JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 Jul 2006

Railway Procurement Agency: Presentation.

Chairman

The first item on the agenda is a discussion with Mr. Frank Allen, chief executive officer of the Railway Procurement Agency, on the proposed new Luas works to be carried out. I welcome Mr. Allen and his colleagues, Mr. Pat O'Donoghue, director of design and construction, and Mr. Jim Kilfeather, project manager. I draw their attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but that this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any 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 will hear a short presentation from Mr. Allen, to be followed by a question and answer session. I apologise to Mr. Allen on behalf of the committee regarding documents we sent him which we received from a lobby group this week. We only received them on Friday and could not arrange for them to be sent to him until yesterday. If questions are raised in respect of them, given that this is the final meeting of the committee before the summer recess, we understand he may not be able to answer all or any of them. We would, however, appreciate it if he could do so.

Mr. Frank Allen

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to speak to members on the activities of the Railway Procurement Agency, RPA. Members may be aware that the RPA recently issued its annual and financial statements for 2005 and reported an operating surplus of more than €200,000 in respect of Luas operations. The Exchequer provided for €2.5 million to fund an operating deficit for 2005 but this was not required. This strong financial performance resulted from high numbers of passengers using the Luas both at the time of the day traditionally regarded as the peak period and, more particularly, during the off-peak period.

Market research conducted recently by Veolia, formerly Connex, suggests the frequency and reliability of the Luas service have resulted in people perceiving public transport in a positive way, not merely as a means to avoid traffic congestion going to work in the morning. It is our belief the large numbers using the Luas contribute to the social and economic vitality of the communities that it serves.

Through 2006, Luas continues to perform well and passenger numbers are increasing from month to month. The service reliability has improved in the year to date and we are reporting on that service reliability at all stops. People are pleased about this. We previously attended this committee when both members and ourselves were concerned about the frequency of accidents taking place, particularly on the red line. I am pleased to say, however, that the frequency of those incidents — none of which, fortunately, was serious — which was a concern for all of us, has declined substantially. The overall safety record for Luas since it commenced operating compares well with similar light rail systems in their early stages of operation.

The success of Luas in terms of passenger numbers clearly brings its own challenges. If there is one complaint that people harbour, it relates to adequacy of capacity. We and the operators are working on this. We are increasing frequency on both lines. We introduced a shuttle service between Heuston and Connolly stations which operates in the peak period. We entered into contracts to lengthen the trams on the red line to 40 m. and we are in the market to purchase additional trams in order that we can increase the frequency on both lines.

A major event for RPA was the announcement of Transport 21 in November 2005, which provided clarity for agencies such as ours regarding the strategic framework for public transport. It also gave a degree of certainty in respect of the funding of those projects. We have responded to that mandate. We have lodged railway orders for two Luas extensions and in both of those cases public inquiries have already taken place. In one case, the inspector has reported. We have initiated public consultation on metro north, on the city centre link, and on the Luas line to Citywest. We are preparing for public consultation later in the year in respect of metro west, which is an orbital metro line, and a Luas extension continuing from Cherrywood to the Bray area. We have begun work on the important and continuing link service from the city centre to Grangegorman and are engaged in identifying feasible routes for a Luas line from Lucan into the city centre.

An important feature of many, indeed most, of the projects on which we are working is a close partnership between our organisation and the relevant land use agency — typically, local authorities or the Dublin Docklands Development Authority — and also a close relationship between the private and public sectors. That partnership is resulting in substantial private sector contributions to the cost of building new rail in Dublin and, in our view, making it affordable. For example, approximately half the projected cost of the Sandyford to Cherrywood line is emanating from windfall gains enjoyed by developers in the area.

The public response to the various projects I have mentioned, that we have at stages of consultation and planning, has been positive. On a previous occasion we discussed public consultation for projects and sometimes the difficulty in getting people to engage in a timely way. I am pleased to say that is no longer a difficulty for many of these projects — in particular for metro north, in respect of which thousands of people have written to us. Over 1,000 people attended meetings we convened on the north side of Dublin and in Fingal. We have had good bilateral discussions with agencies such as the two local authorities in Dublin and Fingal, the Dublin Airport Authority, universities and hospitals. There is a clear recognition of the need for a high quality commuter link for the north side of Dublin and the county of Fingal.

I wish to refer to one other project. We welcome the announcement made by the Minister at the weekend regarding the creation of a project board for integrated ticketing. This will be comprised of the chief executives of the various transport agencies, in addition to representatives from the Department of Transport and an independent chairman. The idea is to ensure there is a high degree of buy-in among key stakeholders to make sure we achieve the integration that is required for this project. We very much welcome that announcement. We also welcome the fact that the committee's remit is to examine overall ticketing arrangements for all public transport operators to ensure any investment in ticketing systems is done in a way that is compatible with an integrated system. We welcome the Minister's initiative in that regard.

The Chairman raised a point concerning a submission he received from Willie Murray Associates, representing a group of property owners and others in the Clonshaugh area of Dublin. We received substantially the same submission from that group some weeks ago. It is a detailed and thorough proposal. As is the case with many of the other proposals, it is part of the detailed analysis taking place. For example, there are issues of technical feasibility that our technical advisers are reviewing. We have already carried out an assessment of the environmental impact of that relative to those that were included in public consultation. We have given the proposal from that group of property owners to the Dublin Airport Authority on foot of the fact that it would have implications for the airport because provision is made for a different access route into it.

Much of the proposal relates to issues such as social inclusion and land use planning. It argues that there is a stronger case for serving Clonshaugh rather than Ballymun. That is the main thrust of it. We have given a copy of those presentations to Dublin City Council and we have already had meetings with the council on that. We also held meetings with the group that made the submission to the committee. Some of the group's key people are away at present. As soon as they return, however, we will have further meetings with them. That, with many other submissions, is the subject of detailed analysis and it is being included in the appraisal of the various options for the metro north project. We are available to answer any questions members may wish to pose.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Allen for dealing with the metro north submission. It obviously will be put into the melting pot with all the others before the route is finally selected.

The main reason we asked the Railway Procurement Agency to attend is to discuss the problems experienced by residents when the first Luas lines opened. Groups representing those people felt that they had not been kept informed or advised on various works taking place in their areas. Two years ago, members ended up on Benburb Street looking at totally unacceptable conditions that had been left behind by contractors, where people's businesses and property had been upset without any prior consultation and where commitments to tidying up immediately had not been fulfilled.

We want conditions to be included in any future contracts which will ensure that local residents will only be discommoded to a minimum extent. We accept that the RPA must get work done. I would not have a major difficulty if it wanted to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week as long as people are made aware how long the period relating to the type of local chaos that can be caused by projects of this nature would last. That is one of our main reasons for holding this meeting.

The other related reason is that there have been a number of recent statements on the number of non-paying passengers on Luas. Perhaps Mr. Allen would indicate what the RPA is doing to ensure all passengers pay their fares. I understood there had been a problem in respect of fare dodgers and that the RPA was taking action to deal with it. Perhaps Mr. Allen will indicate what has been done.

Mr. Allen

On the points the Chairman raised regarding the lessons learned in developing the first line and, in particular, on the issue of ensuring there was adequate public consultation, during the period to which he referred — I well remember the committee's visit to the Benburb Street area — many of the residents were undoubtedly annoyed regarding the status and progress of the works and the disruption caused to them and businesses in the area. While not qualifying that in any way, many of the people concerned approached the RPA since and indicated that they had not realised the benefits Luas, when completed, would bring to their neighbourhoods and that the quality of the finish put in place was far in excess of what they had anticipated. With the passage of time, people believe that both the quality of the work and the resulting benefits have been excellent.

This does not take from the requirement to ensure adequate ongoing consultation. At an early stage in that earlier project, the RPA — or the light rail project office as it then was — established local area groups. People volunteered to become part of those groups, which provided us with regular dialogue through single point contact with people in those areas through which both lines run. With the passage of time, those groups often did not meet at all or the meetings were attended by only one or two people. This approach of having a structured local area committee meeting with the RPA on a regular basis did not work as well as ought to have been the case. We found that people preferred to be dealt with on an individual basis rather than through residents' associations and community groups. This creates some difficulties at times because, on a practical level, it is difficult to do when one is dealing with 25 km of light rail with 50 km of frontage.

Many live and work in the areas to which I refer and dealing with them on a community basis has clear advantages from an efficiency point of view. In some cases what one resident wanted was the opposite of what another wanted. For example, the Chairman has stated that it is his view that working 24 hours a day would have its merits and there is an argument in favour of this. However, we encountered strenuous opposition from various people. I know of one business in the area to which the Chairman referred. The owner wrote to many people, including me and also the Taoiseach, on many occasions stating his view that it was wholly unacceptable. He stated that people were trying to put children to bed at night and there was a hotel in the area and he could not maintain his business. There is an obvious advantage for business people who conduct their business between the hours of nine to five to have construction work done in the evenings and night. However, others are totally opposed to this arrangement. Sound travels much further at night. I am not saying that night work should be entirely excluded but sometimes there are conflicting objectives and the RPA endeavours to minimise the impact on as many as possible.

My colleague, Mr. Pat O'Donoghue, has been associated with the project and with similar major projects for a far longer period than I and I will invite him to elaborate that point.

Mr. Pat O’Donoghue

The contracts contained clauses under which the contractor was obliged to minimise disruption. In future, we may consider having a very strict clause in contracts to the effect that when a section of road or street is opened up, it should be closed again before the contractor moves on to the next section. It must be acknowledged that from a contractor's point of view, there would be a negative financial consequence to such a clause. On balance, we agree that such a clause should be included and strictly enforced. This may mean that contractors could be idle at times because of some difficulty in finishing a particular section. I refer here, for example, to unexpectedly coming across a pipe that is not in the plans. Such events are common when working in old city centre areas. This is the main point in addition to what Mr. Allen said.

Mr. Allen

I refer to the Chairman's point about fare evasion on Luas. Two weeks ago we had a "meet the passenger day" when the RPA and the management of Veolia stood at the stops and talked to people. We asked them for their opinions on the service and how it might be improved. I participated in such an exercise recently. One point made repeatedly by people is that we must do more to catch the fare dodgers. The incidence of fare evasion on Luas is currently very low and it is lower than it has been in the past. Veolia operates and manages the system. We have a separate contract with an independent organisation which, on 12 occasions throughout the year, checks the validity of passengers' tickets, whether those claiming to be students are genuine, etc. The incidence of fare evasion as a percentage is in the very low single digits. The perception is that it is much higher than this. This may be because more people are buying weekly and monthly tickets, which offer excellent value. Passengers observe others wandering onto trams, apparently with no tickets, and then wandering off afterwards and believe these individuals to be fare dodgers. However, the reality relates to the increased popularity of period passes.

This matter is of major concern to us all the time because, as stated earlier, the objective set by the Government of breaking even was of considerable importance to us. We are very pleased that we have achieved that goal at an early stage. We will not compromise that because people do not pay fares. The rostering of customer service officers to check tickets is changed on a regular basis. If our auditing shows a higher incidence of fare evasion in a particular neighbourhood or at a certain time of day, we concentrate resources accordingly.

While we do not like to bring people to court, we have had several successful prosecutions recently against those who engaged in fare evasion. It is a mystery why someone would be unwilling to pay a fare of €1.40 and would then go to court, pay a fine of €300 and receive a criminal conviction. However, many people have criminal convictions for fare evasion. We will continue to police such behaviour in a vigorous way. I am pleased that our independent assessment of the level of fare evasion shows it to be at a reasonable level. The additional investment required to reduce it by an additional 1% is not justified. At a certain point, if someone is absolutely committed to dodge fares, just as if somebody is absolutely committed to steal a newspaper from a shop, it is ultimately very difficult to control it. Most people pay their fares and want everybody else to do so. We are very pleased with the level of control in that regard.

Deputy O. Mitchell

I will limit my questions, two of which are selfishly local in nature. As the representatives will be aware, I am a daily Luas user and a big fan of the service. The green line, which I use, is to be extended to Cherrywood. I attended the public inquiry that took place a few months ago. When that service was originally planned, it was envisaged that it would be a metro. If it was not to be a metro initially, it was to be upgraded to a metro pretty quickly. On that basis, enormous numbers of planning permissions were granted along the proposed line. What went to the public consultation stage is not a metro but merely an extension of the Luas. People who use the green line have written to me and stated that when additional persons begin to use the line, they will no longer, because of the limited capacity of an overground, non-segregated system, be able to get on the trams. They feel that the service they enjoy and appreciate will be eroded. At the public inquiry, it was stated that the RPA is satisfied that the capacity of the line will be sufficient until 2012. Given that the extension will not be built until 2010, what made the RPA say this would be sufficient? Is there a plan B?

My north-side colleagues will be most annoyed to hear me even mention the second issue to which I wish to refer. At one stage, a third line was proposed for the south side and this would have covered mainly the area between the red and green lines. It was loosely referred to as the Rathfarnham line. It was referred to in A Platform for Change, on foot of which the Government was elected, and it disappeared from the agenda after the election. Why did it disappear and can it be retrieved?

Senator Norris

I rarely visit the south side these days; it is déclassé.

Deputy O. Mitchell

Entirely thanks to the Senator, I am sure.

Why was the plan dropped and is there any possibility of retrieving it? I understand we must do something on the north side before carrying out another project on the south side. However, people on the south side would like to believe that there is something to which they might aspire.

We were discussing the ongoing row over line BX, which would join the green and red lines. Although the metro will cross the Liffey, we need to join the two Luas lines because this would ensure great flexibility. Getting off a Luas and going underground to take a metro and then coming up somewhere else only to take another Luas would not afford the desired flexibility, not to mention the fact that we would be obliged to wait much longer for the metro.

There is a row involving Dublin Bus over possible routes of the BX line through Westmoreland Street and in front of Trinity College. I understand, from a brochure issued by Dublin City Council, that there is finally some prospect of the Macken Street Bridge being built. Is there potential for traffic or the Luas to use this route to avoid the existing problem? Many buses use Westmoreland Street and streets in the surrounding area. Some group of road users could avail of the Macken Street Bridge. Is this being considered?

I will not refer to the metro because I believe my colleague will do so. I will, however, refer to integrated ticketing, which has become the delegation's responsibility or hot potato. I read at the weekend that the Minister has set up a body, the project implementation group, to consider how or whether the project should be implemented. What is the position in that regard?

The smart card, which I use, is great and very useful. It is like a ready-to-go mobile phone that one can top it up with credit. A number of people have mentioned to me that one cannot obtain tax relief on the smart card because such relief is time-related rather than value-related. Is there any way around this? Have the delegates received representations on the matter?

Mr. Allen

I will take the Deputy's questions in order. On the issue of the line from Sandyford to Cherrywood, a public inquiry took place in February. The Deputy attended many presentations in this regard and the inspector reported in March. At the inquiry, the RPA presented a detailed concept of what is required in terms of rail transport in the corridor served and our projections of the rail trips in that area based on the land use figures presented by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and endorsed by the Dublin Transportation Office, DTO. The case we made at the public inquiry——

Deputy O. Mitchell

To what period do those figures relate?

Mr. Allen

Most planning considerations in Dublin use a reference year of 2016 but we used 2020. The Deputy mentioned 2012 but I have no recollection of that year being mentioned at the public inquiry. What we presented to the public inquiry in respect of a concept of gradeability to metro was information regarding what we project will be the trips. This was based on the land use planning by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and the work of the Dublin Transportation Office. The figures we presented were signed off and the three agencies agreed with them. These figures included information relating to the level of public transport trips that would be generated from that land use planning, the level of capacity that would be required on a rail system to meet this and how that rail system could have its capacity increased in time according to developments. The evidence we gave at the public inquiry, confirmed by the local authority and the DTO, showed that the capacity the RPA proposed to put in place would be adequate to 2020 and not 2012. That evidence was given by Mr. O'Donoghue and me and was shared by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and the DTO.

Deputy O. Mitchell

The DTO argued that it should have been a metro system because the numbers involved in the industrial estate and the planning permission requirements would overload it.

Mr. Allen

The position presented by the RPA at the public inquiry had been worked out in detail with the DTO. The presentation by the DTO's chief executive officer endorsed this. If there was a slight difference in our submissions, it was that the DTO stated that the RPA should be prepared to respond quickly if growth happened quicker than anticipated by the local authority and itself. We would not disagree with that statement. The DTO fully subscribes to the approach we adopted.

The nature of the investment relates to the length of the vehicles. We put an infrastructure in place ensuring that any stop, if required, could be lengthened to accommodate 90 m vehicles. That was the subject of some discussion at the public inquiry when people argued for alternative routes that would not accommodate 90 m vehicles. It was based on agreement with the local authority regarding priority junctions and other issues. This concept is based on experience in continental European countries, particularly Germany, where we examined systems with much higher capacity in city centres and not the same in outer suburbs. All of that evidence was put forward at the public inquiry by the RPA. Traffic analysis was provided by professional people and received the full endorsement of the local authority. The DTO made the proviso that the RPA should be ready to react quickly if developments take place sooner than expected.

If that does happen, we are already examining options. We have 40 m trams on the Luas green line and we are examining the 50 m option with potential suppliers. The presentation stated frequency would be at four minutes. I feel we could go down to 2.5 minutes but that would require the support and input of local authorities and others. We have taken officials from the Department of Transport and the DTO to continental European cities to show the approach of increasing capacity over time can be managed, according to how development takes place.

Our expectation is that in the section of the line from Sandyford to Cherrywood, development will take place. It may not take place as quickly as anticipated. The pattern of service we are likely to see — we have not yet committed to this — is that we would substantially increase the frequency of trams from Sandyford to Dublin city centre and have a less frequent service beyond that. For example, there may be a six-minute service from Cherrywood to Dublin city centre. Then the trams departing the depot at Sandyford will have capacity for people in important places such as Dundrum, Beechwood, etc., where some of us live. It is critically important for the RPA to ensure that there continues to be a high quality service operating in these neighbourhoods. We have plans in place to do that. These were presented in detail at the public inquiry and the inspector reflected upon them. In his report, issued to the Minister for Transport in April, he endorsed this and suggested the Minister impose three conditions in the railway order, one of which was that it ensure there would be room for 90 m vehicles and so forth. We fully intend to do this and are waiting for the Minister to decide to issue an order. That is how matters stand on the Sandyford to Cherrywood line.

I will move on to the Rathfarnham route. Members are probably aware that the programme to which we are working, involving seven light rail lines and two metro lines, does not include the Rathfarnham line which does not form part of Transport 21 which was announced last November. We are not actively considering a broadly defined Rathfarnham line. Following publication of Transport 21, the Minister was asked whether those parts of A Platform for Change not included in Transport 21 had been dismissed entirely. That is not the case, since it is anticipated that they will follow. However, we are not actively considering possible route alignments for a Rathfarnham line.

Deputy O. Mitchell

Whose recommendation was it that the route be removed from A Platform for Change? I presume the Railway Procurement Agency was asked to recommend which lines should go ahead. Why was Rathfarnham left out? Was it simply because it was another southside line?

Mr. Allen

I do not recall our recommending that the Rathfarnham line be dropped.

Deputy O. Mitchell

I think the agency did do so.

Mr. Allen

I recall that we strongly pointed out that there were areas on the north-side which had a very high priority for a high quality transportation system.

Senator Norris

Hear, hear.

Deputy O. Mitchell

While I accept that, I would have liked to see the Rathfarnham line included in that package, even if it were to come at the end of the period. Residents look with envy at successful lines elsewhere, to which they lack access. The area is very heavily populated and extremely congested. However, that is another day's work.

Mr. Allen

I will skip what we call the BX and ask my colleague, Mr. Kilfeather, to answer that question.

Two other points were raised, the first being integrated ticketing. When I was asked about this at previous committee meetings, I explained that integrated ticketing in Dublin involved two major areas of complexity. One is a technical issue, whereby one has what might be called "legacy" systems on the various modes of transport because each has bought its own equipment. We must find a technical solution in order that a single smart card can communicate effectively with a machine on a Luas platform, a barrier in a DART station and ticketing equipment on Dublin Bus or the vehicle of a private operator. This technical solution has now been developed and tested. The technical side, therefore, no longer presents a serious challenge.

The other complexity is institutional. Integration involves commitment, participation and the strong support of all the parties involved in Dublin transport services, public and private. It has been amply demonstrated that the public wants a single card allowing passengers to move from one mode of transport to another. No one disputes this. I believe I said at a previous meeting that we had struggled to achieve a firm commitment to make the integration component a high priority.

There are very good reasons for people to exhibit a degree of caution in this regard. Everyone is very concerned about protecting his or her own revenue and ensuring it is not in any way compromised. It is no secret that bringing public and private operators together in one room in order that they participate in the same system will inevitably bring certain challenges. This has been ongoing for some time.

Part of the complexity for the RPA is this. We have gone to the market to procure a system that would build on this technological solution and put it in place in order that one would have a single smart card for Dublin that would not mention Luas, Mortons Coaches or the DART but Dublin. However, at the same time other public transport operators in Dublin were in the market for smart cards. Suppliers could reasonably ask why public transport operators in Dublin appeared to be procuring smart cards when at the same time we were seeking to procure a Dublin card. That is part of the institutional challenge, to which I referred. Ultimately, it came back to the desk of the Minister and we made proposals to him on how it should be dealt with.

The Minister took the initiative and last weekend announced the establishment of a project group which would include the chief executives of the various transport companies, Irish Rail, Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann, representatives of private operators, the RPA — me — the assistant secretary of the Department of Transport, a representative from the Department of Social and Family Affairs and an independent chairman — a former Secretary General of the Department of Defence. The purpose is to get everybody to address what I have described as the institutional challenge of seeking a commitment to deliver a smart card that can be used according as a passenger moves from DART to a bus to Luas. We will support it fully because we have struggled to achieve the buy-in that this new committee is intended to achieve.

Deputy O. Mitchell

Is it still with the RPA to deliver a smart card?

Mr. Allen

There is a formal mandate to the RPA that may require modification. The project implementation team will be led by the RPA and will report to the new board also. We are fully supportive as the RPA continues to have a mandate to do this but our powers of persuasion were insufficient to deliver.

Deputy O. Mitchell

I am sure the heads of the organisations mentioned think no differently than the rest. Will they be persuaded?

Mr. Allen

This is the challenge for the new chairman who will report to the Minister on how to achieve the institutional buy-in required if we are all to have a card that will allow one go from one transport mode to another in Dublin.

Deputy O. Mitchell

It seems an outsider is required to knock heads together, rather than have the chief executives of bodies which seem to be unable to work together come together again.

Chairman

I do not think we will solve the problem today.

Deputy O. Mitchell

Having spent €13 million on the project, it is beginning to get worrying.

Mr. Allen

That is the current status. We support the initiative in full. What is required is to support the initiative of establishing a fora to bring together——

Deputy O. Mitchell

Who is to be the chairperson?

Mr. Allen

The former Secretary General of the Department of Defence, Mr. Dave O'Callaghan.

The Deputy also asked about the tax saver scheme for the smart card. The Revenue Acts provide for it being a period based system to ensure annual tickets will benefit from the outstanding benefit-in-kind scheme. This is one of the few countries which has such a good scheme. The Department of Finance has not been minded to move to an electronic purse. We did not push it so hard in terms of the Luas smart card because of the dialogue we had with the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Finance. We wanted an impetus to put a proper integrated ticket in place, based on a smart card, in order that it would benefit from the benefit-in-kind scheme. We have lobbied the Department of Finance and my sense is that it will be minded to do this.

Deputy O. Mitchell

That is good news.

Mr. Allen

I will ask my colleague, Mr. Kilfeather, to speak about BX.

Mr. Jim Kilfeather

The Deputy raised the question of Macken Street Bridge and its usefulness as a diversionary route to take traffic away from the city centre or as a Luas route. At the very early stages of planning the RPA engaged closely with the city council on enabling the future provision of trackwork across the bridge.

A reference was made to A Platform for Change and the link to Rathfarnham. There is also a proposal for a Luas line to connect Lucan to the city centre. This element is included in Transport 21, but its future extension parallel to the red line and the Connolly extension along the south side of the river remains within A Platform for Change. We would see it as an extension of the Lucan line, parallel to the red line on the south side of the river and linking across Macken Street Bridge to the north side of the river and ultimately to line C1, the project that has recently been the subject of a public inquiry. We looked at the viability of the link between the red and green lines, but one must consider that the length involved would be three or four times that involved in some of the other route options. The time taken for a trip between St. Stephen's Green via that link on Macken Street Bridge would be 25 minutes. As one could walk that distance in 12 or 13 minutes, we have genuine concerns about the usefulness of that line.

We are excited about the proposal in respect of traffic on the bridge. It would alleviate or reduce traffic volumes in the city centre, forming a link between the north east and the south east. That should alleviate traffic volumes in the Beresford Place, Gardiner Street and Amiens Street area of the city centre.

The HGV management strategy is due to come on stream early next year. Under the Dublin Transportation Office, we are examining what traffic management proposals can be put in place with all these initiatives to enable the provision of some of these facilities in the city centre. When we examine line BX — the link between the two lines — we do not do so in isolation. We are examining the possibilities of creating a traffic environment that will enable the provision of these measures. This includes all of the public transport measures contained in Transport 21.

Deputy Shortall

As a northsider who travels to the south-side of the city every day, I have serious concerns about the BX proposal. The blinkers are being used by Mr. Kilfeather in some of his views. He has not taken into consideration the impact such a line would have on bus services, on which the vast majority of people on the north side of Dublin are dependent. Some 60% of the routes are along the proposed route extensions for the Luas. There will be major disruption during the construction phase and ongoing problems afterwards owing to a sharing of limited road space. For those who have great difficulty in crossing the city in a car, it will become impossible.

There is a problem with the perspective which the RPA takes, which is why we need a Dublin transport authority which would take an overview. To some extent, the RPA is taking a vested interest's view on its own services. The north side has been overlooked when it comes to public transport. I sympathise fully with those who are left waiting along the two existing Luas lines because the trams are full, but the north side also needs a look in. The first phase of the third line was supposed to extend to Ballymun, but that was dropped by the Government. Any investment in public transport must be in favour of the north side of Dublin.

The main reason for inviting the Railway Procurement Agency to appear before the joint committee today was the concern among its members regarding the adequacy of its public consultation procedures. To some extent, it underestimated the requisite level of resources to be allocated to public consultation in respect of the Luas. This was a learning experience for everyone. People's delight with the Luas does not mean that either the disruption caused during its construction or the chaos experienced at times were excusable. Moreover, it does not mean the public has forgotten such disruption and chaos. Certainly, there were problems about the RPA's failure to communicate directly with those residents and business people directly affected by the construction. Given its experience in this regard, what lessons has the RPA learned? To what extent has it supplemented the staff resources available to consult? I refer to its requirement to be clear on the timescale for the proposed work, how it will be communicated to those affected and whom it has in place to act as troubleshooters in the event of matters going badly wrong.

The last question pertained to the management of the construction phase of a project. What lessons has the RPA learned from its experiences with the initial Luas lines which will be employed in other projects as far as initial consultations on proposals is concerned? I have been closely involved with the metro north proposal on the north side as all three of the proposed lines run through my constituency. However, I was disappointed at the level of public consultation, while some areas did not receive the relevant map from the agency. For instance, I live 100 m from one of the proposed routes and did not receive a map. I know of many areas along the three routes in which residents did not receive any communication from the RPA.

As for the public consultation sessions, some of the RPA's staff will accept that the high turnouts resulted from the efforts of other public representatives and me to notify people directly about them. There is an onus on the RPA to notify people about public consultation sessions if it proposes to construct a metro under or in front of their houses. Placing a small advertisement in the newspaper does not suffice. Large numbers are still unaware of the RPA's proposals and did not have an opportunity to attend its public consultation sessions. Many of those who attended such sessions did so because they had been notified by politicians rather than by the RPA. What lessons has it learned? What is it doing in the supervision of contracts under way, as well as during the initial public consultations?

The second issue I wish to raise with the RPA specifically concerns consultations on the metro north line, as well as the decision-making process which it will employ in this regard. My understanding was that three routes had been proposed and that the RPA would enter public consultations, perform all the requisite tests, consider the performance of each and that thereafter it would make a recommendation based on the findings of its work. Based on some of the findings of the aforementioned work, it has recommended the central route. Subsequently, it came up with a fourth route which was a compromise between the eastern and central routes. Thereafter, however, a group produced a submission. Principally, it consisted of landowners who owned properties which could become extremely valuable on the selection of the eastern route. The submission is two or three inches thick and includes various consultants' reports. What weight does such a submission carry, given the money behind it and the potential for people's property to greatly increase in value? To get back on the map, must people living in Ballymun or Glasnevin begin to employ consultants? Must they include such studies and reports? It appears this matter has been removed from the RPA's hands and that suddenly landowners are dictating what will happen. It also appears that the RPA is giving serious consideration to this proposal from the landowners. What decision-making process is in place and what timescale does the RPA envisage in respect of decisions being made? It had been my understanding that the route for metro north would be decided this month. Has this decision been deferred? When does the RPA envisage that critical decisions will be taken?

Integrated ticketing has been discussed. I have always believed, and stated publicly on a number of occasions, that integrated ticketing as a project should not have been given to the RPA because it did not have any experience in network management. To some extent, this criticism has been vindicated because integrated ticketing was first recommended in 1994 but we are no nearer to introducing it 12 years later. This is not a novel idea. Every other city of which one can think has an integrated ticketing system. We have been discussing introducing integrated ticketing for 12 years and the RPA has had the contract to develop it for three or four years and has spent in excess of €13 million on it. However, we seem to be no closer to introducing it than before.

What do we have to show for the approximately €13 million spent on this project? Does the RPA accept that there is a considerable problem in terms of experience and expertise on the part of the RPA? We have lost an important amount of time and appear to have lost a considerable amount of funding but integrated ticketing is still very far away. Introducing such a system is not rocket science. Every other city has managed to introduce it and I cannot understand why, at this stage, we cannot have an operational system.

Mr. Allen

The Deputy's first point relates to the perception that the RPA might take a narrow interest in respect of rail-based services to the exclusion of buses. All of the consideration that has been given to any routes on line BX and any other projects must take into account the impact on buses. The evaluation model we developed, which is being considered by the Department of Transport and others, specifically recognises what needs to be done in terms of area-based traffic management relating to all modes of transport, including cars in the city centre. Mr. Kilfeather has been working closely with a group set up by the DTO, which also includes Dublin Bus, to see how we can have public transport corridors in the city centre. Our evaluation methodology examines a scenario whereby all bus routes remain fixed with no possibility of flexibility, alternative scenarios that permit some degree of flexibility as to where bus stops may be located and the impact of any proposed route for light rail on bus services. The only proxy one could have for this is the speed of journey time on a bus taken into account in a very formal way according to a well-defined methodology. It is a mistake to say that we are only examining light rail.

I have referred to two public inquiries that took place recently in respect of light rail lines. At inquiries of that nature, we are obliged to explain the impact on third parties in the city centre. We must set out the implications for users of buses and other forms of transport. We are preparing our detailed evaluation on this basis so that we can make a robust case. Our position in terms of the evaluation we are carrying out is that there would be a significant impact on bus operations during the construction phase. However, during the operating phase and with a degree of flexibility on the bus side, the impact on buses is marginal. This matter will be discussed at a public inquiry and we are preparing a detailed case to be presented at this inquiry. We have produced detailed traffic management models examining the impact across the board rather than simply on bus services. We will also present these models at the public inquiry.

Deputy Shortall

Is it not the case that the Luas lines will be joined in two ways when the metro and the rail interconnector are developed, both of which are included in Transport 21? Does it make sense to connect them in a third mode?

Mr. Allen

What we call line BX will have a number of functions. It will continue the green line for passengers travelling further into the city centre and connect to the red line. Another critically important factor that has been lost in some of the dialogue is that this line will be part of a continuation to bring light rail to Grangegorman and Liffey junction.

If the president of the Dublin Institute of Technology were here to discuss the role of light rail serving the northside of Dublin, his argument, which he has made to us and in public, would be that DIT is moving from 35 locations in the city centre to Grangegorman, where it wants to build a sustainable campus. However, to do so, there must be a light rail service. We are discussing a light rail line that will run from St. Stephen's Green through the city centre to important users of public transport, such as the DIT campus at Grangegorman, and continuing to Liffey junction in due course. We are working on the public transport network in the greater Dublin area, which is sometimes overlooked in the dialogue concerning Dawson Street.

Deputy Shortall raised concerns about the adequacy of public consultation. After meetings of this committee and other public discussions on this subject, people have suggested to me that the level of public consultation was inadequate. Public consultation can be improved, but the RPA met groups such as the Henry Street Mary Street Partnership at 8 a.m. every Friday, companies such Marks & Spencer always got their deliveries on time and we maintained constant access to all businesses in the city centre. That access was not as effortless as we would have wanted. However, city centre businesses have strenuously argued that the RPA worked to keep them informed. A main party that has vigorously argued for line BX and the metro is the Dublin City Centre Business Association, which recognises that light rail provides a distributor system for the heart of the city and is designed for shorter trips.

Others believe the consultation work carried out by the RPA was of a high standard. It can be improved and we have learned from past experience. For example, at the recent public inquiry in respect of the docklands extension, we made a commitment that we would have someone, probably an engineer, on location. If something were to go wrong, people would know that in a hut somewhere, a person from the RPA could be called on for a response. We are taking steps to ensure that we upgrade the level of public consultation and will continue to do so.

Deputy Shortall

That is all I ask.

Mr. Allen

That is our intention. Regarding public consultation on metro north, we distributed approximately 200,000 brochures on the north side by mail shot. I am surprised that one did not reach the Deputy's home.

Deputy Shortall

That is a common complaint at the public consultation meetings.

Mr. Allen

A number of people have made that point. To try to attract people's attention to public consultation, we took actions that we had never taken previously. For example, we ran a radio advertising campaign. I am unsure as to whether many other public works projects have run jingles on local radio in Dublin. We reminded people that public consultation was taking place, set up a website and provided a freefone telephone number.

I acknowledge and welcome the role of public representatives in bringing this matter to the attention of residents. That more than 2,000 people have written to us on this matter suggests that quite a few people were sufficiently engaged by this public consultation to pay it attention. Large numbers attended meetings and we continue to hold meetings with residents' associations in the areas affected. We have regular meetings with Ballymun Regeneration Ltd., Dublin City University and the Mater Hospital. I accept that much more must be done with regard to public consultation. The volume of post arriving at the RPA office every morning reassures me of the degree of engagement concerning metro north. It is not as poor as has been suggested.

The RPA is in recruitment mode, including in respect of public relations positions. We will increase the number of staff, particularly those on location. We will be working on a number of projects at the same time and it will be more difficult for Mr. Kilfeather, Mr. O'Donoghue and me to be fully briefed on each street. We will need more resources and we are currently recruiting.

Deputy Shortall

The RPA might speak to those involved in Dublin Port tunnel who have considerable experience in this field.

Mr. Allen

We have spoken to Dublin City Council and a contractor. Responsibility for public consultation on the most recent Luas project was shared between the contractor and the RPA. We felt that each could communicate on a different level but, on reflection, that may not have been a good approach. We are considering how each aspect may be done differently from how it was done in the past. We are considering taking full responsibility for this rather than delegating it to a contractor.

Does someone need to supply 200 pages to the RPA in order to be taken seriously? That is unequivocally not the case. One cannot assume that someone who takes professional advice and makes a strong case is representing property developers and that, therefore, we cannot consider this. We evaluate all aspects of cases made to us. One of the evaluation criteria used for selecting a route is that of social inclusion. Public transport does wonders for neighbourhoods, particularly those that have suffered disadvantage. This is a great strength of public transport, as demonstrated by the Luas. It has been argued that the need for social inclusion in Clonshaugh makes it a more compelling case than the central route. It is not necessary for those supporting the central route to make the claim for social inclusion in respect thereof. The RPA has the skill and discretion to carry out an evaluation, sometimes of a subjective nature. We will not reach a conclusion based on the weight of documents received or the number of submissions made. The relevant legislation makes it clear that the board of the RPA selects alignments. It is also clear that various factors must be considered. The documents we issue include the criteria that will apply to the evaluation. When we select a route some people will be unhappy. We must be capable of explaining the considerations and assessing capital cost and reduction of congestion when these people challenge our selection. We hope to select a route in July.

We received more than more than 2,000 submissions. When I responded to the Chairman's question on the submission presented to the committee, I was careful to state it was one of many submissions we had evaluated. However, not all are as weighty as that received by the committee. If we were to consider that a submission serving neighbourhoods not included in this document constituted a good route we ought to consider, we would be obliged to consult those involved and that could affect the programme. I would rather affect the programme at this stage to ensure that our methodology, in the event that it is subject to challenge later, is robust and compromise on a decision in July rather than make a decision in July, come hell or high water, and be challenged afterwards that we did not give adequate consideration to the many submissions we received.

Deputy Shortall

Realistically, when will a decision be made?

Mr. Allen

I continue to hope it will be made this month. We are giving serious consideration to this and many other submissions. If submissions raise issues to which we have not given adequate attention in the past, we will be obliged to consider those issues even if it means moving the decision date from July to September. However, we aim to make the decision by the end of July.

The integrated ticketing situation is unsatisfactory. I disagree with the suggestion it is caused by an absence of technical and other expertise. The RPA did not have that expertise but we brought in people who successfully developed and implemented similar systems in Hong Kong and other places. The project director implemented such a scheme in Belfast. No one has challenged their knowledge or expertise.

As stated on many occasions, technical and institutional aspects are involved. I readily acknowledge we were unsuccessful in convincing other transport operators of the importance of——

Deputy Shortall

Why was tender process aborted?

Mr. Allen

That happened for a number of reasons and I alluded to one of them. A tender process from another Dublin-based public transport operator for supply and distribution of smart cards was running simultaneous to ours. That was an important consideration in terms of our dialogue with the market, as the market was confused.

Chairman

We can take it that the RPA had difficulties in obtaining agreement on a card to cover all operators. Which company sought tenders behind the RPA's back?

Mr. Allen

We have consensus that we need one card. I did not state that anybody went behind the RPA's back.

Chairman

A company——

Senator Norris

For financial reasons, companies do not want to commit to it.

Mr. Allen

While we were involved in procurement for smart cards, another transport operation was also so involved.

Senator Morrissey

Did the RPA receive ministerial approval?

Mr. Allen

We had the mandate from the Minister to proceed on that basis.

Chairman

We want a straight answer as to whether that other operator was Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann or another company.

Mr. Allen

It was Dublin Bus.

Chairman

We are no longer beating about the bush.

Mr. Allen

I should make clear that this is not the only consideration. It is absolutely necessary that a clear message be sent to the market that Dublin is serious about introducing integrated ticketing. As stated, I welcome the Minister's decision to achieve it in a manner which, I readily acknowledge, the RPA did not.

Senator Norris

I welcome the reassurance given by Mr. Allen on local consultation. It is extremely important in easing through a project such as this. If people are consulted in advance, they become much more amenable.

This committee should not try to pull the RPA in two directions. A number of people supported my argument that we should try to follow the Spanish model and I suggested Professor Melis be invited here to offer his advice. However, we cannot encourage work to be carried out on a 24-hour basis if we also decide we do not want noise. People will accept the noise once they realise that disruption can be reduced by this means.

I am reassured by what I heard from Mr. Allen. I received mail from the RPA and heard its radio advertisements. Perhaps, however, I listen to more vulgar stations than other members. I shared Deputy Shortall's concerns but Mr. Allen has addressed them. I do not want to see wealthy vested interests such as landowners and speculators messing around to the discredit of everyone concerned. Members of the public are fed up with seeing these people profit from rezoning and rerouting decisions. The criteria should be based on the best service to the public, not on vested interests. I accept the NRA is considering the best route for all citizens and that it will not be swayed by those who can buy expert opinions. However, the best route cannot be rejected simply because somebody will make money out of it. Accidental windfalls are part of life.

The Luas is lovely but we all know that it will not solve our transport problems, despite the claims made by the RPA. Dr. Garret FitzGerald did the arithmetic on that issue. I was interested to learn that the frequency of service and length of trains cannot be increased to anything like the scale applicable to underground railways. Otherwise, the city will become even more congested in terms of blocked traffic junctions and public transport systems and the platforms will have to be further modified if trains are lengthened. The Luas is a great system, provided one boards at the first stop and finds a seat. By the time trains from Connolly Station reach Abbey Street, they are full. That is a tribute to Luas's success but it also supports the comments made about capacity. The metro is necessary for that reason and I am delighted to see the commitments made in that regard.

Is Mr. Allen in a position to confirm that the underground station at Dublin Airport will be situated directly beneath the terminal? That is the only way it can be made to work efficiently.

The City Centre Business Association, a very canny organisation, made a persuasive submission to the effect that the city centre metro station should be located at the Marlborough Street plaza. For a variety of reasons, that would be a good idea. As Marlborough Street is only a few hundred yards from my house, it would be easy to for me to wheel my small bag onto the train and head for the airport. It would also be valuable for other, less selfish, reasons, including minimising disruption on O'Connell Street and helping to develop Marlborough Street, which is gradually beginning to improve.

With regard to fare dodgers, I have only once seen a ticket inspector who was a very nice, polite gentleman. I do not think there are very many inspectors. I note that the representatives referred to the logistics of inspection. They said they determined where the problem areas were and sent inspectors to frighten people, as it were. Friends of mine from abroad have told me that the number who cheat here is much higher than in other countries. While it is only anecdotal evidence, all of my foreign friends, whether from Poland, France, Italy or Turkey, say there is a much higher rate of cheating here than on their own metropolitan transport systems. Perhaps, in that context, it would be a good idea to employ more inspectors rather than simply moving them around different locations at different times.

There may also be a problem with ticket machines. People have referred to delays. I missed a train because of a problem with a machine, although as trains are reasonably frequent, if one misses one, another comes along within minutes. Nonetheless, the machines take some time to issue a ticket and if one is out of order, queues can build. This means one is faced with a choice; if one is late for an appointment, one will probably board the train, volunteer the money to the inspector and see what happens.

I wish to refer to the proposed rail line that will run through, or under, Trinity College. While it may seem like a parochial concern, Trinity College is an international institution and considerable concern has been expressed about the possibility of an underground rail line beneath it. I strongly support the modernisation of our urban transport network but if it is necessary to tunnel under Trinity College, the greatest possible care must be taken. There must also be real reassurance.

One of the proposed lines appears to run directly underneath the old library building. This is one of the most celebrated buildings in Dublin and a superb example of 18th century architecture and design. It is the home of the Book of Kells and has a beautiful wooden barrel-vaulted ceiling which is unique in Europe. It would be a tragedy if there was disturbance to its foundations. Of course, 18th century builders, wonderful though they were, did not always have sufficient regard to more terrestrial matters such as foundations. While I am sure the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland has done everything it can to secure the building, when one is dealing with an area such as this, it is extremely important one does not damage one of the most important cultural sites in the country. I hope the college authorities can be reassured that problems will not arise. I am sure that with the use of the latest technology and due care everything will be fine. However, special care is needed because the library is precious and unique. If it was to be damaged, it would be a real problem.

Senator Morrissey

I applaud the success of the Luas. No doubt, if the project had been a failure, we would be criticising the representatives present today. One should applaud success, especially in the transport area.

On the Heuston to Connolly link, what capacity will be added? I would have thought this option would have been examined sooner because the route from Tallaght to the city centre is long and having a link system in the central median would be much better.

With regard to the metro north proposal, I am delighted members of the delegation have said all submissions received will be examined. Integration is the key to success of all our transport systems. We have been speaking today about the BX line, learning from the mistakes of the past and trying to retrofit, where necessary.

With regard to the metro north route, considering that submissions have been reopened in respect of the central corridor around Drumcondra and Whitehall, there should be a serious examination of linking the northern line to the metro, instead of it ending, effectively, in the middle of nowhere at Lissenhall, just north of Swords. The metro would be 3 km away at its nearest point to the line. There is, therefore, an onus on everyone to consider the link. If it extends to Rush and Lusk, it might be a little further away. It would run across green countryside and open up the northern part of the county to the town of Swords which currently has a population of 30,000 but which is projected to grow to well over 100,000. The northern line is being upgraded to DART standard to Balbriggan and perhaps Drogheda under Transport 21. It would also open up DCU, the airport and Beaumont Hospital. One would then have the option of using the metro to get to the airport, if desired. We know that, no matter how well the airport copes, there will be a transport problem if everybody continues to go there by car. There should be integration of the northern line, especially given the upgrade to DART status, with the metro north route. There are no houses in the vicinity of the stations at Rush and Lusk but green countryside.

The representatives have been very diplomatic in their replies regarding the lack of movement on integrated ticketing. However, I would not blame this lack of movement on the RPA. It is diplomatic to state there is a challenge in the institutions involved and we should not be embarrassed to indicate the reason is the fare box. Once we have integrated ticketing, there will be complete transparency on every bus route in the city. However, one provider might not like this as it stands. We should have transparency as the last person being thought about is the customer but that is not the RPA's fault. The customer has been seeking integrated ticketing for years but he or she is the last person being considered.

The representatives have stated a line will be chosen in July. I hope that happens. This should not militate against the missing link from Lissenhall to the northern line which could be looked at in tandem. Therefore, the entire project should not have to be delayed. Considering what is happening in the northern part of the county and given that the population of Swords is projected to grow to over 100,000, we could be back here in a few years asking why the link was not built.

Mr. Allen

I will deal with Senator Norris's comments first. He is correct to point to the conflicting objectives we have sometimes drawn for ourselves. He described this as the Spanish model. We have all met Professor Melis who unequivocally said that if the public were to be consulted, it would never be built; likewise if an environmental impact statement had to be prepared. He indicated that a tunnel-boring machine should be bought and used to start digging.

That is one approach to public transport. Collectively, we in Ireland have decided that there is an alternative approach which suits our circumstances. If one indicates there is a need for a certain level of consultation and more, as everybody here has suggested, and that the project should start at the same speed as the system in Madrid, that is not achievable. There is a great realisation of this. I am entirely comfortable with the encouragement members of the joint committee have given us today to increase our efforts at consultation rather than the other option suggested — to buy the tunnel boring machine first.

Senator Norris

I do not really approve of people interrupting as members of the public must take into account what is in the common good. I receive a great deal of selfish correspondence that contains some overheated terminology regarding how I should instruct the Minister to do something, how people must shift their ass, etc. I cannot instruct anybody. I am hard pushed to instruct myself. These individuals believe they have a problem and sometimes have no conception whatsoever of the common good or the welfare of the city. They are concerned only with their own back gardens and that their turnips will get rheumatism from the vibrations.

Chairman

Turnips will grow in their own time.

Senator Norris

Tell that to the two auld wans who were seated across the room earlier.

Chairman

The Senator should not describe ladies in those terms.

Senator Norris

I will describe them as young wans. They were definitely wans.

Chairman

The Senator should not make personal remarks about anybody attending the committee or about members.

Senator Norris

I thought it was only the case that one should not refer to their absence after they had made their contributions.

Mr. Allen

Senator Norris's second point relates to passenger numbers being so high. He was not so indiscreet as to say, "I told you so" but that was the thrust of his argument.

A number of weeks before the Luas was launched — that was two years ago, although it seems longer — I attended a meeting of the Foundation for Fiscal Studies at which a leading transport economist ridiculed the RPA's projections, asked whether it honestly believed that it would have the same passenger numbers as the DART and stated that it would be back in due course to explain how it had got it wrong. At around the same time, others who are well respected in the transport economics field argued that the Luas was hopelessly inadequate. We realised it was inevitable that one of those two groups would come back later and say, "We told you so". The question was whether it would be the people who said that the Luas was hopelessly inadequate or those who said that the density in Dublin was so low that putting in rail-based solutions was not appropriate. That discussion is now closed, but it is only two years since that was a very real discussion in Dublin and people argued very publicly that the density in Dublin was so low that rail-based solutions were not appropriate. If those people travel by the Luas now, I hope they realise that rail-based solutions are appropriate. Everybody now is of the opinion that we need capacity.

Senator Norris

I hope The Irish Times will take note.

Mr. Allen

Regarding the metro north project, the first question related to whether the station at the airport would be located underground. There has been a very strong response at the public consultations from key stakeholders, including Fingal County Council, the Dublin Airport Authority and others in favour of that. We are taking full note of the points being made. I wish to sound one note of caution. Most of the suggestions that have been made to the RPA regarding changes that could be made to the route alignment, station locations and so on, involve additional expenditure. The Government indicated in Transport 21 that there is an available pot of money and has sought proposals for building a world class metro system, whereas in the public consultation process people are saying that A, B, and C are required for a world class metro system. It is not always easy to reconcile those two objectives. I note the Senator's strong comments regarding the location of the underground station at the airport. It would not be under the terminal. The preferred location from Dublin Airport's point of view is beneath what is now a car park. It is very close to the terminal and it fits in well with its master plan for the future development of the airport. The Senator's submission on that is noted.

We have had excellent dialogue with the Dublin City Centre Business Association. Much of that related to the location of stations on O'Connell Street, Marlborough Street and so on. We welcome the very strong support the association is giving us and commend Mr. Tom Coffey who is a very strong supporter of public transport and the improvement of all aspects of infrastructure in the city centre.

People sometimes believe that because property is in the ownership of the State — for example, an open plaza in front of the Department of Education and Science — it is obviously available for another State agency to do whatever it wishes with it. However, that may not necessarily be the case. That is one point. In addition, the decision on the location of the route and the stations relates to a range of matters, including the possible extent to which tunnelling would go under wide streets rather than under buildings. It is often necessary to go under buildings but in choosing an alignment, issues arise in respect of the radius of the curve. One does not want the line to have a circuitous route beneath the ground to accommodate circuitous streets. To the extent that it is possible, one would like to avoid tunnelling under buildings. All those factors influence the choice of a line and choice of station location.

While certainly being concerned about disruption in the short to medium-term, railways will be around for a long time. We should, therefore, consider somebody who, 100 years from now, will consider where we located lines and stations. Would they say that what we did made sense for the long term? Once one puts a railway line in place, it is there forever. That is something we need to consider in addition, of course, to the disruption we cause to people in the short term.

I referred to fare evasion. The team of customer service officers was described by the French company Connex as une grande armée. They believe it is much larger, per kilometre of light rail, than other systems they operate. It is also fair to say, however, that they do not recover the full cost of operations from the fare box in any other systems they operate. Dublin is probably unique in that regard. Connex regards it as being a pretty large number. We consider all the time whether we need additional customer service officers. If one puts another four people on and one reduces the percentage by 0.5%, there is always a trade-off which we continue to monitor. Visitors may perceive a high rate of fare evasion in Dublin. However, they often see people arriving at a stop, getting on and getting off at another stop without realising that these individuals could have annual tickets in their possession. Such people are not fare evaders.

Senator Norris

Do such annual tickets not have to be punched?

Mr. Allen

No.

Senator Norris

I see.

Mr. Allen

I understand the Senator's earlier point. In most systems one needs to validate a ticket at a certain stage.

Senator Norris

Yes.

Mr. Allen

The system in Dublin is the simplest in Europe. One gets on the tram and there is no problem. Many honest fare-paying passengers such as the Senator and ourselves keep their tickets in their pockets. When the customer service officer comes along, they present their tickets for inspection. We have a thorough inspection regime. We are pleased that the level of fare evasion is low, but we want to keep it low.

A question was raised regarding the timeliness of the machines and the adequacy of their number. In all these matters, there is always a trade-off. A choice of 84 ticket types is on offer, including per zone, daily, monthly, annual, student, aged between three and 15, etc. If a wide range of ticket types is offered to customers, one customises the transport offering to them. That has consequences concerning the number of queries one needs to respond to on screen. There is always a trade-off. If we had a flat fare of €2, one would press the button and the machine would print out a ticket. However, if there is a choice of fares — between adults and children, one zone or several, within 90 minutes, daily, weekly, monthly — it results in a slower process. I use the tram several times per day and have noticed that regular users zip through it so quickly that one barely notices.

The longer term solution to queues at ticket vending machines is not the provision of many more ticket vending machines, although that is something we should consider, but smart cards. St. Stephen's Green is probably the second busiest railway station in the country. At St. Stephen's Green, large numbers pass by the validator, which takes one third of a second to tag on, tag off. They top up their smart cards every week or every month. That is the solution to people not wanting to wait at ticket vending machines. Getting more people to use smart cards and, ultimately, to use smart cards that can be used on bus, tram, DART and elsewhere, is the solution to the ticketing issue in Dublin.

Senator Norris's last point relates to Trinity College. When one looks at the map and considers a route from St. Stephen's Green to O'Connell Street, for example, it is difficult to imagine, unless one takes a circuitous route, something that does not affect the underground of Trinity College. His point regarding the utmost importance of ensuring that every precaution is taken to protect the buildings is extremely important. It will be an essential consideration in the selection of contractors and in the monitoring of the buildings throughout the process and it will be a high priority for us.

Senator Norris

I thank Mr. Allen.

Mr. Allen

We appreciate Senator Morrissey's kind words in respect of the contribution Luas is making. On the Heuston-Connolly link, we have a tram at Heuston Station in the morning which, when a train comes in from Kildare, takes 200 people into the city centre. We do approximately six such runs in the morning. It makes a significant difference in terms of the comfort level for people and it is working a treat.

Next year, once we start extending the trams, we will increase the capacity of the red line by 40%, by inserting 10 m into a 30 m tram. It is all valuable space because there is no dead space such as tram cabs. In addition, we are in the market to purchase additional trams.

We are working hard to ensure that we continue to provide the capacity that the people of Dublin are demanding of the service. This is a priority because that is the busiest part of the line. The journey from Heuston to Tallaght is entirely comfortable and involves no congestion problems whatsoever. The other end of the line is the busiest part and we are focusing on addressing the need there.

On the ultimate destination of metro north northbound, we were asked at previous meetings why it would stop at the airport. The committee argued successfully — in fact, we fully supported and welcomed it — that the RPA should go beyond the airport because so many people who live and work in the vicinity of the airport live not on Amiens Street or in the city centre but in Swords and further north. We are delighted that the destination of Swords was included in Transport 21. We then felt that perhaps we should go somewhat further than Swords town centre. Hence, there will be further stops at Estuary and Lissenhall. We have taken it beyond Swords.

I fully understand Senator Morrissey's argument that the northern line is a mere 3 km from the metro at its nearest point, but it all becomes a bigger project and we need to be careful. People make the same argument about other places, asking why do we not add a bit here or there. There is always a risk that one ends up with the perfect project on paper, which serves everybody's needs but becomes so large that one may not get it built. The priority is obviously implementation.

Senator Morrissey

It gives choice and flexibility, which equals patronage.

Mr. Allen

In considering where we terminate lines, in all cases we ask how do we ensure that in a few years' time somebody can return and develop it further. That is also an important consideration.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Allen, Mr. O'Donoghue and Mr. Kilfeather for their attendance and contributions. I wish them well in their efforts and congratulate them again, as the other members of the committee have done, on the success of the Luas.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.45 p.m. sine die.