Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 May 2018

Traffic Congestion in the Greater Dublin Area and Related Matters: Discussion

We now turn to the purpose of today's meeting, namely, consideration of the issue of traffic congestion in the greater Dublin area and other related matters, including persistent irregular congestion in Dublin. Last Thursday, there was a meeting of the committee chairmen with the Taoiseach. I made sure I would have at least an hour to spare before the meeting began and I spent that hour sitting at the 3Arena due to traffic congestion. There was an accident there and the whole city was held up for at least an hour and half, I reckon. Nothing was moving from the Port Tunnel and the traffic was backed up as far as the airport, I believe. Such congestion is happening everywhere. The M1 and the M50 are regular examples of same. We will also discuss issues surrounding the Luas and the proposed College Green plaza. Last February, the committee met a range of representatives from Dublin City Council, Dublin Bus, Transdev, AA Ireland, the Irish Taxi Drivers' Federation and the Taxi Alliance of Ireland regarding traffic congestion in the College Green area. Before we commence, I also wish to take this opportunity - I actually did so earlier - to thank the representatives of the schools who met us last week. While I am conscious that the public consultation on MetroLink will take some time, we will discuss it again.

I welcome our witnesses. The order in which I have them listed is Mr. Michael Nolan, CEO of Transport Infrastructure Ireland, and Mr. Hugh Creegan, deputy CEO of the National Transport Authority. They have other staff members with them. If they wish to make any comment at any stage, they should feel free to do so.

Before we commence, I am required to read the following. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I now invite Mr. Michael Nolan, CEO of Transport Infrastructure Ireland, to make his opening statement.

Mr. Michael Nolan

I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for their invitation to attend. I am joined by my colleagues, Pat Maher, director of network management, and Nigel O'Neill, director of commercial operations. I understand that the committee wishes to focus on traffic congestion in the Dublin area, the proposed College Green civic plaza, Luas and related matters.

I will start with growing M50 congestion. With a return to economic growth, the national roads network serving the greater Dublin area has experienced significant levels of growth and, in turn, is handling record volumes of traffic. There has been continuous growth on the M50 since the completion of the upgrade in 2010. As the economic recovery accelerated, so did traffic growth on the M50. The overall level of increase in traffic on the M50 in the five years from 2012 to this year exceeds 30%. We have seen significant increases in commuting to the city from 2014 along the M1, M2, M3, M4 and N7 and M7, with associated follow-on trips on the M50 and inside the M50 box. Year-on-year growth on the Dublin radial routes has averaged 4.3% per annum over the past three years, while growth across all sections of the M50 has averaged 4.7% per annum. The increase in traffic volumes has resulted in the return of traffic congestion to the M50, particularly during the morning and evening peaks. Peak time duration has also expanded. Typically, weekday morning peaks extend from 6.30 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. and evening peaks extend from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.

These increases have impacted negatively on the safe and efficient operation of the M50. Increasing traffic congestion leads to peak-hour delays and an increase in incidents such as minor rear-end collisions. Each such collision results in significant further congestion, so there is a need for incidents to be dealt with quickly.

TII has undertaken a range of initiatives to mitigate the impacts of increased traffic volumes and resultant congestion at peak times. We have significantly improved the incident response regime on the M50 in recent years. In 2015, we initiated the interagency incident co-ordination group, which includes the principal stakeholders involved in the management of the M50 and its approach roads. The members include An Garda Síochána, the Dublin Fire Brigade, the four Dublin local authorities, the motorway traffic control centre and TII. The co-ordination group meets as required but not less than once per quarter to consider and address issues arising in the operation of the M50. Four incident support unit vehicles operate on the M50 during morning and evening peaks, available to assist at incidents ranging from broken down vehicles to rear-end impacts to more significant incidents. At present, the average incident response time is 13 minutes. We have located three tow-away vehicles strategically around the M50 at peak times to allow rapid response and early removal of broken down vehicles. In 2017, the median time to clear an incident on the M50 was 29 minutes. This is a significant improvement which has been achieved year on year.

TII has implemented further measures to manage major incidents and congestion at junctions. We have instigated a new system of emergency diversion route signage, whereby in the event of a prolonged incident or closure on a section of the M50, alternative routes are signed. The diversion routes have been signposted using route-specific symbols on the M50 from the M1 to the M7. These have been agreed with the emergency services and local authorities. These routes are typically on roads parallel to the M50. However, these routes offer limited capacity in their own right. The operational plan for their use includes the setting of variable message signs on the M50 mainline and direction by gardaí and motorway contractors. The signage is continuous from start to finish along the diversion route. In addition, we have implemented changes to the lining and lane marking layout at the mainline merge points at some M50 junctions. This has given increased priority to traffic on the mainline and has helped to reduce the impact of merging traffic on the mainline flows. However, such measures simply "sweat the asset" rather than bringing significant capacity improvements to the operation of the M50.

We are currently in the design and procurement phase for a new mandatory variable speed limit and lane control system on the M50, with the intention of commencing operations in late 2019 or early 2020. The purpose of this initiative is to smooth the flow on the M50 by regulating speeds. This measure reduces the amount of flow breakdown and improves journey reliability. Drivers speeding up when a gap appears and braking suddenly, together with jumping from lane to lane, are factors leading to flow breakdown and increased congestion. Mandatory variable speed limits work by triggering a reduction in permissible speeds before congestion reaches a critical level. If appropriate speed limits are obeyed, traffic flow will be smoother with a greater volume of traffic being accommodated. The effect of the variable speed limits and the smoother traffic flow is to limit the amount of rear-end collisions. This reduces the significant disruption and delay caused by minor collisions. Unfortunately, an incident in one direction causes almost equivalent delays in the opposite direction due to "rubbernecking".

In addition to the display of variable speed limits, the new electronic signs will display lane control signals - red X and green arrow - that will allow lanes to be closed off in advance of an incident location, thereby protecting the people involved in the incident and our colleague emergency services and motorway operators attending the incident. I have sent around some photographs of this layout to the committee. Current Irish legislation does not allow for the setting of variable speed limits in response to traffic conditions or the enforcement of red X lane control. Accordingly, new road traffic legislation will be required to give effect to these provisions. Sophisticated monitoring, control and enforcement technology will be required to operate a variable speed limit system, all of which will be conducted at our motorway operations centre. This system will be in place at the end of 2019 and in operation when the legislative changes are effected.

The overall cost will be in the region of €50 million. I stress that these measures will only marginally improve the carrying capacity of the M50. The primary benefit from these initiatives will be a safer and more reliable journey. More fundamentally, traffic growth on the M50 quickly erodes all minor improvements in the capacity of the motorway. Given the current rate of growth, the need to address the management of traffic demand on the route is becoming acute. Unless demand management measures as set out in the M50 demand management report are introduced, complemented by additional public transport investments, the level of traffic growth will ultimately result in an intolerable level of congestion and economic loss and the failure of the motorway to adequately fulfil its strategic functions. Without demand management in the form of multipoint tolling, M50 customers will continue to pay in terms of lost time and productivity. Ultimately, the decision to proceed with these demand management measures is a matter for Government and not one that TII is currently pursuing.

TII continually monitors the performance of the national roads network and collects data relating to traffic volumes, average speeds, journey times and peak hour spreading. TII publishes its annual national roads network Indicators, which give information on transport trends. A copy of these indicators has been circulated to the committee for information. This information informs the development of short, medium and long-term schemes aimed at addressing the impacts of congestion and maximising the efficient use of the current infrastructure. A number of schemes identified by TII to address congestion in the Dublin area have been included in the National Development Plan 2018-2027 either for delivery or for further development within the lifetime of the plan. Details of these proposals are included in the supplementary information accompanying this presentation.

The Luas cross city extension to the green line came into passenger service at 2 p.m. on Saturday, 9 December 2017. That day marked the return, after 68 years, of electric trams in passenger service on O'Connell Street and other places between St. Stephen's Green and Broombridge. The Luas attracts high passenger demand. Growth in numbers since the extension of the green line came into service has been high – 28% increase on the green line and 5% increase on the red line between January 2017 and January 2018. At times, Luas has not provided a full service to customers, with problems compounded in mid-March following the impact of Storm Emma and an electrical fault with the new trams. The reliability of Luas services has been improving progressively since mid-March. The electrical problem that affected the new Alstom trams has been resolved with five of these trams now incorporated into the fleet for passenger service on the green line. The sixth tram is undergoing testing and commissioning and is due to enter passenger service in the next week or so. The seventh tram is due to be delivered on 25 May and will soon enter passenger service after a commissioning period. The five new trams currently in service have greatly improved the tram availability situation. Transdev, the operator of the Luas, has been operating a full peak service on both the red and green lines for several weeks. Several additional services in the morning peak have been provided since April making use of the new trams.

Further improvements to passenger services will be made over the summer, after all the new trams have entered passenger service, with the following enhancements: on the red line, Monday to Saturday, two out of three trams will operate to and from the Point and one out of three trams will operate to and from Connolly, compared to the existing 50:50 split between the Point and Connolly while, on the green line, the Luas cross city section will have a journey time of between 23 and 25 minutes compared with 27 minutes currently. There will be an improved service between Parnell and Broombridge, and southbound services from Parnell between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m. will operate every four minutes compared with every five minutes at present. I thank our colleagues in Dublin City Council and the National Transport Authority, NTA, for working with us to improve these journey times across the city.

While the extension to the green line is realising substantial benefits for customers and for the Dublin region, it has experienced a number of problems in its first few months of operations. All parties have worked hard to overcome these problems. I will now outline some of the key problems that have been addressed. The first longer tram was delivered to Dublin on 13 November 2017 and subjected to extensive testing as required by the Commission for Railway Regulation. The tram was put into passenger service for the first time on 7 February 2018. The new tram operated in passenger service in the morning peak on the Sandyford–Bride’s Glen–Parnell–Sandyford line. The second new tram came into passenger service on 20 February. These two new longer trams were in regular service during morning peak periods. On 12 March, the first of the new trams failed in service and the following day, the second new tram also failed in service with the same fault indicated. Alstom, the tram manufacturer, assembled and brought in a troubleshooting team from France on 14 March. Alstom traced the root cause of the electrical fault to the control board for the static converter. The first two new trams returned to passenger service on 4 and 5 April, respectively, and another was made available for passenger service on 13 April. The fourth was made available for service on 18 April, while the fifth new tram was delivered to Sandyford on 6 April and has been available for service from 2 May. The sixth is currently undergoing commissioning and the seventh and final new tram is scheduled for delivery on 25 May.

Many issues came together on 13, 14 and 15 March. Tram availability on the green line was significantly below requirements for the morning peak period on each day. To deliver a full service on the line, we need 29 trams to be available, but on those days only 24 to 25 vehicles were available, which led to increased overcrowding of morning peak trams. Difficulties in managing a backlog of vehicle maintenance, and the need to take the two new longer trams out of passenger service because of the electrical fault contributed to the shortfall in tram availability. A mitigation measure had already been identified to address the maintenance backlog to secure sufficient tram availability in March by extending the overhaul date for some trams until the end of March. The maintenance resources freed up were scheduled to redeploy on 28 February to clearing the backlog of maintenance for the trams. However, Storm Emma struck on 1 and 2 March. This storm could not have come at a worse time. The storm exacerbated the situation by causing significant disruption to tram maintenance and availability. Virtually all maintenance resources were redeployed to clearing snow, fixing significant numbers of faults caused by the storm, restoring partial services over the weekend and recovering the entire Luas system for the Monday morning peak on 5 March. The temporary extension of the overhaul programme did improve tram availability, once the maintenance resources were switched from recovering from Storm Emma and full service was gradually restored from the week commencing 19 March. Tram availability required for peak times was stabilised and the delivery of services is operating at planned levels.

I would like to address the issue of the O'Connell Bridge-Burgh Quay junction, as the running of the new tram across the O'Connell Bridge was the focus of attention in February. The Luas system shares space with other traffic on several sections of the red and green lines; this is especially the case with the multiple junctions along the city centre section. The limitation in space at the O'Connell Bridge-quays junctions was a significant element of the advance design of the system to connect the two tram lines while, at the same time, improving the capacity of the green line. The challenges faced in enhancing the overall carrying capacity of the O'Connell Bridge junctions was considered in full when designing and developing the new signalling system on Luas cross city. In the normal course of events, the signals at the junction facilitate the tram clearing the quays in a single movement. However, if the progress of the tram is impeded by a blocking vehicle, the rear of the tram on O'Connell Bridge can overhang Burgh Quay. In this scenario, the traffic system will recognise that the tram has not cleared the bridge and will allow for additional time to be allocated to clear traffic from the bridge. On 8 February, the first new tram was blocked by a car waiting to make an illegal right turn onto Eden Quay. This was despite the provision of a dedicated right turn lane for Eden Quay being incorporated into the scheme design. The consequent traffic obstruction was resolved within minutes. There have been no significant issues with the passage of this longer tram through this junction since it entered service. In this regard, I acknowledge and am grateful to An Garda Síochána, which has supported the smooth functioning of this junction by regularly patrolling it in peak periods. I also acknowledge the continual improvements Dublin City Council makes to the signalised junctions on the shared running sections of the system. Such fine-tuning of the signals is an essential ongoing support to the Luas system and traffic management in general.

The extension to the green line is realising substantial benefits for customers and for the Dublin region. Luas experienced a number of problems in its first few months of operations and I regret the delay and inconvenience caused to our customers. All parties have worked hard to overcome these problems and the reliability of Luas services has improved considerably in recent weeks. Further improvements to passenger services addressing increasing demand will be made over the summer when all seven of the new trams will have entered passenger service.

I hope that my opening statement has addressed the specific points raised by this committee that are relevant to our remit. We are happy to answer questions on any particular issue raised or, indeed, other matters of interest. If we do not have the information requested to hand we will supply a written response.

I thank Mr. Nolan. I call on Mr. Hugh Creegan, deputy chief executive officer of the National Transport Authority to make his opening statement.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

I thank the committee for the invitation to attend. I am joined by my colleague, Mr. Tim Gaston, director of public transport services. I understand that the committee wishes to focus on traffic congestion in the Dublin area, the proposed College Green civic plaza and Luas transport. I will address these issues in my opening statement.

I will first discuss traffic congestion in the Dublin region. Following a period of reduced transport usage and suppressed transport growth, both in terms of private car use and public transport patronage, 2014 saw the start of a reversal of these trends. Public transport usage has increased for all modes since then and I mean in terms of bus, Luas and commuter rail transport. Paralleling the changes in public transport, car travel has grown across the Dublin region since 2014. Demand for travel is now on the increase and patronage on public transport is growing. During 2017 overall public transport numbers grew by 8% with increases recorded across bus, rail and Luas transport.

Major investment is needed in public transport to respond appropriately to this growth and address the congestion problems in the Dublin region. Both the NTA and others have advocated for several years for a major increase in public transport investment to prepare the region to deal with the growth in travel that was becoming evident. However, due to Ireland's recent economic circumstances, funding for the required investment was unavailable during much of the past decade.

The overall framework for transport provision to meet the needs of the region over the next two decades is set out in the Greater Dublin Area Transport Strategy 2016-2035, which was approved by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in 2016. The strategy outlined the various networks to be developed. They are as follows: heavy rail; light rail; bus; road; cycling and pedestrian networks; and supporting measures, including park and ride provision, information provision, integration and demand management measures.

A welcome uplift in public transport funding has been provided in the recently published National Development Plan 2018-2027, which has allocated €8.6 billion towards sustainable transport measures. The three largest projects are MetroLink, the Dublin Area Rapid Transport or DART expansion programme and BusConnects, all of which will serve the Dublin region. Let us remember that resolving the transport deficiencies caused by the unavailability of investment for a period of several years will take time and that major infrastructure projects take a number of years to deliver.

Supplementing those larger projects, other measures are being taken in the short term to deliver additional transport capacity. These include the provision of a ten-minute DART service later this year, following the resolution of driver training issues; the current peak time rail services from the Kildare rail line that links with Dublin city centre through the Phoenix Park tunnel will be expanded to provide an all-day service; additional capacity will be provided on the Luas green line with additional 55 m trams coming into service; an order will be placed in 2019 for a diesel-electric rail fleet to provide an extended DART service across the Dublin rail network; the Go-Ahead contract for bus services on 24 public service obligation, PSO, bus routes in the Dublin metropolitan area will start operations in quarter 3 of this year; an additional bus fleet will be acquired and additional capacity will be added on busy routes currently experiencing high passenger numbers in peak hours; additional investment will be made in park and ride provision; and there will be an increased level of investment in cycling projects. I reiterate that it will take time to remedy the consequences of prolonged underinvestment in public transport.

In terms of BusConnects, we believe that investing in our bus services is critical when it comes to tackling traffic congestion in the Dublin area. That is why the NTA proposes to radically change the way bus services are delivered through the implementation of the BusConnects programme. BusConnects is our plan to fundamentally transform Dublin's bus network so that journeys by bus will be fast, reliable, punctual, convenient and affordable. There are three very significant milestones for BusConnects in the weeks and months ahead. Shortly, in June, a discussion document will be published. In the publication we will outline our thinking on the challenges and opportunities that will arise from our proposal to invest in infrastructure on 16 core bus corridors that operate in and out of the city. We intend to develop the corridors so that each will have a continuous bus lane in each direction. In the following month of July, we will publish for public consultation the redesigned network of bus services for Dublin. This will include a proposal for a major redesign of routes, schedules and fare structures. Finally, in October, we will publish for public consultation our detailed plans for investment in infrastructure on the 16 core bus corridors that operate in and out of the city.

I shall next discuss the College Green civic plaza. The provision of such a plaza at the location has been an objective of Dublin City Council for many years. Last May, an application for planning consent was made to An Bord Pleanála to develop such a scheme. An oral hearing on the proposal commenced on 12 March of this year and concluded approximately three weeks later on 29 March. The decision on our proposal now rests with An Bord Pleanála, with a determination anticipated to be made before 26 July.

That concludes my introductory statement. I trust that we can answer any queries that arise.

I thank Mr. Creegan. Before Senator Feighan commences I wish to ask two questions about BusConnects. I welcome all of the proposals and the very significant capital investment. Like the delegations, it is the interim period that we are worried about. When will BusConnects be operational after the consultation period? How quickly can the service be commenced?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

There are several limbs to BusConnects. Probably the earliest one to be implemented is the revised network of services. We will publish a proposal for a revised set of services in June, and that will be followed by a consultation process and feedback.

Yes, of course.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

We aspire to start implementation towards the end of next year.

The end of next year is a long time away. I appreciate that the NTA must follow the statutory or due process. It seems to me that traffic journeys by car are ever increasing and that traffic gets backed up everywhere in the city.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

Yes.

Journeys by car take longer. No matter how early people rise they reach their workplaces late. I must travel on the M1 motorway in order to get home. At present I can only drive at 100 km/h regardless of the time of day that I travel due to a huge amount of traffic congestion. Perhaps other members have had the same experience.

I call Senator Feighan and he will be followed by Deputy Rock. I urge members to stick to asking questions, if they can.

I thank Mr. Nolan and Mr. Creegan for their presentations. I shall start on a positive note. This morning I travelled here by bus and I was pleasantly surprised at how free flowing traffic was on Kildare Street and College Green. Perhaps that is due to the work that has been done by the organisations and I hope that it is a good omen for the future.

It is a fascinating fact that between 2012 and now in 2018, the volume of traffic on the M50 has increased by more than 30%. I acknowledge that there are great difficulties in sweating the assets, as referenced by Mr. Nolan, and that the current average incident response time has decreased to 13 minutes. However, I concur with the Chairman that traffic congestion on the M50 is a huge issue. Mr. Nolan said such measures simply sweat the asset rather than bringing significant capacity improvements to the operation of the M50. What significant capacity improvements are envisaged for the M50? I note that he called on the Government to invest more money.

I want to discuss the park and ride provision. If I want to commute to work by car then I must set off from my home in Boyle, County Roscommon at 4.30 a.m. in order to arrive in time for work. If I delay my departure then I shall be an hour late for work. Also, I cannot leave Leinster House until after 7 p.m. in order to avoid traffic congestion.

I understand that there are park and ride facilities at Maynooth, County Kildare. Will the NTA provide park and ride facilities for people travelling by car from the west of Ireland along the N5 and N4? What does the NTA intend to do? I understand there are park and ride facilities on the road to Cork and acknowledge that people can avail of a LUAS service. We have a very good public transport system but many people must drive some or all of the way to Dublin. It would be extremely helpful if park and ride facilities were provided for people who travel from the west of Ireland to Dublin. Park and ride facilities would also reduce traffic congestion and allow people to reach their destinations much quicker.

The witnesses have a tough job and most capital cities around the world have this issue. My office is on the fifth floor. Five years ago I looked out from my office and I could see no crane at all on the Dublin skyline but last week I counted approximately 45 cranes. There is a large construction industry that has seen an increase in capacity. Fair play to the witnesses, as they are trying to address it. I am delighted they are here today and I hope we can work together to resolve the difficulties. We need to get more people on public transport.

On the last point of traffic relating to construction, the reports indicate that such traffic has not reached the level it was at during the boom. As the economy progresses and gets better, there will be a significant further increase in construction traffic, which is not yet accounted for in figures, if I read the report correctly. Deputy Rock is next.

I thank the witnesses for the presentations.

The Chairman should go with members first. Is Deputy Rock a member?

He is a full member.

Is he? I have never seen him here before.

The Deputy was just not at the meetings to find that out.

I have been here for every meeting since I was added to the committee, with respect.

The Deputy has not.

I have, with respect.

He even got the committee to visit his constituency.

Indeed. Members visited my constituency just last week. I thank the witnesses for the presentations. Like Senator Feighan, I took public transport coming here today and I am delighted to report it was a very pleasant experience altogether. The work of Transport Infrastructure Ireland and the National Transport Authority with Dublin City Council and Dublin Bus is bearing some fruit in the Trinity College corridor in particular.

BusConnects is the most immediate prospect on our horizon. The first phase of announcements will be forthcoming next month. What is the plan with regard to the co-ordination between Dublin Bus and the BusConnects project? From what I have seen before us and so far, it seems there is potential or fear among people that there could be a somewhat phased withdrawal of some Dublin Bus services as a consequence of some BusConnects projects overlapping. I am curious to hear the thoughts of the witnesses at this stage if they can release information into the public domain on the matter. It is the single most pressing concern from the BusConnects project. It has great potential and the idea of a high-capacity, high-frequency set of 16 routes into the city is eminently sensible. It requires a change of culture and mentality among those who would use public transport. I am therefore curious to hear the thoughts of the witnesses on that transition period.

The next question relates to M50 congestion, as has been pointed out by my colleague, Senator Feighan. A 30% increase in the use of the M50 is extraordinary and the asset has really been sweated in that regard. I note it will be 2019 before the legislation will be in place for variable speed limits. Is that deadline by the witnesses' choice or is there anything we can do to speed that up? I know any increase in capacity would be most welcome and the M50 is effectively the outline of my constituency; I am very acutely aware of how many people use the M50 and are frustrated by it as a consequence of the increased amount of traffic. That is a consequence of a number of factors, including the increase in the number of people going to and from work, as my colleague noted.

My next question is on my pet project, the Luas to Finglas. Lord knows it would not be a transport committee meeting with the current witnesses if I did not take the opportunity to ask a question on the matter. My understanding is that once the metro north project concludes its design phase - the preferred route will be finalised following the public consultation - the design teams could move to the Luas lines, and that could potentially be as soon as the end of 2019, according to the metro document. Will the witnesses confirm if that is the case?

I remind Fine Gael colleagues that one swallow does not make a summer. They must not take public transport too often around Dublin or engage with their constituents too often around Dublin because the position is quite stark. Reading the Irish Independent this week, there is a report that rush hour now takes up three hours in the morning and three in the evening, totalling six hours. I am not blaming the bodies before us per se as they can only deal with allocated resources. Failing to address this in any meaningful way, however, means we are robbing people of their lives and leaving them stuck in cars, trains and buses for prolonged periods. It is not right, proper or justifiable.

The witnesses alluded in their opening statements to the lack of resources impeding what they could do. I have raised the following point umpteen times, even when we had the EU Commissioner responsible for transportation before the committee. There is a resistance by any State agents and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to avail of funding that could be got at unprecedented low interest rates to invest in public infrastructure. As a country we had borrowed heavily but the Italian Government was able to borrow €500 million to improve its rail infrastructure, while we did not do likewise. It was a big miss and we have been paying for that lack of investment and foresight over the past number of years.

Given the multi-stakeholder approach in dealing with traffic, bus, rail and Luas in Dublin, what are the specific legislative responsibilities of the two bodies before us today? What must they deliver in rolling out infrastructure, maintaining it and overseeing operations? Dublin City Council, Dublin Bus, Transport Infrastructure Ireland and the National Transport Authority all have a role to play in some way. What is the individual role of the bodies before us in rolling out transport? Is there a service level agreement in place between the various stakeholders? The chief executive officer of Dublin City Council appeared before the committee a while ago and he said that he had hoped An Bord Pleanála would have adjudicated on the planning application for the College Green plaza before now but he did not apply in time. Why was that and who will hold him to account to ensure an application could be made in time?

There was mention of sweating the M50 asset. There are some meaningful short-term goals. As for the legislation required to vary speed limits, has there been any consultation with the Department? Has legislation been commenced or is it in the drafting stage? My experience of the Minister over the past two years is that he is unable to bring key legislation through the Oireachtas.

There was mention of the plan for the greater Dublin area.

Part of its plan is to have 10% of all short journeys conducted by bicycle. I recently submitted a parliamentary question on this. Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan. If the money goes up, it is to the Minister's credit; if it is reduced, it is the fault of the NTA. At a time when we are trying to encourage people to use bicycles, why did the funding for this network fall from €18 million in 2016 to €10 million in 2018? It is unbelievable when more people are opting to cycle and when there has been a policy decision to increase the number of cyclists.

BusConnects is very ambitious but I think it will be very good when it is in operation. However, I am concerned about the length of time it will take to roll out. Dublin Bus was recently before the committee and its representatives identified a number of pinch points and signalling changes that would help in the here and now. Dublin Bus has applied to the NTA for the necessary funding for those changes. Why is there a delay in making that funding available? Dublin Bus is by far the largest public passenger carrier in the greater Dublin area and passengers have increased from 120 million to 150 million in recent years. However, this increase has not been matched by an expansion of the fleet. Why is that? Why is the NTA not investing more in buses? If we are serious about getting people out of cars, we have to offer them a reliable, efficient and affordable alternative but that is not the case on certain routes.

What is the current capacity of the Dublin Port tunnel? I recently met the Irish Road Haulage Association, which said the tunnel is nowhere near its capacity. Perhaps some of the charges at key times of the day are prohibitive. Could we look at the charges and see if we can get more people out of the city centre to use the ports?

We agreed to stick to committee members by rotation so I call Deputy Munster. I apologise if Deputy Lahart feels left out. Deputy Rock has been a member of the transport committee for two months and has been at all the meetings.

Senator Feighan said that most cities experienced this problem but the reality is that they do not. When one travels to other capital cities, one realises just how dire is the situation in Dublin. One would cringe with embarrassment to make comparisons. The reason for the situation here is the lack of sustained funding and forward planning. It requires foresight because population growth creates a need for increased capacity.

The tolling of the M50 was mentioned as a solution but how can that possibly be acceptable? What other options have TII and the NTA looked at to address the serious capacity issues? These issues do not look like being rectified in the near future. Has reducing car usage been looked at as an option? What plans are there to deal with this? I did not hear anything on this in the presentations.

There are serious issues around rush hour, particularly in suburban areas, and the green line was mentioned. There has been chaos and mayhem and, after all the planning that there was, a complete hames was made of the situation. Passengers were left standing at the side of the road, they were late for work and they were late getting home from work. The TII statement gave an explanation for the situation and Mr. Nolan said all seven trams would be working at the end of the summer. Can he guarantee that and that it will be absolutely sufficient to cater for the numbers and for the increased demand?

Metro north is the next major piece of infrastructure for Dublin city. Will it be paid for by the State and then, as was the case with the Luas, handed over to be run by a foreign private company? The NTA mentioned the lack of funding. Can Mr. Creegan explain that? In what areas is there a lack of funding and how much is involved? Approximately how much would be needed, annually, to bring Dublin up to the standard one would expect or would see in other capital cities? Will the funding in Project Ireland 2040 be sufficient to bring us up to those standards?

Mr. Creegan mentioned some short-term initiatives to improve Dublin transport and traffic, including the Go-Ahead contract. Can he explain how privatising routes can be an improvement? Deputy Troy referred to the increased customer numbers in our public transport system and the fact that this has not been matched by an increase in infrastructure and fleet. How will the Go-Ahead contract be a positive thing?

Mr. Creegan also said additional investment would be made in park-and-ride provision. This is in every county council development plan but it never materialises. The glossy brochures only gather dust and I am beginning to think the Project Ireland 2040 plan will end up going the same way. Can Mr. Creegan say exactly what investment has been identified and outline the timeframe for delivery? What capacity will it cater for?

We have another problem in Dublin, although it is rather minor in comparison with everything else.

I am speaking of rickshaws, in respect of which there is a very obvious need for regulation. The National Transport Authority has a role in this regard. Given all of the issues arising with rickshaws, including reports that they are facilitating drug dealing across the city, what is the status of regulation?

I support Deputy Munster on the need for regulation of rickshaws. I am advised by the clerk that the Minister has been invited to appear before the committee on 30 May to discuss the issue.

The Minister also has a role to play.

Everybody has a role to play. I agree with the Deputy that this is a hugely important issue and it is a priority for the committee. I would like to make a couple of points before I call Deputy Catherine Murphy.

There are various authorities doing excellent work in the transport area but is there a need for an overall tsar, somebody to whom everybody would be accountable? In other words, should we have somebody in charge who is accountable to the Oireachtas for leading the change that needs to take place in the interim and to identify and solve the pinch points? I am not suggesting that the organisations are working in silos because they definitely are not, but is there need for a designated person who would have the authority to knock heads together to get things moving and at the same time be accountable for this area?

That is the role of the Minister.

The Minister is responsible for policy. I am speaking about administration in terms of identifying issues, taking control of them and bringing proposed solutions to the committee and the Minister.

I am pleased we are meeting on this issue, which I sought to have included in our work programme. In doing so, what I had in mind was that we consider medium- and longer-term scenarios because it is important that we are proactive rather than reactive in terms of what can happen.

Deputy Eamon Ryan and I first met on the consultative panel of the Dublin Transportation Initiative in the early 1990s and we have maintained our interest in transport since then. This initiative arose out of the change in European policy in regard to how European funding was allocated. Congestion in Dublin was regarded as such an impediment to the economy that this initiative was put in place to try to resolve it. As part of that work, there was some scenario testing in regard to land use planning around, for example, where people lived, where they worked and so on. The intention was to try to consolidate the city centre and have less demand from outside, but the opposite happened because some of the critical pieces of infrastructure were not provided. In fact, some of them have only recently come on stream. In the intervening years between 1996 and 2016, according to the census, population growth was as follows: Dublin city, 13%; Dún Laoghaire, 13%; South Dublin County Council, 22%; Fingal, 43%; Meath, 41%; Kildare, 39%; and Wicklow, 28%. There are now more people living in counties Meath, Kildare and Wicklow than there are in Dublin city and Cork city and county. In terms of the origin of congestion, it is arising out of additional demand from areas that have not featured in terms of the policy responses or public funding provision to deal with sustainable transport in the city.

The greater Dublin area has expanded even further and areas such as north County Wexford, County Laois and Drogheda are now almost regarded as suburbs of Dublin city. We need to get serious about planning for where people live and how they commute. A national development plan and a national planning framework were announced recently. I cannot figure out why DART underground was not one of the central pieces of this plan given the inadequate surface that exists to accommodate all types of transport, including more sustainable patterns of transport such as cycling and walking. Given we are facing very considerable fines in regard to climate change transport, I do not understand why DART underground was not one of the key pieces of that plan. I would like to hear from the witnesses what business case was put forward in this regard, including whether congestion in the city and the loss of productivity and people's time were taken into consideration in that regard.

I welcome the 28% increase in Luas passenger numbers. There is a misunderstanding in parts of the country about transport services in Dublin, which we hear about constantly in the Dáil. I am speaking about the greater Dublin area where a sizeable amount of development contributions will be collected to help fund Luas. There is a degree of public information required on how some of these projects are funded because there is a lack of understanding around how income derived from transportation is spent. We probably spend the vast majority of motor tax in areas outside of the greater Dublin area.

Has the National Transport Authority and-or Transport Infrastructure Ireland undertaken an analysis of the cost of congestion? On the purchase of trains, I understand there is a five-year lead-in in this regard but that some of the old carriages have been refurbished and are being brought back into service. Every day, when the first train from Maynooth reaches Leixlip, which is two stations down the line, it is full and there is standing room only for the remainder of the journey. It was mentioned earlier that if we build it, they will come. To encourage people to use public transport, it must be attractive. BusConnects is a useful service but there is inadequate promotion around the attractiveness of it as a system of moving around. For example, there is need for greater promotion of timetables, capacity and the fact that there is an area where people can wait in comfort for the bus, without which, given our climate, the service would be off-putting. There is also need for a review of network planning from the point of view of commuter usage and the connection of areas from a commuter perspective.

This will work if people, when they see it published, say "now, that is a great idea". That particular aspect requires detailed attention because it must be attractive to people to use.

I am one of the people who causes the congestion in the city. I drive into work on most days mainly because I am never quite sure what time I will go home. People can delay leaving work or leave early to try to get on the right side of the traffic. What interaction does Transport Infrastructure Ireland have with An Garda Síochána? In all of the years that I have been driving to Leinster House I have never seen anyone enforcing the yellow box rule. I have never seen a garda at a junction. Last night I encountered a scenario that was quite typical when I was trying to find the best way out of the city. It was after 7 p.m. and I drove down by Pearse Street but could not get onto the quays. I then went up Gardiner Street and down by the Ilac Centre where I had to bully my way into a lane. There is no discipline on the roads in terms of cars merging, for example, because there are no consequences due to a lack of enforcement. What is happening in that regard? It is only when there are initiatives like Operation Freeflow at Christmas, which involves the enforcement of the rules, that one sees different driver behaviour.

Mr. Nolan made the following comment in his opening statement: "... if appropriate speed limits are obeyed". That is a very big "if". Does he envisage this being dealt with technically or how does he anticipate that happening? Having driven on motorways in the UK, for example, I have seen rubbernecking happen and I have seen drivers speeding up and slowing down. Such behaviour is not unique to Ireland. While we might like people to be robots, they are not. If that is our solution to congestion, then we need to do a lot more in terms of enforcement.

I wish to pick up on a comment Deputy Munster made about capital cities. I have been in most European capital cities. I was in Berlin recently, a city whose population is the same as that of the entire island of Ireland. I was there for four days and never saw a traffic jam. I saw trains, metros, buses and people cycling. I saw every mode of transport possible but I did not see a traffic jam once in four days. That is because Berlin does not have bits of a system but rather a whole system. Unfortunately, what we have here are bits of a system. We have had bits of a system since the 19th century and we need to pull those bits together. Pulling them together requires one big initiative, namely, the interconnector. I want to know why that is not considered by TII and the NTA to be one of the critical pieces of transport infrastructure.

We will now move on to Members of the Houses who are not members of the committee. I will invite Members in the order in which they entered the room to avoid arguments. I recognise that this is a hugely important issue for Members but I must make one point. The political system is responsible for investment in transport. Our witnesses today have pushed for and want the most modern public transport system in Europe. They are not responsible for anything other than trying to improve the situation, although that does not mean they are immune from criticism. Deputy Lahart is next.

I thank the Chairman for his generosity and I welcome the representatives from TII and the NTA to the House. They play a very significant role and are key players in the context of the future of transport in Dublin city and the greater Dublin region. Clearly we need a directly elected mayor for Dublin to pull all of the forces and objectives together. That is in our hands.

The M50 must be one of the few motorways in Europe that does not have dedicated public transport channels. I invite the witnesses to respond to that point. Buses can carry between 70 and 80 people but most of the cars on the M50 are only carrying one person. We need radical solutions here. Project Ireland 2040 is too far away. Some of the measures that the witnesses referred to are imminent but the plans and ambitions for BusConnects, for example, are going to get tied up in court over compulsory purchase orders for front gardens and so on. However, there are small changes that we can make in the meantime to advance matters. I ask the witnesses for feedback on public transport use of the M50. Has that been considered? Are there international comparisons that can be made?

On the role of local authorities, we have double yellow lined drivers out of existence. People in residential areas seem to think they own the public roads. I have argued for double yellow lines in parts of my constituency over the years but we need to do a radical review. If a person cannot access a bus for the entire journey into the city, there is nothing wrong with him or her driving some of the way, parking and then accessing a bus but we penalise such people out of existence. There is, for example, a road that divides Milltown golf course in two. When the Luas green line was opened first, 30 to 40 cars used to be parked along that road. After six or seven months, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council came along, cleaned up the road and painted double yellow lines along it. Where did those 30 or 40 drivers go? Did they just decide that they had no option but to drive all the way into the city? We need to be radical about this. We need to encourage the local authorities to develop localised park and ride facilities. I live three quarters of a mile away from the nearest bus stop. That may not seem like much. Indeed, many of my rural colleagues would say that three quarters of a mile is nothing and that they are two miles away from the nearest bus stop but in Dublin, it is a lot. Localised park and ride facilities are needed. I remember we suggested this to residents in Kilnamanagh and Kingswood in Tallaght because of issues with the Luas red line. Some roads are getting blocked up by drivers parking and accessing the Luas but rather than double yellow line them out of existence, we need to consider parking bays that facilitate people who do not live close to bus or Luas routes.

As the witnesses know, traffic will ease considerably from 1 June until the end of August because schools will be closed. It cannot be beyond the capacity of planners, especially given all of the technology companies located in this city and county, to look at that issue and come up with solutions. School-related congestion is not all caused by mums and dads driving their kids to school. Many of the cars are being driven by school staff. Once the schools reopen in September, the city almost comes to a standstill. If it rains on top of that, the situation worsens considerably. The role of politicians is to devise policy. Should we consider dedicated school buses? In my own area during term time the number 15 bus is completely clogged with schoolchildren - who are entitled to use the public bus service - but after eight or nine stops they are gone and the bus is empty. If we had a dedicated public school bus service, as they have in many other cities, that might help.

We have never told the public that public transport is the way forward but that message would be positively received by people if they realised that there are no roads solutions left. Even if there was a roads-based solution to congestion and even if we had the money to build more roads, it would be another decade before any cars travelled on them.

I welcome demand management for which I have been calling for many years. When the witnesses addressed the Oireachtas budgetary oversight committee they said that demand management could give us four or five years of additional capacity on the M50, which I welcome. I ask that the process be accelerated, if possible. There were approximately 1,750 incidents on the M50 last year so demand management through signage can help in that regard. One hears lots of complaints about the M50 exit ramps and drivers weaving into the traffic. The use of bollards at the exit ramps prevents this and I would like to see greater use of them.

They create greater discipline on the road.

The NTA and TII need to forget multipoint tolling and accept the M50 is now not what it was intended to be, which was a great ring road carrying traffic around Dublin. If we impose multipoint tolling on the M50 it will have catastrophic consequences for residential traffic. The witnesses should just drop it and stop bringing it up. There is no appetite for it. There is no political appetite for it and it would have devastating consequences for residential areas. My view on it is very strong.

I welcome the news on how Luas cross city developed in the end. There seems to have been political pressure to open it too quickly. It is clear if it had been given another six months, the outcome would have been better. Luas cross city is moving fast, smoothly and efficiently but the rest of the city, however, has come to a standstill. This is a big problem the witnesses are not addressing. The passenger carrying capacity of Luas cross city is to be hugely welcomed but the witnesses should go to the quays any day. Seven trams have been moved from the red line to the green line to facilitate capacity issues on the green line. I am getting complaints from passengers on the red line that the red line trams are not as frequent at peak time as they were, and I would like the witnesses to address this. There is no late night Luas. Has this been looked at? Has the Luas starting earlier in the morning been looked at? We have a huge amount of shift workers in the city who are never considered by any public transport, with the exception of taxis. On a Friday or Saturday night in the city one cannot get a Luas and is utterly dependent on taxis.

Lately, I have become concerned about a particular mentality. The witnesses stated they are grateful to An Garda Síochána, which supports the smooth functioning of the Luas cross city junction at O'Connell Bridge and acknowledged the continual improvements Dublin City Council makes. No mention was made of Dublin Bus. The NTA and TII have eviscerated Dublin Bus in this city. It had to shift 30% of its routes to facilitate Luas cross city, and 27 bus routes have been changed by Dublin Bus because it is a flexible transport system. The witnesses made no mention of the contribution it was pushed into making to facilitate Luas cross city. A number of the bus routes redirected prior to the construction of Luas cross city have not been redirected back, for example the 15 route from Knocklyon. The closest I can get to Leinster House is the Bleeding Horse on Camden Street, but it used to come to Stephen's Green. I have a couple of other comments to make about Dublin Bus later.

The witnesses did not address the communications and signage issues with regard to the Luas. There were failures in the electronic signage.

I would like to hear the witnesses' justification for the southern part of the MetroLink going to where we already have a Luas, a DART and the most effective and efficient quality bus corridor in the country. All of the areas between the green line and the DART, where there is no alternative to the bus, have been abandoned, as has the west of the city, and areas such as Lucan and Blanchardstown, and €3 billion will be invested on a metro line and upgrading the existing Luas green line through the constituencies of the Ministers, Deputies Donohoe, Eoghan Murphy, Ross and Madigan. I would like justification for the southern end of this.

Cycling continues to be the poor relation. For eight years as a councillor I fought for the extension of the city bike scheme and what have we ended up with? We have ended up with four separate local authority bike schemes in the county. It is a complete joke. I am not blaming the witnesses for it because nobody is pulling them together and co-ordinating this, but it is a complete joke. Cyclists are still very much the poor relations, never mind pedestrians, who have not been mentioned. There is very poor space for pedestrians in this city. We need to look at democratising the public space available in this city. It is still dominated by the private car but there are also pedestrians, cyclists and people who use public transport. The real workhorse of public transport in the city, Dublin Bus, gets very little mention.

With regard to the Dublin Bus brand, and while we have the NTA before the committee, this may not seem like a big deal but to me the Dublin Bus brand will morph into the anaemic Transport for Ireland brand where every bus will look the same. We will lose the Dublin Bus colours, the Dublin Bus icons, and the vibrant yellow in which Dublin Bus invested quite a significant amount of money, particularly on researching with disability groups and visually impaired groups. Dublin Bus is a part of this city. The new livery that is proposed speaks nothing to Dubliners and speaks nothing of Dublin. It borrows slavishly from Transport for London and replaces an iconic Dublin service and image with a Transport for Ireland blancmange of a symbol. The red bus in London was an iconic service and bus before it ever got privatised so that made sense, but Dublin Bus will be erased from the transport map of Dublin and replaced with Transport for Ireland. There is no buy-in from the public for this. This is an issue I will come back to again and again, because I am concerned that the NTA's attitude to Dublin Bus is to push it around. It is the most flexible form of public transport we have and it is micromanaged. I cannot organise a meeting with Dublin Bus officials in my constituency without Dublin Bus okaying it with the NTA. I say hands off Dublin Bus. It is an independent semi-State company and is a hugely valuable contributor to public transport in the city. Its revenue over the past six years has increased exponentially and its PSO contribution from the State has been decreasing exponentially. It is a fine company and a fine example of how a semi-State company should operate.

To put some structure on this afterwards, as a huge variety of ideas and thoughts are being put forward, after we respond and have a debate on them we will summarise them and have another meeting in six weeks to see what progress has been made on the points so it is not just a talking shop. We want to get clear actions out of this.

I very much appreciate the opportunity to come in. As Deputy Catherine Murphy said earlier, we have been soldiering on this specific issue for 25 years and, trust me, it is not going away. It will be centre stage in this country and city and there is a huge amount of work to be done.

I am never late, and I was not late in the morning, because I cycle in, but I dare anyone to take the last mile or two of my route, weaving as I do between buses, trucks and other bikes in the chaos that is Leeson Street and St. Stephen's Green. I hold the witnesses personally responsible for the harrowing nature of my journey. I am sorry for being personal and hard but it is borne out of 25 years of frustration. When I came in this morning I had my coffee and I saw a bunch of officials in the corner. I thought, "God help them. They are the health service officials about to get a grilling." Then I realised it was our transport officials. I will be critical but I hope it is constructive criticism and it is certainly based on real urgency and need.

The criticism is because of exactly what Deputy Catherine Murphy said, which is that the analysis of what we have needed for the past 25 years has been ignored. There was clear understanding as far back as 25 years ago. All of the transport analysis was that we needed to switch to public transport and to stop the sprawl and concentrate development but everything since then has gone in the opposite direction. I remember as clear as if it were yesterday a meeting with the key engineers, planners and modellers at the conclusion of some of the modelling research we did in the late 1990s. We were finalising the A Platform for Change plan and a slide was shown asking what were the first priorities and what would we do first. I will never forget it. The first priority was to build the metro or the DART interconnector or both because they were the two crucial pieces of public transport infrastructure and, later, possibly widening the M50 would be considered. What did we do first? We widened the M50, dumped the metro and now are still dumping the DART interconnector which, God help us, is needed for the people in Kildare and Meath and for the entire system to work.

I am sorry to hear the analysis given today in the presentations to the effect that there has been a lack of investment in recent years and that the M50 has become a problem. That is nonsense. I sat for three weeks at the oral hearing on the widening of the M50. It was as clear as day and a mathematical certainty that the M50 was going to gridlock. It was probably two years later than the projections because of the economic crash, but that is the full extent of it. Why was the pressure so much greater to upgrade the M50 and not rear enpursue the other projects? I remember the inspector tried to stitch in a requirement for some type of management system. The political system ignored it. The political system must hold its hand up here too. We are facing chaos.

I am sorry but the reason for my anger is that I have utterly lost confidence in TII. I have no confidence in its leadership. I had confidence previously in the NTA but I am increasingly seeing that it talks the talk but does not walk the walk, and it sure as hell does not cycle it either. I have read Mr. Nolan's presentation. He said:

A number of schemes identified by TII to address congestion in the Dublin area have been included in the National Development Plan 2018-2027 either for delivery or for further development within the lifetime of the plan. Details of these proposals are included in the supplementary information at the end of this statement.

I went to the end of the statement to see what schemes are being planned to address congestion. The schemes are to widen the M7 between Naas and Newbridge and to widen the N2 near Slane with a bypass. I do not dispute the fact that people in Slane will want that. There are also schemes to widen the N2 between Rath and Kilmoon Cross, to widen the N3 at Clonee, to widen the N4 from Maynooth to Leixlip and to widen the N11 and upgrade the junction near Kilmacanogue. We have learned nothing. The scheme to tackle congestion in Dublin from TII is to widen further the approach roads into Dublin, a city that cannot cope.

I am sorry but that is just not good enough. One must ask why we keep going wrong on this, after 25 years of knowing what we must do, namely, invest in public transport and bring development back to the core. Is it that the people who are building the roads are so influential in IBEC or that the PPP projects are so attractive or so easy to finance? We are saving ten minutes on each of those widening projects so this makes the economic analysis case and Colm McCarthy must be right. I am sorry, but Colm McCarthy is wrong. What level of gridlock do we have to reach? Do we just keep widening roads? When do we stop the widening?

Sorry, but I wish to be fair to everybody. The Deputy is very welcome here. I asked for this meeting to take place. One other member was present when I made that request. The idea was to concentrate on the immediate needs. We acknowledge the fact that there is a huge capital investment programme for the DART, MetroLink and so forth. We are not being critical. The objective of this meeting-----

I am sorry but-----

Hold on. I am the Chairman. There is no reason that the Deputy cannot say anything he wishes but, in fairness to our guests, that is what I asked them to comment on. Whatever criticisms the Deputy might have of what they said is his opinion. However, they are here in good faith. I am happy to stand over my invitation to them to come here in that context. I said to them outside that we want a constructive engagement. That means the Deputy can make his points but we also need to concentrate on how to ensure things change. That is what the meeting is about.

Fair enough. I do not mean anything personal. It is the institutions and the policy that make me angry.

I just thought I should point that out.

It is 25 years of frustration.

Mr. Michael Nolan

May I respond at some stage?

Of course.

Mr. Michael Nolan

I should get a chance to respond on the issue of my leadership. I thought that comment was personal. I object to that. It is out of context and unbalanced. As the Chairman said, there was a finite set of issues to be dealt with today. I am dealing with those.

Yes, and fairly, properly and appropriately. I ask Deputy Eamon Ryan to withdraw any inference regarding our guests.

The Deputy should also withdraw the inference about people not cycling. He does not know anything about the means by which our guests travelled here. It is unfair to berate them like that. I accept the Deputy's concerns but we should keep it constructive and positive, not personal.

I do not mean to be personal. It is the institutional policy leadership based on what I have been presented with here, which is the continuing investment in motorway upgrades on the approaches to the city in response to the congestion problem in the city. What is presented as the response is not the right response. It is that leadership-----

In fairness, I asked them to do that.

Mr. Michael Nolan

We are working within a statutory remit for a safe and efficient national road network. That is one side. There are many incidents on those routes into Dublin. Anybody who travels along the M4 can see 20 to 30 breaks in the median. People are coming into queues and are rear-ending. There are also bottlenecks in the system. It is inefficient and unsafe. I understand that the lack of investment in public transport over many years is having an impact on what we do. However, I am still charged with the statutory remit of a safe and efficient national road network. I cannot get away from that. That is what I am doing and what I am leading.

I wish to finish my points. My frustration is due to the fact that if we went the alternative route and invested in cycling, as Deputy Troy said, with a high-quality, first-class network of cycling superhighways in and around the city, it would do more than anything else to tackle the congestion problem. In all journeys from the centre of the city to a distance of 4 km a bicycle will be fastest. Any journey from here to the M50 is within that distance or has that timeline of a half an hour cycle ride. We could transform the congestion problem by investing in that network but, as Deputy Troy said, the opposite is happening. The budget is collapsing and there are no projects ready to go. There is no leadership in that area.

Second, I agree with what Deputy Lahart said. There should be massive investment in the bus network. Take the example of his route, the No. 15. My concern is that the statistics show that bus patronage on the Rathfarnham QBC fell 4.6% last year. Bus speeds are stuck at 10 km/h, and have been that way for ever and a day. We have been looking at that route for 20 years and wondering how to solve it. My personal view is that the metro should go to Rathfarnham. It would transform that corridor. I fully support the BusConnects project but I have some fears. Can Mr. Creegan say, in advance of the presentation being launched in June, how we can solve the QBC problem on the Rathfarnham route when the section from Rathfarnham Road through Terenure Road North and Harold's Cross is a 9 m wide carriageway all the way? There are all sorts of complications with left and right turning junctions and a very difficult Terenure junction. I am frustrated because we are not recognising the scale of the crisis we face and the need for radical solutions for cycling and public transport. That would include the DART underground today, whereas it has been ruled out of the metro project. It appears to have been ruled out for ever because no space is being provided for the DART underground station in St. Stephen's Green. We are taking another 25-year leap ahead here and saying that we are not going to have that proper system.

We should bring the metro to Rathfarnham and upgrade the Luas green line by increasing frequency times and other measures. Let us be radical about cycling in the city. However, I do not hear or see that and that is the reason for my frustration and anger. It mirrors the anger and frustration of people stuck in their cars and people who-----

That is why this meeting is taking place.

I am very glad.

I want to make sure that we do not just talk about it today but that we get outcomes that are predictable, make sense and will work.

I wish to make a point I raised some months ago when we were discussing College Green. I said at the time that we need to look at something that is less reactive and more proactive. I keep quoting the same statistics regarding where the growth has happened.

I welcome the fact it was said we might come back in a number of weeks and look at it in a different way. My thinking on this meeting is not about the elements but about the strategic approach.

When I proposed the meeting, there was nobody here apart from one member. The witnesses are here based on the decision we made then and that was the mandate they have here today, with respect to them. The whole idea is that we now have a discussion on the ideas that were put forward and, obviously, the witnesses want to respond very strongly to some of the points. After that, we have to bring in the Minister. Hopefully, we can prepare a report on this over a short period in order to push the change that is needed. I agree with Deputy Eamon Ryan that we need radical solutions, and there is no doubt about that.

The witnesses might wish to respond to the questions. If issues arise with regard to any individual issue, they can discuss those if they wish.

Mr. Michael Nolan

There were many questions. I welcome the debate and the robustness of the exchanges. It is good for us to hear this. We have been working under severe constraints for the past eight or nine years, which was not our fault or of our making. We are probably in catch-up mode on many different fronts.

I welcome the comment of Senator Feighan that things have improved in the College Green area. He also asked what capacity improvements we can bring to the M50. We have made considerable effort in the past ten years to improve the capacity and safety of the M50 but we are at a point where we just cannot keep building out the M50. I do not think that going to four lanes or five lanes in each direction is tenable. We must keep in mind that, at the time the M50 upgrade was mooted and there was a hearing, there was a whole series of public transport initiatives in Transport 21 that were supposed to come into play and be delivered and executed at around this time, but they have not happened. It was not the case that the M50 was a single solution to traffic ills along that corridor; it was one of a range of solutions. It just so happens that we managed to execute the Government's vision of the time, upgrade the M50, remove the toll plaza and move to free-flow tolling.

I agree with Senator Feighan that one would have to be in Dublin by 7 a.m. to have an efficient journey and would need to leave early or, otherwise, leave around 7 p.m. in the evening. I empathise with those coming from the west but that is the reality of what is happening because of congestion. Due to the economic upturn of the past two or three years, every second car on the M4 is a commercial vehicle, such as a white van working in the construction industry. There was a comment that construction traffic has not lifted yet but I believe construction traffic has been quite buoyant in the last three years. There has been significant commercial development within the city core and a lot of traffic is heading into the city, not just on the M50 but using the M50 to distribute along different radial routes.

With regard to park and ride, and the M4 is an example, there are a number of opportunities. Drivers can pull in at Mullingar, Enfield or Maynooth and get a train, and there is ample parking at those locations. Nonetheless, the M4 does not have a park and ride facility such as at the Red Cow roundabout on the M50, which is a fantastic facility that has been well used.

With regard to the capacity that exists in the port tunnel, the charges are set to prevent unnecessary traffic coming into the city at peak times. It is a man management measure in its own right, and it works. The tunnel has considerable capacity. Where we do not have the capacity is in the receiving street network in the centre of Dublin. It is fine heading north, as anyone who uses that route on a daily basis will appreciate, but-----

Sorry to interrupt. Are the charges not the same for cars coming out of the city at peak times? I am not talking about reducing the charges to help bring people in more quickly. Is it not the same prohibitive charge-----

Mr. Michael Nolan

I accept the Deputy's point but that would just attract more cars from East Wall and along the Merrion Road into that narrow corridor. It is not so much about getting into the tunnel and getting out; it is about getting to that point. The official toll charge that was originally set in the by-laws was something like €13.90 and there were time bands and shoulder periods to the peak times. We then simplified that and reduced the charges to a €3 trip and a €10 trip but, since the upturn, although we do not know the exact figure, we find there has been a substantial increase in the number of cars using it to come into the city at peak times.

On that point, I use the port tunnel a lot and it often does not recognise the tag, which causes delays. This also happens at the other toll at the River Liffey crossing, so it is significant. Drivers are waving their numbers out at toll operators every day, believe it or not.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

My tag stopped being recognised at toll plazas some weeks ago. I got in touch with my tag provider and it issued me with a new tag.

The tag works everywhere else except there. I have to come right up to the barrier.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

The Chairman could take it up with eFlow.

It is a serious issue. It is not just happening to me because there are rows there every morning, often in particular lanes. I always find that, around 8 a.m., someone has to reverse out and there is a row because one of the supervisors has to come across. It is not just me.

Mr. Michael Nolan

I take the point.

Mr. Nigel O'Neill

If the Chairman is happy to give me details on that-----

I am not happy because-----

Mr. Michael Nolan

If you are happy to give me some details on it, we will look into that.

I already left the details on the wonderful voice messaging system for concerns about tolling and nobody ever got back to me, even though I repeated the message a number of times and left my number. Maybe they did not see who it was, which is just as well. However, there is a problem.

Mr. Michael Nolan

We will look into that.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

To deal with the issue of park and ride, which was raised by Senator Feighan and others, within the transport strategy there is a network of park and ride sites that we have to develop. I will repeat what I said in my statement. It was an issue of funding and we have not been able to deliver them up to now. However, over the next few years we will have to deliver them and there is additional funding available to do it.

One of the other problems we have is that while park and ride close to a rail system is fine because people get on the train, which is very reliable and attractive, if it is bus-based park and ride where there is no rail service, unless there is bus priority to that location, it does not become attractive. There is a connection with the BusConnects project. There is no use in us putting a park and ride at a location where somebody is as quick driving in as we can offer them in a bus. We need to do better than that.

With regard to Deputy Rock's question on the Luas to Finglas, I can confirm it is our intention with TII next year, when we get over the resource constraints we have with MetroLink at the moment, to start the design and planning phase of the Luas to Finglas in order to select a route and get that route protected through the development plan process. However, the actual delivery of the project, as the Deputy knows, is not included in the current development plan. Our intention is to get a route selected and protected, free from development, and it will then be ready to go at a point in the future.

Once we have that route protected, it would then be a matter for the Department of Finance and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to allocate funding additional to the current envelope, if I am not mistaken, and we could then proceed from there.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

If extra funding was provided to deliver it, nobody is going to turn down the delivery.

The Deputy also asked about co-ordination between Dublin Bus and the BusConnects project. It is worth saying that Dublin Bus has been an integral part of the redesign of the bus services.

The design team, the NTA and Dublin Bus have collaboratively and co-operatively worked though the redesign, which we are going to put out to public consultation in July. It is not that this is being done separately. We will be looking for them to operate this system as soon as we implement it.

Dublin Bus operates services under a contract with the National Transport Authority. Under statute we have responsibility for the provision of public transport and any changes need to be planned and implemented as required.

If there is a request for a meeting there is no reason it cannot go ahead.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

Absolutely not. On occasion it may require a meeting with ourselves and we will facilitate that.

Mr. Michael Nolan

Deputy Rock mentioned the 30% increase in congestion on the M50 and spoke of the legislative aspects of it. He also asked how we could speed it up. One of the critical factors in getting the initiative across the line is the need to have a safe system for our customers. It might bring a dividend in terms of capacity but that is a minor point. The main point is a safe operating environment for our customers. A variable speed limit would require a legislative amendment. Mr. Maher will speak about the factors that dictate the timeline, whether it is next year or early 2020.

Mr. Pat Maher

On the proposed intervention in respect of the M50, the application of variable speed limits and lane control are primarily driven by considerations of safety and operation. There is a small capacity bonus but that is not the primary objective. We have to have realistic expectations in respect of capacity. There has been an increase of more than 30% and when collisions happen the implications for journey times are very severely impacted. Variable speed limits are a well used technique in other jurisdictions and we are unique in not having a provision for variable speed limits on our motorways.

Apart from the Dublin Port tunnel, we do not use a red X control but, from a safety perspective, red X is very important, particularly for emergency services operatives. We always envisaged deploying this technology on the M50 and under all the big gantry structures there is a latticework with slots for electronic indicators to be made available. One of the advantages of having done this during the M50 upgrade is that we do not have to go back and cause significant disruption to road users while we are implementing the process. We do not have variable speed limits in our legislation at the moment but it is being addressed. We have been in consultation with the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport on the matter and the timeline is by late 2019 to dovetail with the deployment of the technology out on the route.

I note Deputy Eamon Ryan's comments about the M50 but there is no silver bullet. The measures we are taking are not a panacea. They flow from from the demand management report, published in 2014 and mandated in the planning approval by An Bord Pleanála for the M50 scheme in 2005. They are important measures but they will not fundamentally change the traffic characteristics of the M50. There was some discussion on fiscal measures, such as multipoint tolling, but ultimately these matters will have to be the subject of policy decisions by the Government and other policy makers.

When he was Minister for Transport, the Taoiseach made it clear he would not agree to multitolling so, as Deputy Lahart said, we can forget about that.

Mr. Michael Nolan

For clarity, in my opening statement I said it was something we were not pursuing at the moment.

Mr. Nolan did, however, mention it.

Mr. Michael Nolan

The Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, also mentioned it.

It was not mandated by the inspector. The 2014 demand management report did not fulfil the inspector's conditions as set out in the initial report.

Mr. Pat Maher

Deputy Troy is right that rush hour and peak time on the M50 have spread to six hours, three hours in the morning and three in the evening. People are leaving earlier and going home later. I agree that people are being robbed of their time. Many studies have shown that ten minutes in traffic reduces social interaction by ten minutes and it is highly costly in terms of people's time and productivity. This means people are already paying on the M50, but with their time and with productivity.

There was a question about resistance to availing of funding, despite low interest rates. With Government approval, over the past four or five years we have progressed a lot of infrastructural projects with very low-interest loans through public private partnership processes. There was a stimulus package of four schemes in 2017 and 2018, including the New Ross bypass and in Gorey and Enniscorthy, where we availed of private sector funding at fairly low interest rates at a time when there was no other avenue for raising funds.

I asked the question specifically in relation to public transport, not road infrastructure.

Mr. Pat Maher

I am sorry. I misunderstood the question.

Can Mr. Nolan outline what the statutory responsibilities of his agency are? Can he comment on service level agreements and on how he engages in an official capacity with other key stakeholders?

Mr. Michael Nolan

Under the Roads Act we are responsible for maintaining a safe and efficient national road network and that is our primary responsibility in regard to roads. Under the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act 2001 we have a function in respect of public transport infrastructure to secure provision of and provide such light rail and metro infrastructure as may be determined by the Minister or where a proposed infrastructure is within the greater Dublin area, subject to the consent of the NTA prior to the making of a railway or road application. We have a special relationship with the NTA, which is essentially the authority for roads. We execute, and deliver and operate infrastructure.

TII works through the NTA in respect of light rail but it is its own boss in the provision of road infrastructural projects.

Mr. Michael Nolan

Absolutely, but I must make it clear that we work very closely with our local authority partners. The local authorities are the roads authorities for the functional area. We work closely with them. We provide the funding and the directional division, and we prioritise what is rolled out.

There is no service level agreement between the two or anything official.

Mr. Michael Nolan

We have an agreement between us. I will ask Mr. Creegan to speak to that.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

I will start with our functions. We are responsible for strategic planning of transport across the greater Dublin area, to secure the provision of public transport infrastructure and to provide public transport services on that infrastructure. We have other responsibilities, including taxi regulation and vehicle clamping but I will leave those to one side for this meeting. In securing public transport infrastructure, the legislation is geared so that we do the strategic planning and are then required to implement heavy rail projects as far as possible through Irish Rail, light rail and metro projects through Transport Infrastructure Ireland, and other projects through the local authority system. We are meant to do the strategic planning and give it oversight but generally leave the delivery to other agencies, although there are exceptions.

That goes to the issue of whether there is a need for one person who would be accountable for all of these issues in the greater Dublin area. Corporately, they meet as different bodies but who is responsible? The bodies each do their job very well but is no one saying that it needs to change? Is anyone knocking heads together?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

Our roles are clear. We are banishing the roles that we have.

Of all the good points made by people today, who will take them up and ensure that they will be delivered?

Mr. Michael Nolan

Once they are in the public transport and sustainable transport area, we accept that we are responsible for that. Transport Infrastructure Ireland will deal with the roads issues and the delivery of the light rail projects. We are very clear about which of us does what.

Where do local authorities come in?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

On schemes which we look to have implemented, we fund them and provide oversight if it is in the sustainable transport remit.

Should the two organisations be a single organisation? Would that make sense? It seems to me that only one organisation is needed there.

Does the strategic planning of public transport include land use planning or what role do local authorities play in that?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

It is strategic planning of transport in full, not just public transport. We publish the transport strategy for the greater Dublin area, which becomes the plan for the next while. We do not have responsibility for land use planning. The Deputy is correct that the integration between land use, planning and transport is critical. Whatever good one does on one side, if they do not do the same on the other, one gets nowhere. However, we do not have land use responsibility.

I have a related question. Mr. Creegan says that he is responsible for overall strategic transport planning but as we have heard today the road section is the responsibility of Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII. The National Transport Authority, NTA, has responsibility for public transport but not for roads. I return to my central point that we are tackling congestion in Dublin by widening all the approach roads. Who signs off on that strategic decision? Who is responsible for the strategy where the next ten years will be in road-widening on the approach roads? Does the National Transport Authority think that is a good strategy for tackling Dublin's transport problems?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

I do not think that Dublin's congestion is being addressed exclusively by widening the roads. Under the national development plan, there will be massive investment in public transport. The three big projects are MetroLink, DART expansion and the BusConnects project. We see those three as being the main components to address congestion in the Dublin area. Nevertheless, there are needs in the area of roads that cannot be ignored, and both parts need to be advanced. The bulk of the effort in tackling congestion falls on the shoulders of public transport.

According to Transport Infrastructure Ireland, all the investment in the next ten years is in road widening of approach roads.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

That is not at all what Mr. Nolan said.

That is what it says here in the document I have before me.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

That is just a summary.

Mr. Michael Nolan

That is just a summary of the schemes that are going through a pre-appraisal process. In my opening statement, I said that some of the schemes may go to construction in the current ten year plan and some may not, we are not sure yet. As an example of co-operation and our working relationship with the NTA, we completed an M11 and N11 corridor study with the local authorities and the NTA in April 2017. We identified a range of transport solutions for the problem along the N11 corridor, it was not only upgrading the roadway which is really inefficient. Anyone coming up from the direction of Wicklow or heading towards Wexford knows what the N11 is like from Kilmacanogue. It is really unsafe. There is a 60 kph speed limits on the dual carriageway section because of legacy planning issues. We are improving that road but in the context of a broad range of public transport and road transport initiatives over a long period. That is an example. We will work with the NTA on the N4 when it is past pre-appraisal. We do not engage in road upgrade projects in isolation of public transport initiatives. Mr. Creegan might speak about the N11. We co-operated for about 18 months on that.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

Just to reiterate, none of us is saying that building roads is the solution to addressing congestion. We all accept that it is not. Both organisations are working to deal with transport in the best way possible. Public transport will be the main vehicle to cure congestion. However, there are areas where road improvements are required and we cannot ignore them. We have a close working relationship. Where road measure is the appropriate solution, we should not deny it and say "do not do that", and equally when a public transport measure is the appropriate solution, TII does not deny it, it supports it. That is how we co-operate.

I will finish this point as it is critical. No one disagrees about roads investment for safety and so on, however, let us look at what is happening in the next ten years. There is BusConnects but we will widen the blackspot at Kilmacanogue which will increase the volume of traffic coming from Wexford and Wicklow into Dublin. We will widen the Naas to Newbridge -----

Mr. Michael Nolan

We are not going to widen the road at Kilmacanogue. We are going to remove all the disparate, dangerous access points where all the accidents happen along Kilmacanogue into a dedicated lane that is not on the dual carriageway. It remains two lanes in each direction. It is not a widening. I stress that we are trying to tidy up legacy issues and junctional arrangements on the N11. It is a combination of initiatives.

To be fair to the witness, we know he refers to access between Bray and Kilmacanogue - I have travelled that way myself, and know it well - but we did not have this on the agenda for today's meeting.

The reason I asked the question about the specific roles and responsibilities was because when we had the issue about the delays being experienced at College Green, TII was responsible for the light rail, Dublin Bus was involved in timetabling, Dublin City Council was involved in where the bus stops could be located and the NTA was involved in rerouting. Those are four bodies, and I am sure that there are more. The Taxi Federation will say that it also wants a role. There are five different State agencies. I want to know from the witnesses what their responsibilities were and whether there is a structure in place in terms of a service level agreement relating to how the organisations deal with each other.

The witnesses were not here on the last day the other groups came before the committee when there was an element of one blaming the other, along the lines that If someone had done this before we would not have this problem today. There should be somebody with overarching responsibility to co-ordinate the groups. As my colleague said earlier, that might be a policy decision that needs to be taken but we do need somebody with whom the buck stops.

Absolutely. That is a matter that we might bring the Minister in to discuss.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

Aside from the Minister, we are happy to say that we are responsible for public transport and most of those interface issues.

We were not at that hearing. Had we been here, we probably could have dealt with some of those issues. Many of those things fall into our ambit and we are not going to deny responsibility for them for a minute.

Why was an application not submitted to An Bord Pleanála on time? It could have adjudicated on the College Green plaza in advance of the opening of the rail network there. Why did it take such time? A third of bus routes went into College Green after the Luas cross city opened. Why was adequate preparation not done in advance and why was that decision not taken before rather than after?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

There are a number of factors. It is not an easy question to answer. It was expected that An Bord Pleanála's decision would have come out in advance of the-----

It did not come out in time.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

There was a change in the legislation and an environmental impact assessment, EIS, had to be changed to what is called an environmental impact assessment report. That took time.

I am sorry but the Luas did not spring up like a mushroom overnight.

Let the witness answer.

This was in preparation since 2008 and 2009. Adequate preparation was not done. I know we are not concentrating on that today but it was a great failing. Too many cooks are spoiling the broth at the moment.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

That is fine.

We are at the interface of that pot or furnace. Does Mr. Nolan wish to add anything or move on to Deputy Munster's points?

Mr. Michael Nolan

May I go on to Deputy Munster's points?

Yes, of course.

Mr. Michael Nolan

Deputy Munster asked about options we may have looked at to lower car usage on the M50. We would love to lower car usage. A broad range of public transport initiatives could be brought to bear. Mr. Creegan also mentioned investment in park and ride. We could take monetary measures to lower car usage. Cities in Europe and far and wide were mentioned. They have taxed cars out of using the networks. Singapore has done that and made a major reduction. The use of public transport there is now up to 50%. It was made highly undesirable to bring cars into the city by taxing cars out of existence. That is not a decision for us - it would be a poisonous decision.

I refer also to mulitpoint tolling. It is not on the agenda but it is one way of lowering car usage. The M50 is 44 km or 42 km long and there are 14 or 15 junctions. That is one every 2.5 km. Those are feeder channels for the M50 and are a legacy of pre-TII and pre-NRA days. The M25 in London is 190 km long. It has 30 junctions. I looked at that at 8 a.m. After it was opened, a third, fourth and then a fifth lane had to be added. This morning - like the M50 - it was still mostly all red on Google maps. London built its way out of it and still its equivalent of our M50 is all red. The committee will agree that London has a good public transport system. Even during the downturn, massive investment was made and it is improving every year.

How do we lower car usage then? We could close off some of the junctions but there are so many ways of lowering car usage not in our remit. We have one junction every 2.5 km, while the M25 in London has one junction every 6 km. London has almost 10 million people inside that M25 box; Dublin has about 1 million people inside the M50 box. I do not have the exact number. We have three lanes in each direction. If we did not have the lag in public transport investment over the last ten years, perhaps we would be having a different conversation today. I agree with Deputy Eamon Ryan that public transport in the greater Dublin area is a solution as we cannot just keep building out on the M50.

On guaranteeing that seven trams are sufficient now that the Luas green and red lines are operating satisfactorily, it important to say that we do not just have seven trams coming into operation in a few weeks. We have also issued an order for the upgrade of 26 of the shorter trams to bring them to the same length as our new trams. We will have 26 of those elongated trams on the network between the end of 2019 and the start of 2021. We also have an order for eight new long trams as well. It is not that we think that seven trams are sufficient. A big investment has been approved by the Government to progress that. As ridership will be built up over a number of years, we will be bringing in measures to deal with capacity issues that will keep growing.

I will add that if we look internationally, many light rail systems suffer from underuse. We have the opposite in Dublin. What we predict is delivered. We had a step change increase in December when the Luas cross city opened and two lines connected. That should have been done years ago. However, we can see where the uptick on that connected system came into being. We do not suffer from a lack of Irish usage. It is a well used system. From the end of 2019 to the middle of 2021, we will have more new and modified trams coming in. As for how we will pay for metro north and whether it will be passed over to a concessionary or private operator, I will hand that question over to Mr. Creegan.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

It is intended that the MetroLink project will be funded by the Exchequer. A final decision will be made at a later stage but that is the current way we are advancing the project. At the moment, we do not envisage the tunnels, the stations or a big part of the project will be privately funded.

Could Mr. Creegan repeat that last part?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

We do not envisage that big parts of the projects - the tunnels and the stations - will be privately funded. Exchequer funding is currently in place.

While Mr. Creegan is here - and apologies if I missed it - will he comment on the lack of funding and what he envisages?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

In round terms, we published a transport strategy some years ago that had a rough cost of the measures in it. That was around €20 billion. From our point of view, that meant average funding of €500 million a year was required. We have not got to that funding level yet. However, under budget 2018 and the new national development plan, those funding levels are being provided. Sustainable transport also gets funding of €8.6 billion in the national development plan and that will allow us to accomplish much. We did have a deficit but thankfully we seem to be moving in the right direction and getting significant funding to allow many of these things to happen.

With that funding, how long does Mr. Creegan envisage it will take to get Dublin's public transport system up to a standard that is on a par with other European cities?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

We have to be patient. We suffered-----

Does he think it will be done by 2040?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

It will be well in advance of that but it will not happen overnight. It is going to take a number of years. The national development plan is up to 2027. At that stage, we are meant to have MetroLink completed, BusConnects completed and the expansion of the Dart completed. Those are three big things that will make an enormous difference. Over the next decade we will see massive change occurring. It will not be next year. It will take a number of years.

It will not be 2027 either before we can see that same standard in transport provision.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

I do not see why not.

Mr. Creegan is confident.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

I am confident we will have a much better public transport system by 2027, if the funding continues to flow and these projects get delivered.

Will Mr. Creegan comment on the Go-Ahead contract?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

The reason I put that down as a capacity enhancement is that the Go-Ahead services will commence in the third quarter of this year. They will bring approximately 300 new drivers into the system. All the Dublin Bus drivers will still be there and when September comes, we will have more drivers available to drive more routes.

We are investing in more buses. This year, 140 buses are being purchased. For Deputy Munster's information, the steady-state replacement rate - in other words, what one needs to replace year on year - for Dublin Bus is approximately 80 buses. We are purchasing 140 this year in total. In answer to Deputy Troy's question, we have actually purchased in excess of the steady-state replacement rate for the past number of years. Last year, I think 102 or 110-----

How many buses went out of service? After 12 years, a number of buses go out of service.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

Correct. As the steady-state replacement rate is 80, in theory about 80 buses each year should go out of service and 80 buses should be added in to replace those. However, we have gone above 80 for the reason to which Deputy Troy alluded, that is, to add capacity into the system. For the past number of years, more than 100 buses have been provided to Dublin Bus. This year, between Go-Ahead and Dublin Bus, 140 buses are coming into the system, which is about 60 buses above the steady-state replacement rate. Therefore, the fleet is growing and investment is now there to provide extra vehicles if required. Come September, we will have extra vehicles and extra drivers. It will not all happen overnight but the Deputies will see some improvements and additional services and frequencies on the bus routes after the contract commences.

Will there be a change to bus routes-----

Mr. Hugh Creegan

I will hand over to Mr. Tim Gaston for that question, if the Deputy does not mind.

-----as part of the contract?

Mr. Tim Gaston

The contract with Go-Ahead picks the 21 services that were identified in the contract with Dublin Bus, so it will operate those on very similar alignments. There will be some improvements to the timetables. We will run later in the evening and will run increased frequencies but run essentially the same routes with one new route that Go-Ahead will operate. Everything else will be identical. The bus will be the same bar the livery. The Leap card ticketing system will work exactly as is, as will real-time passenger information and everything else. There will be a step change with Go-Ahead because of the Government commitment that was made that no driver will be required to leave Dublin Bus. These are additional services. We are working with Dublin Bus to deploy those drivers and vehicles once the Go-Ahead contract comes into place to enhance services across a wide range of other bus services.

Deputy O'Keeffe wishes to make a comment.

I wish to ask the TII, is the outer orbital ring road still being considered?

Mr. Michael Nolan

We conducted a study between 2005 and 2007, I think, on the outer orbital route, or Dublin outer orbital route, as it was called at one stage, to examine its usefulness. We carried out forward planning to see whether it could be a viable option that would perhaps have to go into the county development plans to preserve the route in the various different authorities. We made a submission to the Department in this regard and that is where it rests. However, as for the Dublin outer orbital route alleviating-----

Mr. Michael Nolan

-----congestion on the M50, as I mentioned earlier, there are 16 junctions on the M50. I think the average journey is between one and two junctions. Most people hop on and hop off; very few go from end to end. I think only about 4% of traffic coming out by the airport actually does the full route and gets onto the N11. Therefore, if one were to build an outer orbital route 20 km further out west, one would not attract that 4%. It would not make a difference. That 4% probably originates between south of where the outer orbital meets the N1 over to the N7. One may create another economic zone, and who knows what that would look like, but we do not see that as a rescue for the situation of the M50. However, that report was done, we have a very wide corridor, and local authorities are preserving that route for some time in the future. In ten, 20 or 30 years' time, perhaps there will be a need for a greater orbital route away from Dublin to create a counterbalancing corridor but it is definitely not on our radar at present.

On that point, would we be talking about the outer orbital route suggested some years ago from Gormanston around by Naas?

Mr. Michael Nolan

Even further up. It was up from Drogheda-----

Mr. Michael Nolan

Sorry. Drogheda, yes.

The reason Gormanston was proposed at the time was that there was to be a new port there, but I would certainly accept it from Drogheda. Mr. Nolan can say that again out loud.

Mr. Michael Nolan

It was to dock south of Drogheda.

I will put that in my election literature. I am sorry, Deputy Munster, but Mr. Nolan said it to me first.

I hope it is not on the same list as the park-and-ride facilities and everything else we are waiting for.

The question I had asked about the Go-Ahead contract was what improvements are envisaged? In his response, Mr. Gaston said it would be pretty much an identical service. The question still stands: what improvement can be gained by privatising the service? If it is an identical service, as he said, with just one additional route, why was the decision taken to privatise the service?

Mr. Pat Maher

The decision to tender was taken for a number of reasons. First, we wanted to test the market so we could see what alternative provisions there might be and what different approaches could be taken by other operators coming in. Second, we needed to test the market by way of cost so we could stack up against the direct award contract we had with Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann to see how those compared. Third, we wanted to look at the quality of the service and see if a new operator could bring in additional quality features. The tendering process produced Go-Ahead for the Dublin services. It has yet to start operating but will be operational later this year. Through this contract we intend to measure quality measures and customer satisfaction measures stringently. We also do mystery shopping and so on in order that we can see whether there are ways of providing a better service for the same spend or whether there are ways of providing the service for better value for money for the customer. The actual service patterns and service deliveries will stay the same because, as Mr. Creegan has already mentioned, the major plans for Dublin will be BusConnects and changing the network and the redesign that will be taken out to consultation shortly. That is what will really bring a major difference to the bus network in Dublin, and Go-Ahead and Dublin Bus will both obviously be heavily involved in the delivery and implementation of that new network.

I ask Mr. Maher to be brief but specific as well. He referred to testing the market, the cost and additional quality features. Will he name, under each of the headings he mentioned, including cost and additional quality features, the improvements TII found in Go-Ahead, as opposed to our current service, when TII tested the market, given that he said the service will be identical?

Mr. Pat Maher

I will not go into detail on cost because that was commercially sensitive information provided by both Dublin Bus and Go-Ahead. However, I will refer to the quality aspects - for example, how Go-Ahead will manage reliability. For a bus service, it is absolutely crucial, from the customer's point of view, first that the bus turns up and, second, that it turns up on time. Go-Ahead is bringing alternative approaches as to how it will manage this. We do not know yet how successful it will be.

That is probably a poor example, given it is not the bus driver's fault that he does not get from A to B, but the fault of traffic congestion and all the other problems Mr. Maher knows about. What specific guarantee does Go-Ahead give on reliability that TII thought was an improvement?

Mr. Pat Maher

What Go-Ahead brought in its tender, as did other providers, was an approach to how it would manage that whole process at an operational level. It remains to be seen how well that will work in the context of Dublin. This is why we took 10% into the market. We will see how Go-Ahead performs and-----

Mr. Maher referred to reliability, buses turning up on time and so on. What specific decision in this regard was the basis on which TII made the decision to go with Go-Ahead? What did it produce that said to TII that it would guarantee that reliability?

Mr. Pat Maher

It produced a number of different measures in its tender submission as to how it would operate the network, manage drivers' rosters, manage the vehicles and vehicles maintenance down to details such as lost property, dealing with delays and dealing with incidents on the road. All of this was taken as a package, assessed and considered to give the quality we were looking for. That contract has been awarded to Go-Ahead and we will monitor very closely how it performs when it gets up and running.

Mr. Maher mentioned lost property and incidents on the roads-----

Hold on a second, Deputy.

I asked the question so I would like a response.

I am the Chairman.

I do not see what lost property has to do with reliability.

I ask the Deputy to listen for a moment. In fairness to the witness, this is not what he is here to talk about as such. As far as I am concerned, we are talking about Dublin traffic issues. Specific contracts are a different issue, and I appreciate Mr. Maher is doing his best to answer the Deputy.

Mr. Maher said Go-Ahead is an improvement. I am merely asking on what basis he found this improvement. He said reliability was one of those issues, and I asked whether he could be definitive.

If it is helpful to the Deputy, I was going to suggest that presumably, the matrix on which the points were awarded between the different companies in the making of the evaluation is something TII should have.

I do not see how it will help us in dealing with the issue of traffic congestion in Dublin, however. I just wanted to answer the Deputy's question without being-----

That is what I am saying. The point made was that it would be an improvement. I am asking-----

The Deputy was asking. That is fair enough.

-----what the improvement was in the context of reliability. The subject of lost goods was mentioned.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

I said in my statement that there was an improvement. The core point is that is delivers additional drivers and vehicles by virtue of the fact that all the Dublin Bus drivers and vehicles would still be available in addition to what is being provided by Go-Ahead. When the two are put together, there are more drivers and vehicles so we will be able to provide more services. That is the enhancement the region is getting.

We could not do that through our own public transport system.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

Sorry?

Did Mr. Creegan not believe it was worthwhile investing in our own public transport system as opposed to outsourcing?

I want to move on to constructive engagement here. The fact is that there was an open competition and the contract was awarded fairly, openly and transparently. If one won, one won, and if one did not, one did not. I call Deputy Rock, who wanted to ask a question.

I am questioning the improvement. Clearly, there is nothing much-----

I have a supplementary question on a point of practicality. Mr. Gaston mentioned that real-time passenger information will be used in the same way it is used by Dublin Bus. Real-time passenger information is a platform, the most used manifestation of it being the Dublin Bus app. Will we be able to gain access on the Dublin Bus app to timetable information for the 17A, for example, which will be operated by Go-Ahead? It seems like a silly question. Will an entirely separate set-up and app be required?

Mr. Pat Maher

There is already a separate app, Transport for Ireland. It mirrors the Dublin Bus information and uses the same source information. It will carry all public transport services, including Dublin Bus and Go-Ahead, for an integrated journey or a journey using two operators. It will also work for other modes. Transport for Ireland is becoming the key app that providers will go to.

So the authority recommends the Transport for Ireland app as opposed to the Dublin Bus app. Why would Dublin Bus have its own separate app in that case?

Mr. Pat Maher

That is a commercial decision by Dublin Bus. Irish Rail has one and there is a specific one for Luas. We do not get too precious about whether they should have theirs but what we do provide is a good quality Transport For Ireland app and journey planner. We do both. The real-time app and journey planning app provide the overarching information. Increasingly, customers are moving to that because it provides for the inter-modal journey. Operators will have their own apps for their own specific services. The key point is that the source information is the same.

Exactly. Perfect.

Does Deputy Catherine Murphy wish to ask a question?

Could I have answers to the questions I posed?

I acknowledge that this has been a long meeting. I appreciate people's patience in waiting. I understand the issue but it is not my fault.

Mr. Michael Nolan

The Deputy began by talking about how congestion impedes Dublin's economic and social development and health. I completely agree with her on that. It is a major impediment. She also referred to census figures showing increases in the population in Dublin and the greater Dublin area. Large increases are occurring in the counties surrounding Dublin. That opens up a conversation about why this is happening. Nobody drives on the M50 because they like driving on it. Is it that people have to drive further to find affordable housing? There are so many considerations we need to understand. It is very hard to understand the circumstances of a single person in a car. The increase we have seen between 2012 and 2018 is not entirely attributable to the bounce in economic growth and the recovery. There is a lot more coming into play. I do not live in Dublin; I live in one of the counties outside Dublin and I know from experience that people who cannot afford accommodation in Dublin, be they students, trainees or workers, have to drive further. Driving for two to three hours each way in a car every day is not a matter of choice. This relates to Deputy Troy's point. A policy response to this and to the expansion of the greater Dublin area is not in TII's remit. I refer to the question of what other elements are driving the disproportionate increase involving the city centre at the core and the greater Dublin area counties.

This goes to the heart of the problem. When we talk about having a strategic approach, it has to be about a connection between land use and transportation planning. One has to model that. One has to be deliberate about it or else one keeps producing sprawl.

Mr. Michael Nolan

I agree with the Deputy on that.

Do the institutions or organisations need to be recalibrated to deal with that to which I refer? Outside of that, we may well be dealing with a separate range of problems in ten years because of where settlement happens.

Mr. Michael Nolan

That does not fall within my remit.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

There is a fair degree of connection between the two but it is imperfect. Between ourselves and what are now the assemblies, there is a symbiotic relationship in that when we are producing a transport strategy, they have to say it is consistent with their land use planning. When they are producing a land use plan, it has to be confirmed by us that it is consistent with our transport strategy. There is a connection set out in the planning legislation that brings us a long way down the track. That is only for the Dublin area. It does not apply outside the greater Dublin area. It might not be everything that people want it to be but it is much stronger than was the case in the past.

What counties are included in that?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

The seven counties of the greater Dublin area. There are the four Dublin counties, Westmeath, Kildare and Wicklow.

South Louth should certainly be included in light of its population growth and connection with the greater Dublin area.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

The legislation defines the greater Dublin area as just those seven counties.

I know that. If Louth County Council had a say, Louth would also be covered by the legislation. It would not accept the current position in its wisdom, believe it or not.

I had other questions.

Mr. Michael Nolan

I will address those. The Deputy asked about the cost of congestion. We carried out some studies in 2011 and 2012 but they are now somewhat out of date. It is very difficult to put a value on the cost of congestion because we do not know whether somebody who hops on and off is going to a bottle bank, work or a crèche. There is a mix. We have done calculations on the cost of an incident on the M50. An incident on the M50 causing a one-hour delay gives rise to a cost of the order of €200,000. It is quite significant. There were incidents to cause delays of two to three hours. That is a direct cost. It racks up quite quickly.

Surely there must be some evaluation of the way public transport is impeded in achieving the times it would like to achieve. Surely there are figures on productivity among the business community and the hours spent in traffic as opposed to working productively. Surely there is a mechanism for calculating those statistics when doing a cost-benefit analysis to make an investment in public transport, for example. Is this done?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

The answer is "Yes". Let me go back to the earlier question on the cost of congestion. A couple of years ago, we gave the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport some assistance in calculating or trying to monetise the cost of congestion across the Dublin region. I recall that we concluded the annual cost of congestion was from €300 million to €350 million per year but that it would rise to €2 billion by 2035 if appropriate actions were not taken. That report is probably on the website of the Department.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

It is, yes.

I had further questions, on BusConnects and considering connection points from a user's perspective.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

The Deputy mentioned DART underground a couple of times.

Also the Garda and the non-enforcement of the law at key points such as box junctions.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

I will take a few those questions. On the DART underground and DART expansion, DART expansion is included in the national development plan.

It is not stated in the plan that the tunnel will not be built. Rather, it is stated that the tunnel will follow separately. The Deputy asked for an explanation in this regard. Approximately two years ago, a business case for DART underground was carried out by Irish Rail, with the involvement of the NTA. DART underground by itself does not stack up economically, the benefits to cost ratio being only 0.8%. The reason for this is that services outside connecting areas provide the real benefits. Two big changes have occurred over the past couple of years that impacted the DART expansion and DART underground thinking, namely, the opening of the Phoenix Park tunnel, which brings trains in from the Kildare line, and the MetroLink project, which provides a direct connection to the DART system at Tara Street. There is currently no need for the DART underground tunnel. During the course of our work in this area it became evident that the vast bulk of the benefit would be derived from expansion of DART services to Drogheda and Maynooth via the Kildare line. Rather than wait for a tunnel to be built, we propose to commence electrification of those lines and purchase the fleet necessary to provide these services, following which the tunnel will be built. We do not need a tunnel to get the bulk of the benefits from this project.

Was the cost of congestion factored into the cost benefit analysis?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

Yes.

What is that cost?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

I do not know the exact cost.

Perhaps Mr. Creegan would forward the information to the committee.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

We run a transport model that identifies the time savings versus a tunnel being in place and not in place.

I welcome the proposed electrification of some of those lines. Are there constraints in the city centre that reduce the benefit in this regard?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

Yes.

Is it optimum to proceed in this particular way?

It is about changing the signalling.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

Yes. I do not want to misrepresent the situation. The tunnel will be a great addition but we do not need it to get most of the benefits from the overall project. The Deputy is correct that there are signalling constraints through the city centre. A couple of years ago, the number of trains that could cross from Connolly Station to Tara Street via the Loopline Bridge was restricted to 12 per hour in each direction. Following on from the re-signalling work carried out, this has increased to 17 or 18 per hour in each direction. There are changes that we would have to make to the city centre rail system to make this work. For example, we will have to reorientate parts of Connolly Station to make it function more efficiently and as the Docklands Station is not in the most useful of locations we will have to relocate it to a better place, in respect of which we have a location in mind. There are other changes that will need to be carried out at the rail junctions along the line to make the lines operate more efficiently. We have done sufficient work to be confident that we can get the majority of the benefits out of the system much earlier by proceeding with the bi-mode fleet, including a diesel-electric fleet, electrification and changes to the signalling. We can then follow with the tunnel. We do not need to wait for the tunnel to reap the benefits of this project.

Is there a speed constraint in regard to the Phoenix Park route?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

Yes, but I do not know that speed off the top of my head. It is a slower journey. I agree it is not as optimal as building a tunnel and providing a faster route but the cost of building the tunnel is estimated to be approximately €2 billion. I think people would welcome a DART service every ten minutes out to the Kildare line. That is our ambition. Even if this journey takes ten minutes longer than would be the case if there was a tunnel in place it is still a massive benefit for the travelling public. This is what we aim to deliver.

Mr. Creegan mentioned that the Docklands Station is not in an ideal location. What is the proposed new location?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

We would like to move the Docklands station closer to Spencer Dock and the Luas line. This location is in the heart of the Docklands and it would allow some train users to avail of the tram to get to another destination. The current location is not serving the Docklands well and it does not connect well with other transport. In moving it further south we can get more people into the Docklands area and also connect with the light rail system there.

Perhaps Mr. Creegan will respond to my point on BusConnects.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

I agree with all that the Deputy had to say in regard to BusConnects. Principles such as short waiting times, good facilities in regard to interchange, bus shelters and so on are at the heart of what we are trying to do in redesigning the network of services. It is important to point out that the redesigned network plan, which will be published at the beginning of July, provides for more bus services across the regions. This is not about a reduction in bus services. It is about additional bus services and a more efficient system. Most people will gain but there will be people who will be upset because the routes will not be as they were previously. Nevertheless, the design of the system is such that there will be a lot more orbital services. Currently, a lot of people have to come into the city centre to transfer to a radial route. If the new design is implemented, people will have greater options to travel orbitally around the centre of the city. They will no longer have to come into the centre of the city to transfer to services to outer suburbs.

Will the key radial services remain in place?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

Yes. They will not change. The redesigned network plan will be published at the beginning of July and we anticipate a large consultation on it. We will be seeking all the support we can get for it.

Will the consultation process include a road show in key areas and so on?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

We have not yet worked out the best way of doing the consultation. We are conscious that this is a local issue and that people at a local level want to know what services are available to them and we will have to develop our consultation to incorporate those issues. In terms of the nuts and bolts of the consultation process, I do not have answer for the Deputy.

There is a captive audience on existing buses.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

That is true, but we also want to attract new customers.

I am conscious that we have been here now for almost three hours. Would members or witnesses like to suspend for five minutes or so?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

We are happy to continue.

What relationship does the NTA have with the Garda Síochána? I note that Mr. Creegan was complimentary about the assistance provided by the Garda on the Luas. This should be an automatic function of a traffic corps in the city centre but I do not see any evidence of the traffic corps in the city centre.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

The NTA and TII have good relations with the Garda Síochána. It assists us in an enormous number of projects but it, too, is stretched in terms of resources. On enforcement at box junctions and bus lanes, we have commenced a dialogue with the Department of Transport ,Tourism and Sport on moving towards camera based enforcement, which is in place in many other jurisdictions. However, this will require legislation because currently only An Garda Síochána can prosecute on the basis of camera evidence. Under the system operated in London and other cities a local authority or transport provider can prosecute. We would like to see a camera based enforcement system in place. The Department is considering this proposal. Hopefully, it will be taken forward in due course.

I should qualify my earlier remarks by saying that I have witnessed enforcement in regard to bus lanes but not at box junctions and so on.

That is true, particularly at key junctions at peak times.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

The Deputy said that she would like radical changes in regard to cycling. I believe that BusConnects is radical for cycling. It is named BusConnects but should probably be named bus and cycling connects. The 16 radial routes to the city centre are the same routes used by cyclists to get to the city centre. We propose to deliver an integrated corridor, which takes account of the needs of the cyclist, the pedestrian, the bus user and general traffic. We are trying to ensure that we have a balanced system which will not have to be taken apart in the future because it was not planned properly. The corridor includes approximately 200 km of segregated cycling track. We believe this is transformative. It means that children and adults will have a segregated cycling route from their starting point to the city centre. Up to now, we have not had the funding.

Why was the funding cut in the past two years? At a time when the funding from the Department was increasing, the funding for cycling was cut at a time when the number of people cycling was increasing. That sends out a bad image.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

We would like to see more done on cycling. Nobody in this wold like to see more done in respect of cycling than the NTA. We distributed the funding that was available to the NTA for cycling, but we had a limited pot of money. The Luas cross city and the bus fleet had to be funded and they took a large chunk of our funding. There simply was not enough to do as much as we would like to do in cycling infrastructure. Under the new National Development Plan 2018-2027, that situation is now changing.

I do not doubt that the NTA wants to promote cycling. I agree with Mr. Creegan that the BusConnects project offers us a real opportunity to get the radial routes and hopefully some orbital routes as well, but we should not underestimate the real difficulty of that. To date we have seen, for example, on the Clontarf route the difficulty in getting that right and not giving sufficient priority to cycling in the final design. Let us look at what the design does. Even if we do that, we also need other infrastructure, which is really high quality segregated and separate to the low network cycling. A coastal cycle route on the south side would have significant benefit in terms of commuting traffic, as well as leisure and other routes. It is the same along the Grand Canal and the Dodder, Liffey, Tolka and Santry rivers. Those off-road routes are significant pieces of infrastructure and the reality is no progress is being made on those major projects. There has not been and it has stalled for five years.

I am very supportive of the BusConnects project although in certain instances, and I mentioned the Rathfarnham one, I as a local politician, just recognise the reality. The roadway is a main corridor artery and is 9 m to 10 m wide but it is proposed to put a high-quality bus route and a high-quality cycle route on either side, which will require 7 m to 8 m from the 9 m to 10 m road. All the roads are full of traffic coming from the outside where the volume is going to increase because we are further upgrading the outer road to attract people into the city. I have been fighting for this for 25 years and have been sitting down with the engineers and the design teams and I know how much design work it takes. I would take every single engineer who is working in TII on the inter-urban motorway projects on the edge of the city off those projects and would bring them into the city and get them working on that project. If that were to happen, I would say it is for real but that is not what is happening. When I talk to people on the ground and ask them if they have the engineers, draughtsmen and resources at local authority level to deliver at the absolute urgency we need, the answer is no. We are still in the old system, where our money and our engineers work on the outer urban motorways to attract traffic into Dublin and the truth is that we are not addressing the really difficult engineering problem to retrofit a bus and cycling high-quality infrastructure into a city that is the target for all these long-distance commuters who have only one choice, namely, to drive because that is the only mode we have invested in. That is why I am so frustrated.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

There is total truth in what Deputy Eamon Ryan has just said. There are two elements, one is money and the other is the resources to actually deliver. We in the NTA and the local authorities are both resource constrained. It has been a problem in the past and I hope it will get better in future but without resources and funding those things do not get delivered.

Surely the chief executive of the NTA has authority over Transport Infrastructure Ireland, in the sense the NTA has to drive the strategic plan, which is stopping the sprawl, getting back to the core, building public transport and, critically, walking and cycling because that is the forgotten solution. Why is it that TII, and it seems from the body language that TII was letting the NTA in and the NTA was not the authority? If we really want to be authoritative around the strategic decision, the NTA should take the authority and use it in the allocation of resources and take it away from some of these Dublin approach road projects and put it into the core where we need the engineers now.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

We do not have the power to do that. Both the NTA and the TII are separate agencies and we both report to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Spot. We have no power to take resources, money or personnel from TII in the same way it has no power to take resources from us. That is a level above both of the organisations and it sits with the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport.

I will take up that point. We can put questions to the Minister when he comes before us because it is a key point. I think it has the support of the members who are present at this meeting.

I have a number of questions.

Mr. Michael Nolan

I wish to respond to Deputy Eamon Ryan. Most of the staff in TII are working on public transport contracts, projects and forward planning. I have listed the projects in the appendix to my opening statement. I dealt with national roads, because we are working on them on assignment by the NTA. The value of the capital investment in public transport projects in the next ten years that we are working on, and I sent this information to the committee secretariat a few weeks ago, outweighs the value of the investment in new roads projects. There is a bit of a balance there. I did not have it on my list, but it is worth mentioning.

May I put a question to Mr. Nolan on that please?

Mr. Michael Nolan

Sure.

I have listed all of these improvements already, the necklace of approach roads that will increase the flow but where will the increased traffic that will come from all of the upgrading of the approach roads to Dublin go?

Mr. Michael Nolan

Let me put it in context. As I said in my opening statement, only a few of these schemes will be upgraded in the next ten years. We are doing forward planning and we will go through a pre-appraisal process with the Department of Transport, Tourism and Spot on those schemes to see if they fit into the national planning framework and whether they will be productive under the NDP. At present we have bottlenecks, one is between Naas and Newbridge, where we are widening the motorway to three lanes in each direction. Anyone who knows that route will know that four lanes of traffic were merging into two lanes and that does not add up. We have numerous serious accidents on the N7 because of that and similarly on the N4. As I said earlier, there is a safety consideration in these bottlenecks, there is queuing on the N4, N11 and we are working in tandem with the NTA on a range of solutions. It is not just road widening or road improvement or tidying up junctions such as that at Kilmacanogue. We are improving the flow by dealing with the bottleneck caused by the constraint in the system. When we have three lanes going into two lanes going into three lanes, it makes sense to move to three lanes. Ultimately it is about safety and then efficiency.

I can attest to that because that road straddles my constituency in South Kildare. It causes a significant problem not just on the N7 but in the surrounding villages, where the traffic has caused incredible congestion and made it almost impossible to function. Part of the solution is to give people other choices. That is why I am such a fan of the interconnector but the DART expansion will be a definite benefit.

I have a number of points. I wish to raise the congestion in the city last Thursday morning when there was an accident at the Point Depot, it took at least an hour to an hour and a half, and I was sitting in my car for at least an hour, how are Transport Infrastructure Ireland dealing with that? I know the TII has three tow-away vehicles on the M50. What is the TII doing about the narrow stretch of road from the tunnel? Why was the obstruction not moved more quickly?

Mr. Pat Maher

The remit of TII extends only to the national roads, in effect beyond the M50 as one comes into the city, we have no further role or remit. The M50 is where the national road network ends.

Let me articulate what I see as the problem.

I am not suggesting that the witness is accountable, because he clearly does not have that function. There is a huge problem. The whole city is backlogged up to the airport. We need somebody who is able to deal with that and to oversee the removal of those vehicles as soon as appropriate. I appreciate that the Garda has to be called, but it is not acceptable that all traffic can be blocked by one articulated truck or one car.

Mr. Pat Maher

The M50 also faces challenges such as that, and a large amount of resources have gone into addressing those kinds of issues in recent years.

When one travels from the Point Depot from the Port Tunnel towards the city, one cannot take a left turn at the first bridge there. I believe it is the Samuel Beckett bridge. This means that traffic backs up and people end up breaking the rules. Many people actually turn left illegally there. What can be done about that issue?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

There is a history to that particular issue. Part of the planning decision to build that bridge was that there would not be a left turn at that location. I do not know more than that. I would be happy to investigate.

Who can we contact to get that decision changed, or who can we bring before the committee to discuss that matter if it is not the witness?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

Can I get back to the Chair separately on that?

Yes. It is a huge issue.

The witness discussed park and ride facilities, the orbital routes and the BusConnects. One of the key proposals for metro north is the 3,000 vehicle car park near Malahide. Is it proposed that BusConnects could run out to that location before the metro north is built so that there is some capacity to take people directly into the city from that point?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

The short answer is that we are deciding, in conjunction with Fingal County Council, where to locate a park and ride site in advance of MetroLink in advance of the construction of metro north. We hope to identify a site soon.

How much time will that take?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

To be blunt, to purchase the land and go through planning permission, with everything else that has to be done, it will take between two and three years to deliver. At that stage we will see buses running from there, through the tunnel and into the city centre.

As traffic exits the M1 at Julianstown outside Drogheda there are huge backlogs of traffic, sometimes up to 2 km in the evening. The traffic volume passing through Julianstown is only 2,000 cars per day less than was the case before the motorway was built, and the community is very angry about that. Traffic is hugely disadvantaged by the lack of a bypass there. Can we get an update on that?

Mr. Pat Maher

Julianstown is the original road.

Mr. Michael Nolan

Julianstown is the original road and falls under the remit of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport.

It has the same capacity as the old M1. It is effectively-----

Mr. Michael Nolan

I accept that.

It has 22,000 cars going through it. As the economy improves - and I am sure it is the same in all areas - backlogs on regional roads are huge blockages for people trying to get home. Is the witness telling me to contact the county councils or the Departments?

Mr. Michael Nolan

The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport funds the local authorities.

It is the old M1, and it has the traffic volumes it used to have.

Mr. Michael Nolan

That is down to the success of Drogheda.

The economic and social life of the city is enhanced by having events, and there are a couple of events coming up in the near future. There is a concert at the Point Depot and in Croke Park. Is the management of traffic for those events the responsibility of the Garda and the city council, or do the agencies represented by the witnesses have a role to play? There are quite a number of restrictions on the quays for events such as these. What role do the witnesses play in terms of trying to keep traffic flowing while permitting these events to happen at the same time?

Mr. Tim Gaston

The NTA has increasingly taken a role in co-ordinating all of the agencies involved in running events such as the Ed Sheeran concert in the Phoenix Park, to which I believe the Deputy is referring, and also events at Croke Park and the Point. We bring together all of the main providers, including, in the case of the Ed Sheeran concert, the OPW, because it is in the Phoenix Park, Dublin City Council because it has some involvement in the street space, and Dublin Bus, Irish Rail, Transport Infrastructure Ireland and TransDev on the Luas side to create a plan to handle both the arrival and departure of people from the Phoenix Park. There is a lot of co-ordinating going on for those large events. The big event this year is of course the papal visit, which has involved intensive planning. A dedicated team is working solely and very closely on that event with An Garda Síochána, events organisers, the OPW, the Department of the Taoiseach, and a large group of other stakeholders. A very well developed transport plan is being put together for that event.

The challenges we face are the smaller events, for example the concerts in Malahide Castle. These cause particular problems during the week. If public events occur at the weekend we are able to corral public transport to provide access to and from them. The bigger challenges are small midweek events, given that public transport simply does not have the capacity to dial up an extra 100 buses to deliver people to another venue mid-week. For those reasons we believe the event organisers and the businesses that are going to take the profit from those events should also be providing a transport plan. They should work with the local authorities on that.

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee and answering all our questions. I might ask, if it is in order, either when the transcript becomes available or before, for a summary of the key points. That might include any actions we need to take or suggestions on what we need to do in order to help us clarify matters. We will have the Minister, Bus Éireann, CIÉ and Irish Rail before us for the next step in this process. We need practical solutions to address the huge congestion that is building up.

Last Friday was the closing date for the submissions on MetroLink. Our committee, at the request of Deputy Rock, visited Na Fianna and was very impressed by the huge community out there and acknowledged how much it would be disadvantaged if MetroLink were to be built through that location.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

The submissions have just been received; last Friday was the closing date. We need time to go through those submissions and assess the issues.

How long might that take?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

There are many submissions; it will take two to three months to go through them.

Will the witnesses appear before the committee once that is done?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

We are happy to attend once that is done

The joint committee adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 30 May 2018.
Barr
Roinn