A swing west from there to O'Connell Street is constrained. One will not be able to place a 200 metre station box on O'Connell Street until one reaches its north end.

Deputy Shortall

If the interconnector goes ahead an interconnection between the metro and the DART in Tara Street will not be as pressing.

Mr. O’Connor

If it goes ahead, one branch of the DART will be rerouted through the interconnector and an interchange could be placed there. That would provide interchange to all of the intercity services. The constraints on O'Connell Street would still be in place. One could have a station closer to Abbey Street but that station would need to be in line with O'Connell Street. One of the factors taken into account when completing a detailed alignment design is the avoidance of mining or tunnelling underneath buildings. We route tunnels under wide streets and build station boxes on those streets. If we wanted to build a metro station directly underneath the Abbey Street Luas stop, the station box would have to be mined and it would be constructed under the buildings on either side of Abbey Street. That would increase the cost and risk.

Deputy Shortall

The connection with the DART will happen at St. Stephen's Green.

Mr. O’Connor

The connection with the interconnector will be at St. Stephen's Green and I understand the proposal is to route northern DART services through the interconnector and out to the south west. The Maynooth line would be routed to Connolly Station and down to the south east of the city. We could have a connection with the other DART line where the metro crosses the Maynooth line at Prospect.

Deputy Shortall

What about Ballymun?

Mr. Allen

Our proposal includes an elevated station at Ballymun. The precise location and specifications are to be refined. It is a question of cost and it is considerably less expensive to have an elevated station there rather than to continue to tunnel to a point north of Ballymun.

Mr. O’Connor

It is worth pointing out that the World Bank did a report in 2000 which compared the cost of metros around the world. It concluded that one of the dominant factors in the cost of metro projects is vertical alignment. If one examines the difference between at grade, elevated and underground, if an at grade metro costs €1, an elevated will cost €2 and an underground will cost €5 or €6. It is a considerable difference.

Deputy Shortall

Does the RPA accept the point that a major new town will be built there? It simply does not make sense to run either an at ground or an elevated train through the main street. When we were in Madrid we were shown areas where a ground level train service had previously run until a decision was made to invest in making the service underground. It opened up new civic space. A large amount of money is spent on creating acceptable and environmental civil spaces in the new Ballymun town. It seems outrageous to consider running a train through the main street.

Mr. Allen

If one examines Madrid, on the three lines that run through Madrid, in areas of a similar distance from the city centre as Ballymun the stations are elevated. When we went through the line with Professor Melis he strongly endorsed that approach. If one examines how it compares internationally, I can think of many examples where, for obvious reasons, a tunnel runs through the city centre but outside of that is it at grade or elevated. I understand that some people view a railway line as creating a division between one side and the other. That is a consideration on a segregated line. On lines that are not segregated it tends to bring the two sides on the line together. People argue about the merits of light rail versus those of a metro. A metro gives high capacity with a degree of segregation. Light rail has less capacity with a degree of integration. The outline business case has not finalised the precise locations of all of the stops, however, the tunnel portal is south of Ballymun.

Chairman

We must wrap up now.

Mr. Eamon Ryan

Can I ask——

Chairman

I have been tolerant of Deputy Ryan today. He interrupted everyone.

Deputy O. Mitchell

May we move on to the question regarding the two stations?

Mr. Mangan

I have one supplementary comment on the National Pensions Reserve Fund. It must make its decisions on a commercial basis with a view to building up the value of the pension reserve. We welcome the fact that it has expressed interest in investing in infrastructure.

On the interchange issue, a report of this committee in another context noted the importance of integration of modes. Given that Stephen's Green is the terminus of the Luas line and identified as the terminal of the metro, it seems sensible to have a station for the interconnector. While this would require an examination of the two projects in terms of the physical development, the provision of facilities in one place would allow convenient movement between modes. The Minister has repeatedly stressed the importance of integration and, in devising our ten year plan, we have explored ways of providing for an easy interchange between modes because of the critical importance of that issue in extending the reach of public transport. The distance between termini makes transfer between modes difficult.

Deputy O. Mitchell

I am not questioning the desirability of integration but seek clarity on the practicalities of the issue. Would the entire project be completed within the same period?

Mr. Mangan

I am not the engineer but that seems to be the best method.

Deputy O. Mitchell

I want to know whether they would have to be priced as part of the contract.

Mr. O’Connor

The two stations on Stephen's Green would be perpendicular to each other. Where the interconnector tunnel passes below the metro station, our design for the metro would accommodate a station for the interconnector. The fact that our design consultants for the interconnector are also employed by Iarnród Éireann would facilitate integration.

Deputy Eamon Ryan

The issues raised by Deputy Mitchell are of significant importance to our constituents.

Chairman

Deputy Ryan interjected earlier before members of the committee had opportunities to ask questions. Does he have a final question?

Deputy Eamon Ryan

I have interrupted only once. I simply want to ask questions of Mr. Allen based on his prior experience of PPPs. Does it make sense that 90% of the funding for our road investment programme is public, whereas private finance accounts for less than 10%? However, public transport projects are entirely funded by PPPs and receive no capital funding. Can Mr. Allen explain, based on his experience as a banker rather than his involvement in the RPA, why the approaches differ?

Mr. Allen

It is not fair to say public transport projects are entirely PPP based because the RPA is working on other projects which are likely to be funded in the traditional manner. The decision by Government to ask us to explore a PPP approach was driven by the scale of the project and need to pay for it over a useful lifespan. A number of successful road projects have been delivered by PPP.

Chairman

I thank Messrs Allen, O'Connor, Mangan and Ryan for their contributions. The committee has made it clear in its earlier deliberations and the report it prepared that it supports the building of a metro system to Swords to alleviate traffic congestion on the northside of the city. I do not agree with Senator Norris's assertion that the Luas has had no effect. Commutes which took 45 minutes before the Luas was completed now take 20 minutes thanks to the reduction in the number of private cars travelling along the route. However, an interconnector must form part of the overall package. Mr. Mangan has indicated that the Department agrees that such a facility would be an element within an integrated public transport system.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.35 a.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 2 November 2005.