Will the House agree that the Minister be called to reply not later than 4.50 p.m.
Luas: Statements
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is that agreed? Agreed.
This debate comes at a very opportune time. It is nearly one year since the public consultation programme on the light rail proposal was launched and it is now drawing to a conclusion. It is timely for us to assess the public response to the project and consider the principal issues that have arisen during the consultation.
Since the public consultation programme was launched people have become conscious that this Government is determined to make sure the recommendations of the Dublin Transportation Initiative are implemented. This Government is committed to their implementation in a coherent and planned manner. Neither the Government nor I will allow this opportunity to make a lasting improvement in the transport and traffic difficulties of our capital city slip through our hands.
Unfortunately some people, despite the work of the Dublin Transportation Initiative, appear to seek to have the whole study process revisited. The history of transportation planning in Dublin is littered with missed opportunities and lack of effective and decisive action. The Government will not allow that to happen to DTI.
DTI has been the most exhaustive, extensive and open approach to transportation planning ever undertaken in this State. It took more than four years to complete and involved all relevant interests. The approach adopted and the transport strategy recommended by DTI have been endorsed, not only by this Government, but by its Fianna Fáil led predecessor. The current Fianna Fáil leader Bertie Ahern announced two on-street light rail routes in late 1994.
The European Commission, which provided substantial funding for the study phase, will support implementation of significant elements of the recommended transport strategy. We have spent years getting to where we are now. We have spent £10 million getting the detailed planning of the light rail system to this point. We have spent enough time, energy and money on studies. Now is the time for action. There is a committed project team working to prepare an application for the statutory powers for the light rail project. I am not prepared to divert them from this work. I want them to concentrate on finalising their application; I want delivery not distraction.
It is important to put light rail in its proper context. The first point that must be stressed is that light rail on its own is not the solution to Dublin's transport and traffic problems. It is a significant element of an integrated plan and each element is being acted on. In addition to light rail, other elements of the plan include a radical overhaul of the city's bus services. We are delivering on that. New quality bus corridors are being opened on a regular basis. These mean a higher priority on the streets for buses and better facilities for passengers.
The plan also includes the extension of the DART and the upgrading of other suburban rail services. We are delivering on those. Work on the extensions to Greystones and Malahide has started; new rolling stock has been ordered; new track is being laid and new stations will be built.
This Government will deliver on DTI. The ultimate objective is the transformation of the city centre environment. It is currently characterised by congestion, noise and fumes generated by cars and heavy goods vehicles. That will change to a pleasant environment more suited to the type of city people have clearly indicated they want. DTI has given us the strategy for a better city. That strategy is based on a vision which sees Dublin as a living city on a human scale; accessible to all; serving its people and communities and meeting their aspirations for an improved quality of life.
I am determined to see the public transport elements of the strategy delivered. I am also determined that the DTI plan will not remain on the drawing board. On-street light rail is a key element of that plan.
There are those who oppose on-street light rail. People in the 1970s said that bus lanes were wrong for Dublin. Today there are more than 20 kilometres of bus lanes playing a critical role in ensuring that buses are kept moving at peak times.
People in the 1970s said the DART was wrong for Dublin, that it was dangerous and expensive and would cause traffic problems at junctions. Today the DART is an essential part of our transport infrastructure. There are those in the 1990s who say that on-street light rail is wrong for Dublin. I am confident they will be proved wrong.
Much has been made of the fact that light rail will lead to traffic gridlock in the city centre. There are two points I would make in response.
On a point of order, can we have a copy of the Minister's speech? We have waited for eight minutes.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is not a matter for the Chair, but I understand the copies are on the way.
I apologise for the delay.
We exonerate the Minister from chicanery on this occasion.
I can guarantee that if nothing is done we will have gridlock anyway. We are close to that point now. We are not seeking to simply insert light rail into the city in isolation. Many organisations and agencies are co-operating to ensure that the integrated DTI package becomes a reality.
It is regrettable that some politicians have chosen to make a political football out of the light rail project by assuming every criticism of the project is evidence that it is seriously flawed and in need of re-evaluation. The people of Dublin deserve better than that.
Some have been critical of the public consultation programme on light rail; arguing that the authorities had a closed mind on the route alignments. This is not true. I have always been determined that progress towards implementation of the light rail network should not be made at the expense of genuine and effective public consultation.
Since the public consultation programme began the LRT project team has held more than 350 public meetings and briefings; produced major reports on substantive issues raised during the consultation and organised public exhibitions which have been attended by more than 15,000 people. I hope at this stage we can finally dispel any notion that the Government and the project team are not genuinely committed to full public consultation on the light rail proposals.
The strength of the public consultation programme can be clearly seen in the many issues that have been raised over the past year. They mainly relate to the choice of routes and route alignments, the capacity of light rail, integration with other public transport modes, provision of an underground section in the city centre and traffic management aspects. Many of these concern details of the light rail proposals and do not reflect opposition to the implementation of a light rail network in Dublin as such.
It is worth looking at some of the key points. As to the choice of routes, it was the Fianna Fáilled Government that acknowledged there were financial and physical constraints on the extent of the network which could be implemented within the timeframe of the current Operational Programme for Transport 1994 to 1999. That Government's preference was to proceed with the Tallaght-Dundrum element of the core network recommended by DTI. This Government has acted to ensure that a line to Tallaght and Dundrum will become a reality. In addition we are committed to the completion of the core network to Cabinteely and Ballymun. We are considering the wider northside.
Following the completion of the Oscar Faber study on the Tallaght-Ballymun and Tallaght-Dundrum lines, I reached an understanding with the European Commissioner for Regional Affairs which reinforces the target I have constistently stated of having all three lines in operation as soon as possible. Planning and design of the Ballymun to city centre route will be brought forward and will proceed in parallel with the construction of the Tallaght to Dundrum route. I am committed to the construction of the Ballymun route as soon as possible and, at the latest, immediately after the completion of the Tallaght to Dundrum route. The Commissioner expressed a willingness to co-finance the design and planning work on the Ballymun line within the current Community Support Framework envelope and also indicated that the Commission would be favourably disposed to co-finance its construction should the Structural Fund situation for Ireland post-1999 make this possible.
I have asked the project team, in the course of the design and planning work on the Ballymun line, to investigate possible alternative alignment options which would take account of the wider needs of the north Dublin area and also to consider an extension to Dublin Airport. This will involved looking at the northside afresh. I am not convinced that the current proposals adequately meet the needs of the northside. I have asked, for example, that the use of the Broadstone alignment and the potential to service Finglas and Dublin Airport be taken into account. I expect a number of options tobe developed and in due course these will be published and will undergo the same rigorous public consultation as was undertaken in phase one.
The aspect which has perhaps given rise to most debate is the provision of an underground section in the city centre. There are many reasons the Government is not supporting an underground option. The real issue is not about on-street versus underground, it is more about the type of city to which we aspire. It is certainly not a question of cost.
That is a welcome change.
It is a relief to hear that.
Do not criticise.
Is Senator Magner acting as a guardian angel?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister without interruption, please.
On-street is what the public have indicated they want. On-street can best meet the needs of this city. On-street is the only realistic option. Underground is less accessible, less attractive, less safe, less clean, and would cost more to build and to operate.
None of those points is true.
The Government and I are committed to providing an on-street system and I have asked the project team to concentrate its efforts on putting forward a proposal on this basis. We must remember that this issue has now been addressed in two reports. One is the DTI final report, the other is one prepared by independent consultants with extensive light rail and tunnelling experience.
On a point of information, are these the consultants who are commissioned to——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Norris will have an opportunity in his contribution to put these points.
DTI rejected an underground option because it represented poor value for money——
I thought cost did not matter.
——it did not fit in with DTI's overall vision for Dublin which envisages sharing of road space by various types of traffic based on the movement of people rather than vehicles, and it would be less accessible to the travelling public. An underground would have fewer stops. There would be longer distances between stations, compared with an on-street system.
The project team published a report on a review carried out by its consultants which found that an underground LRT section is not justified because it would cost substantially more than on-street LRT.
The Minister said the cost did not matter.
The additional cost would range from £124 million to £300 million, depending on the length of the tunnelled section. The report stated that building it would cause substantial disruption because cut and cover tunnels and excavations for underground stations could not be avoided. Also, it would simply concede the streets to the private car.
Dubliners themselves, when surveyed, have said they have concerns about the underground system. Primarily, they are concerned about it from a personal safety aspect. I understand the real fears of women, in particular, using an underground.
Is the Minister allowed to be exists in the House?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair will not tolerate these interruptions. Senators will have an opportunity to respond to the Minister in their contributions. I ask that the Minister be allowed to proceed without interruption.
In addition, I am concerned that this is a proposal which is more than the city needs or on which it can justify spending money. I cannot stand over a proposal which would impose an annual drain on resources because of its higher operating and maintenance costs and yet would not deliver substantial benefits. I am very much aware that the additional money it would cost to build an underground could instead be used to complete the extra on-street lines.
Against this background the key must be to use the streets of the city most effectively to move the greatest number of people. This is a major change from the old policy which concentrated on moving more vehicles. This is central to the debate. There are no solutions which include facilitating the continued dominance of the private car at the very heart of our city. Its strategy is based on a rightful, but not a dominant position, for cars.
The capacity of on-street light rail has also been questioned. Concerns have been expressed that the light rail system will not be able to carry all the passengers wanting to use it. The central issue here is how many people will seek to use the system at peak hours at the most congested point on the system. High figures relating to total boardings in an hour or total passengers carried have been used by some commentators to give the impression that the system will have inadequate capacity.
The most recent studies show maximum passenger flows during the morning peak hour in 2001 at just under 3,000 passengers per hour in each direction. From the opening date it is proposed to run a service at five minute intervals at peak hours. This means there will be 12 trams passing any one point in each direction every hour. As demand increased the next step would be to increase services. This need not be done along the full line but only between the most popular stations. For example, the service in the city centre could be increased from every five minutes to every three minutes by providing turnback facilities so that not all services would go to each terminus. Using such an option, the capacity figure rises dramatically to 4,700.
Even then Luas would still not have reached its limits. The system, particularly the lengths of vehicles, station platforms and the power supply, is being designed to accommodate longer trams. This can be done by adding a small centre section, ten metres in length, to increase the tram from 30 to 40 metres. At three minute frequencies this increases capacity to over 6,000 with five passengers to the square metre. This is similar to the current level of carryings on the DART which, after 12 years of operation, now carries an equivalent of about 5,000 passengers in each direction per hour at peak points. These are some of the principal issues that have arisen during the course of the year long public consultation programme.
The next phase of the project will be the statutory approval process under the Dublin Transport (Light Rail Order) Act which was enacted last July. Under this legislation, an application for a draft light railway order will shortly be submitted to me for approval, with an environmental impact statement and other detailed supporting documentation. The draft light railway order and the environmental impact statement are currently in preparation by the project team. A final decision on the light rail routes to be included in the formal application for a light railway order will not be made until the current public consultation process is completed.
The consultation process has had an impact on the timetable for the preparation of these documents as they must reflect any changes which arise as a result of the process. It is important that the details are correct because there is a strict limit on the extent to which they can be amended when the statutory process begins. This documentation will be available for public examination for at least two months, after which a public inquiry will be held early in 1997 which will provide an independent statutory forum at which the outstanding issues can be aired.
This is a major project for this city and one with which I have been proud to be involved. Getting to this stage has been a difficult process. The work to date has taken many years and £10 million. All the effort has confirmed that on-street light rail will produce substantial transportation benefits for the city of Dublin. It will contribute to badly needed urban regeneration and environmental improvements. The coming months will be critical in ensuring that Dublin gets a transport infrastructure suitable for the 21st century.
Now is the time to support this project, ensure that the traffic problems in Dublin are addressed and give the project team the support it needs to complete its application. I will be urging the team to concentrate on this task so that it can finalise its work and prepare for the public inquiry. The time for studies is past. The time for action is now.
Fianna Fáil supports an alternative rail transport system for Dublin and has been committed to it for many years. All fair minded people agree that the increase in road traffic in the city centre in recent years needs to be addressed urgently. However, we differ with the Minister's proposals on this.
We are aware of the demand for the Dundrum line to be extended to Sandyford, as well as the demand for the Tallaght and Ballymun lines. The north side of Dublin has been badly neglected by all Government Departments, not just the present Minister's. As someone with much experience of the north inner city, it is appalling to see how it is left behind whenever proposals are made by Government Departments. I hope that when Deputy Bertie Ahern becomes Taoiseach next year he will address the issue as it is his area.
And the Senator's.
There is no plan to link all the light rail lines I mentioned. When one considers the proposal to eliminate 50 per cent of motor traffic from St. Stephen's Green, as well as 40 per cent of road use in Dawson Street and putting a lane on each side of O'Connell Street, one can see the massive difficulties which the city centre will experience.
I have been in many countries where monorail is used. I raised this point with the Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, but I do not know whether she passed it on to the Minister. Have the Minister's experts examined the possibility of using monorail? It is a modern, environmentally friendly rail system currently used in Sydney, Atlanta and elsewhere. Fianna Fáil wants a study to be undertaken on monorail which would be an ideal, pollution free underground system, an all weather station. I do not know why there is such big opposition to an independent study for an underground rail system for Dublin. It would have the advantage of retaining existing road capacity in the city centre.
How can one argue the case for tackling chaotic traffic conditions in the city centre while eliminating two traffic lanes around St. Stephen's Green, thus cutting capacity there in half? Why is the monorail option not being examined? It is the future direction for rail transport and is already used in Sydney even though there was massive opposition to its introduction.
I am the Fianna Fáil spokesperson for transport, energy and communications yet no one has indicated the proposed lines to me. I would like the Minister's officials to let me have a copy of the proposed lines.
The former Fine Gael leader, Dr. Garrett Fitzgerald, is opposed to the Minister's plans for the city centre. While we have not always agreed with him on this side of the House, we recognise that he is an expert in this field.
When Dr. Fitzgerald was in Government he was not an expert in anything, according to the Senator.
The Minister himself is responsible.
Is former Deputy Charles Haughey in favour of Luas?
The Senator should not talk like that about the greatest man that was in the Oireachtas for a long number of years.
When Deputy Haughey was in Government the Senator supported him every inch of the way.
No one on the Government side will ever be like him, that is for sure.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
We will hear Senator Cassidy's contribution without interruption. Senator Cassidy should not provoke interruptions.
The Senator did not provoke me, I provoked him.
I am anxious to protect the business people of Dublin city centre as much as the transport system. It is wonderful to see satellite towns being provided to cater for the population but life in the city centre must not disappear after a certain time at night. We must retain city life and, in order to do that, people must be allowed to bring their cars into the city and use the abundant car parking facilities. One does not have to be an expert to know there are many parking spaces available in the city. There are signposts at virtually every corner showing how many parking spaces are available in the city's car parks.
We sought an independent study to examine the option of an underground system. Monorail should be one of the systems studied. I am told it is the cheapest form of rail transport and is the most environment friendly. It is a state-of-the-art system that is not noisy and does not cause pollution. Nobody in the Department has mentioned it or replied to my queries about it. This is the third time I have raised the issue of monorail but nobody appears to be interested. I do not know why there is such lack of interest.
I did not realise until recently that one will not be able to drive a car across the rail lines when they are not in use. I understood Luas would be somewhat similar to the old tram system whereby one could drive a car on the lines when they were not in use. How can business maintain the same rate of growth in those circumstances? It is mooted that part of Nassau Street will be a pedestrian area. It will be impossible to drive a car through the city centre and that is a shame. We have a beautiful city to show our tourists and they should be able to travel around it in comfort. If the overflow of people is to be transported through the city the best place to do it is on an underground.
The Minister says Luas will cost £300 million. Look at what is paid in taxes by city centre business people in terms of VAT alone. It is probably about £1,000 million per year. Look at the cost of what was built in Cork. A good job is never cheap and we should do the best and right job. There is no point in coming back to tell the House that mistakes were made because an independent study was not carried out. An independent study would take another few months. The Minister should commission one on the feasibility of an underground system for the city centre.
The Minister is fair minded. He came from humble beginnings to reach his present position and I could never accuse him of being blinkered. He, no more than I, is not an expert on this matter but he is from the business world and knows he must review all his options. What is commonplace today could be obsolete in a short time with the advance of new technology and ideas. The Minister is open to new ideas and that is why I, as a person with extensive business interests in the city centre, ask him to commission an independent study. There are also experts in the House who have experience in this area.
I ask the Minister to accept my proposal. Fianna Fáil supports an alternative rail system but, as the party stated in the Lower House, it wants the Minister to address the need for an independent study. The findings can be available within 100 days so there should not be a problem in commissioning it. If CIE has carried out a study it will have dealt with the costings.
The Minister said the cost of the project will be £300 million. The estimates of the experts who are advising Fianna Fáil differ substantially from that figure. If the objective is to prevent the city centre from being jammed even further a study must be carried out. I remember a former Taoiseach who was at one time Minister for Transport—perhaps this Minister might also be Taoiseach some day — encountering enormous opposition to the establishment of bus lanes. He launched the system on one of the city streets at 7 a.m. It was the right thing to do; it is never the wrong time to do the right thing.
The Minister is introducing the proposed routes and that is the right thing to do. We want routes to Dublin Airport and Finglas in addition to the routes on the southside. However, the study must be carried out. The Minister should initiate it and bring its findings before the House. The Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, told us the recent legislation on this matter was enabling legislation. We had many reservations about it but in order to allow the Department progress the proposal we accepted it. She gave us her word, as a former Member of the House, that we will have many opportunities to discuss the project before the final decision is taken by the Minister.
I have outlined my party's position and I look forward to the Minister commissioning an independent study. It is necessary. I also hope the Minister will research and address the monorail system.
I am delighted the House has again been given an opportunity to debate this important issue for Dublin. This is the third time we have debated the issue since I became a Member of the House last December. The debate in this House has been of a higher quality and standard than the debate in the Dáil and the comments of Senators on all sides have been helpful. Senator Cassidy put down an amendment on Committee Stage of the enabling legislation seeking the inclusion of the Ballymun line. While that line could not be included in the legislation, its provision is now Government policy. I am delighted for the people of Ballymun and the northside that the third spur will be included. The Government has listened to the views of all sides of the House and has responded.
Everybody is aware of the seriousness of the city's traffic problem. It has reached crisis point. That is a result of the increased standard of living and good Government enjoyed by the citizens of the city and its suburbs over recent years. Car ownership has dramatically increased in the last six years. This year over 60,000 cars in Dublin, Wicklow, Kildare and Meath are registered for use in Dublin city. The figure for last year was 40,000. There is a dramatic increase in the number of cars being driven through the city. When the DTI forecast traffic flow for the years 2001 and 2011 it did not realise that its figures would be true five years before that time. The figure the DTI predicted for the year 2001 was reached in 1996. That crisis must be addressed.
At present there are 320 cars per 1,000 population in Dublin. The European average is 450 cars per 1,000 people and we are moving rapidly in that direction. The figures will soon converage. At the same time, Dublin has also seen a dramatic increase in the number of vehicles using its port. On any day in the city one can go to the quays and count the number of vehicles accessing the port. Few of those vehicles have business in the city; most of them are through traffic on their way to other parts of the country such as Belfast, Cork and Galway. This is a disappointing picture which we all have to address.
While the interests of the city centre are eloquently articulated by Senator Norris and Senator Cassidy, sometimes we fail to remember that the majority of the people in this city live in the suburbs. There has been a dramatic increase in traffic there with very little response from local authorities. As the Minister rightly said, now is the time to act. The congestion has to be dealt with. If we do not act now, we will be responsible for the continued decline of our capital city.
Politicians and policy makers must be honest about this issue. The only way this will again be a living and working city is if we are straight with car owners. The city cannot cope with the current level of traffic. The honest statement to the public is that it will have to be restricted in some shape or form. This is not popular as most people want to use their cars whenever they like but taking that irresponsible attitude will never solve this problem and the city will become increasingly congested. All politicians need to face that reality. We need to reduce the number of cars coming into the city and the Luas proposal is part of that. This is more honest than speaking about other issues and whether we see car options as a viable part of the city's infrastructure. We need to reduce the number of cars coming into the city and I am convinced the Luas proposal will succeed in doing this.
The DTI process, as outlined by the Minister, started in 1991 and made its first report in 1994. Since then a range of proposals from the report has been implemented. Luas is only part of the total package of measures, which include the port access tunnel and the cycle way network. Five per cent of commuters from the suburbs use bicycles and there are proposals to increase this to 10 per cent over the next five to ten years. We also need quality bus corridors. These have been spoken about over the last ten years or so, but little has been implemented. The extension of the DART line also needs to be established. We need to ensure that a park and ride facility is available, for suburbs in particular. The "C" road proposal and the investment in the motorway is also part of the DTI process.
As the Minister said, now is the time for action on Luas. Are the citizens of this city getting the best value for money from the proposed project? Will Luas make a difference to city congestion? When we strip away the information and propoganda and the great debates between former Taoisigh, will Luas work? From my discussions with other colleagues and the research I have led, I am quietly confident that the proposal before this House and the people of this city will make in roads in reducing the number of cars coming in to the city. It will also provide a quality public transport facility that the citizens of the city rightly deserve.
There has been much discussion of the tunnel proposal. I understand the point the Minister made in relation to costs, when he said that if the money was there, he still would not implement the tunnel proposal, primarily because it would not reduce traffic coming into the city. We have a responsibility to look at the issue of cost. If a tunnel, which, according to the Minister, could cost anything between £124 million and £300 million, was to proceed, the additional capital investment required would be moneys taken away from the kind of community I represent. Luas is only going part of the way in Tallaght and will serve about one third of the people there. It will not serve the people who need the service most, those who do not have cars and rely on public transport. If additional money is available, the suburbs should be given priority in providing the public transport system required.
The report on tunnelling stated that between £124 million and £300 million in additional moneys would be required to make the tunnel a reality. If that money is available, I would prefer to see it being used for west Tallaght, Clondalkin and the greater Dublin area which does not have the kind of public transport facility they need.
It is clear that the DTI wanted to give the kind of financial support to the communities I represent. Its report states:
In the Western Town areas only basic facilities, such as primary schools, which were generally incorporated in the planning of the local authority housing estates, were reported by high percentages of respondents as being within walking distance. Since fewer facilities were within walking distance it followed that people in these areas needed to travel more to get to services. Not surprisingly, given the above, the percentage of respondents travelling to services by bus was twice as high in the Western Towns as in the Inner City.
Our responsibility as legislators and policy makers is to provide support through public transport to the new suburbs, particularly in the west and south-west of Dublin and to move the focus of the debate from the issue of the city centre. Throughout this debate there seems to be a bias towards the centre. While I understand business interests determining much of the life of this city, to which Senator Cassidy referred, the overriding interest is not that of business but to ensure the public transport facility we give to this city is the very best. The representative organisations of small businesses in the city support what the Minister and Government proposes. This bias needs to be addressed. I would welcome additional moneys for the west and south-west of the city where the new towns are struggling to provide the kind of public transport facilities the people in those areas require.
As someone new to the House, I have found this debate quite frustrating, primarily because there is so much cynicism about the proposals. I can understand why people feel cynical about the latest set of proposals. They have seen 20 or 30 years of inaction in city and public transportation management. As Senator Bob Dole said recently, I am an optimistic man.
A bad example.
These proposals, if implemented, will be part of the answer to this problem. There is cynicism not only among Members on the other side of the House but also in my party. Yesterday senior colleagues, such as Deputy Mitchell, expressed doubts to me about the transport policy for this city. The debate has revolved around different types of propaganda, one team of engineers being pitted against another and people's professional expertise being questioned. The Irish Times also helped to hype up this issue. This has been an eye opener particularly for someone trying to find the best way forward for some parts of the city.
Development issues are always difficult and politicians face great pressure from groups in their constituencies. People do not seem to look at policies from a long-term point of view. We are doing a great disservice to DTI by looking at what may not work instead of seeing it in the context of an overall package. We must think about the long-term planning needs of this city if we want to deal effectively with the problem of congestion.
I congratulate the Minister for the work he has done on this issue. He has shown great courage in the face of political opportunism by some Members in the other House who should know better. We will all be better off as a result of the Minister's long-term policy for this city.
I welcome the Minister to the House, although my welcome is qualified because I am not happy with what he said, particularly in light of the previous debates for which I was instrumental in calling. On those occasions the Minister gave a clear commitment that the underground option would not be ruled out and that there would be a full independent inquiry. Neither of those promises has been met. There has not been a proper examination of the underground option, nor has a date been fixed for a proper independent inquiry.
The examination was conducted by Semaly, who are the consultants for Luas. Does the Minister recollect the old poem by Lewis Carroll: ‘"I'll be judge, I'll be jury', said cunning old Fury. ‘I'll try the whole case and condemn it to death'". I do not seek to impugn the professional credentials of Semaly, but it was told what to do; it is not an independent inquiry. Let us have the independent inquiry to which the Minister was committed. I believe a public inquiry is still on track. I would like a clear commitment that it will be independent and comprehensive and the Minister will cease undermining it by announcing in advance what the result will be as far as he is concerned. Ever since the last debate he has consistently referred to when we build the on-street Luas. What kind of respect is that for an independent inquiry? It is no respect at all.
I am not accusing the Minister of being macho, but of being weak. We are dealing with a bullish bureaucracy in the transport hierarchy which is pushing the Minister in a particular direction. The last time we debated this issue the Minister said the time for words was over; it was now time for action. He amended that as a result of the debate. However, it has crept back into the script. I wonder from where it crept back in. I do not think it is the Minister's view; he is being pushed. It is necessary for him to rethink this matter in light of the information made available by people like Dr. Garret FitzGerald from whose articles I propose to quote so they will be on the public record. I am calling for a clear independent inquiry, which has been promised and which is required, and for Dr. FitzGerald to be called as an expert witness so that this material may be placed in the public light.
We are told there is a public demand for this system. However, I do not belive that. It is a public relations exercise. I was at a dinner last night and the Luas people had a table at £150 a skull next to mine. I was discussing with the people at my table this issue and the public relations exercise, which has been superbly mounted at enormous cost to the public. Is the Minister satisfied this meets the constitutional test laid down in the McKenna judgment, because I do not believe it does? The Government is not entitled to pay for one aspect of a matter of public interest. I would like the Minister to consider that point. One often hears people say they were never asked for their opinions in a public relations exercise. However, one of my colleagues at the table was asked for his opinion. He was doorstepped in Grafton Street, cameras closed in on him and he was asked would he not agree that when Luas is set up, he would get home to Dundrum in half the time. He said he would not. The interviewers were flabber gasted and asked why not. He replied that he lives in Clontarf. I doubt if that film clip was ever shown.
When RTÉ did a programme on this issue all those taking part were given clear understandings there would be a level playing field, that we would all be interviewed separately and that nobody would be given an overview in advance. What happened? Mr. Mangan from Luas managed to strong arm his way into the proceedings. He was the only person who was allowed to see the contents of the programme, to comment in most disparaging terms and to impugn the professional capacity of all those on this side of the argument. I wonder what type of behaviour that is and what kind of a level playing field we have in terms of this debate.
Another argument is that women are afraid of tunnels. I have never heard such nonsense in my life. That is plainly sexist. Will the Minister suggest that because I am critical of Luas I am suffering from some kind of transport penis envy?
The questions asked in the public relations campaign have been heavily and seriously angled. No person who knows anything about public relations and opinion polls could do other than to look at those and ask questions about the nature of the material placed before the public.
The Minister invoked the city of Hanover. Many cities are mentioned but people are careful not to tell us which cities also complement the light rail on-street by having an existing underground system, or have developed an underground system or have abandoned the proposals for LRT, such as the city of Glasgow in the past few months. When Hanover is mentioned, they studiously avoid the Hannover Stadtbahn which includes an extensive underground network, but is otherwise at the lighter and of the definition of light rail. It has an extremely successful history. An article, "25 Years of Light Rail Development", by Dr. Richard J. Buckley in Light Rail Review states:
A particularly significant feature of the Hannover Stadtbahn has been the manner in which the convenience and accessibility of the trams has been retained. Virtually no tramway stops have been lost, even when replaced by underground stations...Nowhere in the inner city is more than five minutes from an underground station. And interchange is planned to take no longer than the changing trams...
Environmentally, the Stadtbahn has certainly made possible a radical restructuring of the city centre, with extensive connected pedestrain zones and a free passage underneath the Hauptbahnhof.
With regard to other environmental benefits, it is naturally the case that where trams have gone underground — and still more so where streets have been pedestrianised — the noise levels are much reduced.
Commercially, the Stadtbahn has proved more economic to operate than the trams. Comparisons made in 1976 between Stadtbahn line A and former tram services show that although the Stadtbahn cost more to run, its higher earnings reduced the operating deficit by about 20 per cent. On the expenditure side, the high-capacity cars require fewer drivers, so wage costs are reduced.
This is a point made by former Taoiseach Dr. FitzGerald, a transport economist and world authority. It is rubbished by those who have the cheek to impugn on RTÉ people such as Rudy Monaghan on the basis that they never designed and ran an underground railway.
I am concerned about inaccuracies in what the Minister said. I refer him and his experts to another article by Ian Yearsley called Build Now, Pay Latter which looks at the new generation of light railway systems. It states they will face financial problems in the future. For example, tram vehicles last for 30 years but the track only lasts for 15. The means Sheffield is in with its light rail system should be examined.
A negotiated sale to Mainline is the only way Supertram can be privatised, its chief executive Peter Sephton told its employees. Trams were carrying less than 6M passengers a year compared with a forecast of 22M.
That places in context the Minister's bland assertions that he knows exactly how and why this system is going to work and wht it will cost.
There is another article: Light rail rejection signals need for Scots law change. A parliamentary commission rejected a light rapid transport system for Glasgow. A three month public inquiry took place last year at the end of which the commissioners rejected the proposal completely. There is by no means a universality on these matters as the Minister claims. Sheffield is a clear example of a system in crisis.
I wish to quote two articles written by Dr. Garret FitzGerald in which he examines light rail and which have fundamental information for us. I apologise for reading but they are technical and, with the House's indulgence, I propose to put a certain amount on the record.
I am not mind so long as the Senator quotes from the paper. However, we do not want papers on display.
I am not going to wave them around, unlike the Luas lobby. I also add that its illustrations are fantastic. We are told about the thousands of passengers who will be transported. In the last brochure there was a picture of the on-street station which was about the size of the Cathaoirleach's chair. I wonder how many people it will accommodate? I recommend the Minister to examine that visual glitch.
It is for the small tram.
In the first article on 28 October 1996, Dr. FitzGerald states:
...even if one assumes that by 2011 commuter traffic will have been boosted by 20 per cent rather than 40 per cent, that would still increase the morning peak traffic inwards from Ranelagh on the Dundrum route in the year 2011 from the present forecast of 3,000 to 3,600.
This alters the DTI's figures drastically.
But the Dublin Transport Initiative traffic projections have also shown that the planned extension of the Luas from Dundrum to Cabinteely will increase the morning peak-hour traffic on this route by two-thirds, which would bring the morning peak-hour load in 2011 up to 6,000.
Such a figure would be in line with experience with the DART.
He then quotes about the DART. The crucial paragraph in this section of the article is as follows:
Thus it would clearly be indefensible to build a Luas system incapable of handling comfortably 6,000-7,000 passengers in the peak hour; although, equally clearly, the initial capacity of the vehicle fleet on a network starting at Dundrum rather than Cabinteely might not need to be more than about half this figure.
It would be clearly indefensible to do what the Luas lobby is proposing. It keeps shifting its ground. Dr. FitzGerald points out that in January 1995, the CIE document about the Dublin LRT quoted:
..."200 passengers for each unit of rolling stock, nominally...in normal conditions of comfort...25-30 per cent of passengers seated, four passengers per square metre".
In response to criticism, they now say:
...these 30-metre vehicles could carry more than 200 passengers, an outcome to be achieved by raising belatedly the standing room density from four per square metre to five per square metre.
That is the concern for the comfort of passengers in Dublin. It is also proposed:
...to use larger 40-metre long vehicles, with a theoretical capacity of 317 passengers at the higher standing density of five people per square metre. And the peak-hour capacity has been calculated on the assumption all services during that hour will carry 317 people.
However, as Dr. FitzGerald points out that these traffic peaks are not "like Table Mountain in South Africa" but more like Mount Everest. He demonstrates this by examining the DART:
...when a census was carried out on the DART on November 25th last year, the busiest train from Howth carried 835 passengers (a figure, incidentally, well below the DART theoretical capacity of 1,000), but the average load during that hour was 617.
He concludes the article by stating:
For my part, I cannot see how this vision of Dublin is to be helped by building an inadequate LRT system, with a capacity deficit which will ultimately force many people to continue to drive into the city, thus impeding the realisation of the planners' vision.
We all sympathise, as Dr. FitzGerald does, with the idea of having fewer cars and less congestion in the city, but the maintains, and I agree with him, that the commitment to an on-street option and the opposition to the consideration of an underground option has become some sort of mystical Holy Grail which has bedazzled the eyes of the Minister's advisers, if not the Minister although I hope he has not been.
The second article examines the question of routing for the underground and light rail. I wish to put on the record in summary some of what Dr. FitzGerald said.
...a decision to place Luas in a tunnel under the city area would benefit Dublin because:
1. Only in this way could the eventual demand be catered for;
2. It would liberate centre city streets that would be blocked by an on-street Luas, freeing them for pedestrians and other public transport;
3. Disruption during construction would be avoided;
4. The need to demolish dwellings in certain areas and to disrupt some businesses permanently would also be avoided;
5. Transit times would be halved in the case of Tallaght and reduced by a quarter in the case of Dundrum;
6. It would leave open the possibility of an LRT service being constructed to both Finglas/Ballymun and Blanchardstown at a later stage at low cost, by means of a 1 km tunnel from O'Connell Street to Broadstone, and then northwards along the abandoned rail track towards Liffey Junction;
7. The alternative of an LRT service capable of handling traffic to and from the airport would also be kept open.
Dr. FitzGerald calls for certain things and I call clearly and explicitly for these to be considered by the public inquiry.
1. The gross under-estimation of the post-1991 growth of employment and car ownership in Dublin;
2. That the peak-hour load cannot be assumed to exceed more than 70 per cent of the load on the most densely packed individual peak service;
3. That the best, and probably the only, way of coping with the virtual doubling of demand as between a Dundrum-terminating line in the year 2001 and a Cabinteely-terminating line in the year 2011 is the coupling of vehicles — a procedure that is practicable only if a tunnel is used in city areas;
The Minister's vision that women are terrified of tunnels suggests that they will only be populated by men. Is this some kind of homosexual tunnel?
4. That a partly-tunnelled routing via Kimmage that would be 4 kms shorter would create an offsetting capital cost saving of £85 million, would reduce the overall journey time by 40 per cent, and would generate several million pounds of additional revenue;
5. That the net return on a tunnelled section in terms of operating profit per unit of capital expended seems likely to be similar to, or probably even to exceed, that of the existing on-street project.
Against this background, I believe that it would be unwise of the Government to resist the case for an independent review of the tunnel option.
It seems to me that the Minister is engaged in the fable of "The Emperor's New Clothes". He has been sold a pup by the Luas lobby effectively and professionally. Does he remember where they came in with their suit of clothes? "Good morning, my lord", said the weavers bowing low. "Have you come to see the clothes? Do you like the design? Don't you think the colours are beautiful? Look at this deep rose in the centre, that line of gold in the corner. Do you think the emperor will be pleased?" The poor old emperor's chamberlain looked at the empty looms. He could see nothing but he thought again — like the Minister. When the emperor set out in his procession a little boy told him the truth. People like Dr. FitzGerald, myself and the unified proposal people were saying very clearly: "Minister, you are in your pants and you are on your own". At the end of the day there is no doubt that the light rail on-street Luas will create gridlock. It will not be able to deal with the demands placed on it. It will create business disruption and block off streets.
The Minister talks about the beauty of Dublin and I agree with him. Trinity College was invoked. I taught there for 30 years. It will not be enhanced by the on-street light rail. I call for the Minister to repeat his commitment, to which he is bound, for a public inquiry in which these materials will be looked at exhaustively in terms of costing. There is no doubt, in regard to the figures available to us in terms of the tunnel, for example, that they have quoted an inflated figure. This is demonstrable. The port access tunnel which is one and a half times the diameter of the Luas tunnel comes in at less than the Luas people claim it will cost to build the tunnel for the light rail.
Another chimera raised by the opponents of the underground rail system is that on-street traffic is safer. This is absolute nonsense. The on-street system will lead to between 40 per cent and 60 per cent more accidents; if I could find it among my papers I would quote extensively from Cycle News, the newsletter of the cycling community in these islands, which has published a major article on the dangers of the Sheffield tram and the number of accidents and fatalities that occurred in the last couple of months as a result of the on-street tram.
I hope that, although I have been hard hitting, I have not been unfair in my remarks. I would like to think that the other side will be fair, that we will be allowed our day in court, so to speak, to introduce for independent analysis and assessment the issues of costing and accessibility. We can answer all these questions. I said to the Minister when we had meetings with him and his advisers —they reminded me of this last night — demonstrate in controvertibly to me that Luas was the best option for Dublin. I would throw my weight behind it. They have signally failed to do so. They have not answered any of the detailed material presented by people such as Garret FitzGerald and the unified proposal and it is time they did so.
I will not quote statistics or quote from the classics. It is significant that this debate was opened by a Tipperary man, responded to by a Longford-Westmeath man, and that a Cork man is now speaking on it. This shows that Dublin is a very special place. It is the capital city and as such the country has to do business with it. It is a diabolical place in which to do business; Dublin is largely paralysed.
There seems to be a direct connection between modes of transport and emotion which goes right back into history. Some contributions would remind one of reading about the Indians and the train, or the iron horse as it was known. It was said that it would do great damage and would never be successful. The same happened when aircraft were being developed. It was said they would never work either, yet air travel is recognised as one of the safest modes of travel.
The Minister mentioned bus lanes. They too were condemned. If one was to go back to the debate on the DART one would read prophesies of multiple deaths on a weekly basis, particularly at the Merrion crossing. It was said that the DART was a crazy notion. None of this has come to pass, nor should we expect it to in this case.
The expenditure of £10 million and probably a forest of trees in terms of written documentation has led to more debate, analyses and money that must be spent to avoid making a decision. Seán Lemass used to say that he hoped this House would be peopled by representatives of the country, not by experts. All the major projects in the world have been decided by lay people. If necessary, they seek advice, whether about building bridges, creating major companies, roads or nuclear stations. All the great engineering projects have been decided in the final analysis by lay people. We are lay people. The Minister is a lay person.
The Minister does not have the luxury of doing nothing, nor has the Opposition. Its only responsibility is to make a real and honest contribution to the debate. I was disappointed with one aspect of Senator Norris's contribution. I thought 30 years in Trinity College would have trained him to take a broad view of the subject matter, whatever it may be. In this case, Senator Norris decided to talk about light rail to the exclusion of all the other modes of transport contained in the DTI plan. When we are talking about getting Dublin moving, which is essentially what this proposal is about, we have to look at all the ramifications, as the Minister said. The contribution by my friend Senator Norris was flawed in that respect.
Luas is either part of an integrated package or it stands alone. As a stand alone it would be wide open to the sort of criticism Senator Norris made, but it is not a stand alone project. It is part of an integrated prject in which all the parts are designed to make a contribution towards solving the problem. It is right—I said this at the outset —that the Opposition should look, examine, discuss, debate and argue, but at the end of the day it has the responsibility to keep the debate in a reasonable context because the bottom line for this Government, or for any Government, is to ensure that the process of implementing a travel plan for Dublin goes ahead. Of all the options that have been discussed, one is not available and my colleagues in Fianna Fáil will have to accept this. The option of doing nothing is not available to this Government or to any future Government.
The Minister made a speech on 16 September and used the phrase "paralysis by analysis". That is gridlock and anyone who travels to this House from any Dublin suburbs can sit in a car for an hour or an hour and a half, depending on the traffic. That is gridlock in anyone's language. The reality of the city, given its layout, is that if a truck breaks down on the quays there can be huge traffic delays for hours. This is a dangerous place in which to live in many respects because a minor breakdown can close down substantial parts of the city. There is no disagreement about the need for this project to be undertaken as swiftly as possibly.
Any outside observer would say that the room given to analysis, debate, studies etc. and indeed the ongoing public discussion which has yet to be finalised, would lead one to believe that there is almost a conspiracy that nothing will ever happen. Successive Administrations will pass it on because it is too hot to handle. People talk about disruption. Nobody pretends for a second that there will not be serious disruption for many people. I am old enough to remember when one-way streets were introduced. People said it would be the death knell for certain places and it was but it enabled the vast majority of places to prosper and thrive.
Similar arguments were advanced about by-passes around towns and villages. Many communities felt their areas would die but the opposite happened in most cases. In some cases, businesses were badly affected but in the vast majority of cases they thrived. As ever, there were those who wanted the old arrangements to continue because the issue was a hot potato. Most of the by-passes in the early days were politically controversial.
We have no option but to grasp this nettle. The Minister was accused of favouring an option. It would be a nonsense if the Minister whose responsibility it is to bring the project to fruition told us he had no idea what he wants, despite all the discussion and advice he received.
Senator Cassidy and Senator Norris cited Garret FitzGerald as an icon, presumably because as a former Taoiseach and Leader of Fine Gael it must be embarrassing for the Minister to have Garret FitzGerald quoted at him. That is nonsense. As far as I know Charles Haughey may be delighted with Luas but he keeps his counsel. We condemned him in relation to the renovation of Government Buildings. Who condemns him now? Dr. FitzGerald was condemned over the refurbishment of Dublin Castle. Charles Haughey was attacked over the Ballinamore-Ballyconnell canal. I was at the opening of the canal which was performed by the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring.
Knock airport.
The Tánaiste gave the former Taoiseach his due for his vision. Many people criticised Mr. Haughey bitterly at the time for spending money on the project but it has changed the nature of relations between the North and the South. The level of traffic on the canal in both directions has exceeded all expectations. I spent six weeks of the summer in Enniskillen and am aware of the numbers using the canal.
Every large engineering project will have its coterie of critics. As Senator Hayes said, with regard to this project, experts are being thrown around like Scud missiles. One can hire anybody to say anything; one can hire expert engineers and tunnelling experts who will tell one what one wants to know. At some stage a lay person must weigh up the advice and make a decision.
In this case the options and the necessary information have been put before the people. There are volumes of information available on the project and one can get all sorts of advice. It really depends on the point of view you adopt. If you want to have a go at the Government there will be an analysis to support your view.
Ultimately, there is common cause that the Luas light rail project must go ahead. However, as sure as night follows day some aspect of it will go wrong because that is the nature of things. In some cases politicians are taking out an insurance policy so that if some elements do not go quite right they can say "I told you so"— it is a national pastime. Shortly after the DART opened one of the trains broke down and the mainline trains had to stop unexpectedly at some of the DART stations. A common response was "This system will never work". However, it is now a jewel in the crown for CIE. Eventually, people will tell the Minister that he was lucky he got it right even though they were waiting for him to get it wrong.
We must solve this problem rather than muddy the waters. Experts have pronounced on the tunnel, monorail and light rail options and it is the Government's responsibility to pick the one most suited to the city. The people have been consulted. They have made their views known in an MRBI survey and are in favour of the light rail option by two to one. In that respect, the democratic process has been utilised.
All the world's major projects have been decided upon by lay people having received and judged advice in accordance with their responsibilities. I have no doubt the Minister will follow the same process. I am confident that when the system is in place he will be proved to have been right.
I would not like to be portrayed as a Luddite but in this case making no decision might be better than making the wrong one. A major error is being made in this case. I was stunned at the outset when the suggestion was made to resurrect the tramway system in the form of the Luas light rail system. I do not mean to take a shot at the Minister because he inherited a process that had been in train for some time and experts in the State agencies involved had already started to take sides before the Minister took office.
It is commendable that decisions are made rather than letting the paralysis of analysis take hold. However, neither the underground alternative nor a pre-metro system have been given proper official evaluation. There are fundamental flaws in the Luas proposals. In ten years' time the Luas system will have created gridlock in Dublin. The gridlock will have been contributed to by a variety of the city's characteristics and selfish Irish motorists. In ten years' time we will have to undo the Luas system and consider an underground system.
The primary political attraction of Luas is that it can be running relatively quickly. The primary political disadvantage of tunnelling is that it is a longer term project and considerably more costly. It would be better to start an underground process, even if it meant constructing only short links, than to go ahead with the Luas project.
There has not been a proper evaluation of the traffic implications of Luas. It is unfair to criticise a system from the point of view of disruption during the construction phase. If one installs a sewerage, gas or on-road rail system there will be associated disruption. A large proportion of the major streets in Dublin will be disrupted because of Luas. We do not have an external network of public transport around the city which encourages people to leave their cars at home. Further traffic chaos will be created in the city.
Senator Magner suggested that we should not cite Garret FitzGerald and I seldom do so. However, for once it seems he is speaking with eminent good sense and is using his considerable statistical skills to analyse the traffic capacity of Luas.
He is the only expert consistently quoted by Fianna Fáil.
We must refrain from mentioning people who are not Members of this House.
The man in question is not excessively sensitive.
I ask the Senator to speak on the motion before the House.
Dr. FitzGerald's figures may be right in this instance but nobody knows for certain and this is the nub of the issue. An appropriate and sufficiently detailed analysis of the tunnelling option has not been published. I have sympathy for the Minister because, on the one hand he has the urge to do something while, on the other, resources are available for this project and in house expertise is strongly committed to Luas. The coming together of those three elements do not in themselves make an impelling case to go ahead with Luas as there has not been sufficient analysis of the traffic chaos that will inevitably occur.
I have an objection to the Luas proposals on aesthetic grounds which has not been argued. I do not want to see a Georgian city which has been devastated by improper development over the years further destroyed by strings of additional wires. There were some trolley bus systems in this city which were extremely ugly.
Senator Magner spoke of the chaos caused by a truck illegally parked on the quays. A series of traffic jams will result from the Luas system operating in the busiest parts of this city. A significant proportion of the main traffic arteries will be taken out of circulation at the busiest times of the day. The trams will have to stop to disgorge passengers and take new ones on board. That does not make sense and there will be nothing but chaos.
How could they be taken out of circulation?
The Senator is making the proposition that Luas will take x proportion of potential car traffic out of circulation. That is true but it is the amount of traffic involved which is the conundrum and there are widely differing views on that.
That depends on the public.
This city will not have a public transport network, even with Luas onstream, that will be sufficient for the suburbs. A relatively narrow corridor in the city will be served by this upgraded public transport system and there will still be chaos in the western and south western suburbs and further afield. People are commuting from Wicklow and I cannot see them leaving their cars behind.
I refer to two characteristics of driving here that will cause chaos. It is singularly difficult to come to a long term traffic solution because of the physical layout of the city. That is not unique to Dublin and the same can be found in many continental cities. We have uniquely selfish driving characteristics in this country and people will not abandon their cars for Luas. It will mean abandoning them in an outlying area, getting on a tram and travelling on a more restrictive transport mode.
The decision which needed to be made in Dublin was to go underground. It is not just this Administration which will stand accused by the people of Dublin if the wrong decision is made on this occasion. Every Administration has failed to do something about traffic management in this city. The DART was a success and I argued strongly against the doom sayers, economists and people who argued that it was going to induce misery and traffic chaos.
That is why I do not trust them.
I am not arguing from a technical point of view but from that of a person who travels around this city. There will be gridlock and we are being impelled to make the wrong decision. My argument is that rather than compel ourselves to make the wrong decision all the questions on the tunnelling option should be answered.
Serious public safety arguments are being made against street light rail systems. They cause problems for cyclists and cause traffic gridlock. At a recent inquest on the death of a cyclist in Sheffield it was pointed out that the front wheel of his bicycle had been caught in the super tram lines. He sustained head injuries and died. The unfortunate man could have died because he went under a car or because some idiot threw a car door open but he died because of this system. The people who have argued that this system is above reproach in terms of public safety are being disingenuous. It is no more above reproach than the tunnelling option. The suggestion that Irish people are fearful of underground systems is patent and absolute nonsense. Irish people are perfectly at home with the underground systems in London and New York or the Metro in Paris.
They built most of them.
I suggest to the Minister that there could be no proper or valid reason to blame him or to decry a decision to have a full and final analysis of the two options — tunnelling versus road. This decision is an error, but I hope as the project goes ahead that it will be a success and that we will not be in a position in five or ten years' time to say we told him so. I agree with Senator Magner that this is almost a national pastime and is usually engaged in by those who can never make a decision such as the curmudgeoning individuals who attacked the decision to upgrade Government Buildings or the facilities in this House. People who are not capable of making decisions have the facility to sit on the fence and come off it with the benefit of hindsight.
They will always be right.
My admonitions to the Minister are sincere. I use the city streets extensively and have the flexibility of a private car. I wish I could use public transport and the majority of commuters in this city are in the same position. With a burgeoning population and continuous suburban growth in areas which will never be touched by public transport, the Luas option is the wrong one. It would make good sense to start on the underground option and continue with an ongoing scheme of improvements particularly in the western suburbs of the city over a 20 year period. That will not satisfy anyone with short term political ideas but in the long term it will make more sense. I wish the Minister and his experts well. It is not easy to make a decision like this because the buck stops with the Minister.
We need to examine the arguments that Luas will not create chaos on the streets on a long-term basis. My fundamental difficulty with the project is that, while it has many other attractions not least of which is it is considerably cheaper than going underground and would be completed more quickly, it will continue to add to traffic chaos in the long term in a city which, because of its physical layout and the selfishness of motorists, is already in gridlock. We will regret the decision to opt for Luas and not an underground route in ten or 15 years' time.
When I spoke on the Transport (Dublin Light Rail) (No. 2) Bill last June, I expressed my reservations about the proposed Luas system for Dublin. My concern was and, to some extent, still is that the laying of the Luas system would cause a certain amount of disruption which would affect the economic life of the city. I also had serious reservations about the amount of road space which would be left to business motorists when the Luas system is in operation.
I want to make a distinction between business motorists and commuters. We cannot accept the number of commuters who are coming into the city between 6.30 a.m. and 9 a.m. and in the evening. Provision must be made for the commuter who wants to come into the city after 10.30 a.m. to do business. I do not accept Senator Roche's argument that commuters are not prepared, if there is a proper facility, whether it be light rail, DART or bus, to leave their cars and travel in comfort on public transport to work. They could read the newspaper or prepare for work in their own time. The build-up on the roads in my locality begins at 6.45 a.m., it is not conducive to a good way of life and it is unnecessary. There is a better way of life than to put such pressure on commuters.
When the general public wishes to do business in the city it is important that it has a choice between using public transport and private cars. I accept that numerous studies of Dublin transport have been conducted over the past number of years but no action was taken. In the meantime, Dublin Corporation, of which I am a member, has grappled with this problem. We have done everything in our power to try to resolve the traffic problem in Dublin. We created one-way street systems, residential disk parking schemes and "no parking" zones but there is still tremendous traffic congestion. I accept that if the process is allowed to continue, it will be a serious factor in the deterioration of the centre of the city.
The starting point for the Dublin Transport Initiative was a review of the economic and social trends facing the city. Population, employment, economic activity and car ownership were all examined. The outcome of this analysis showed that car ownership would increase by 16 per cent by the year 2001 and by 60 per cent by the year 2011. We can see in 1996 that these projections are accurate. While the economy continues to grow, people become more prosperous. More people are able to purchase cars as a result and we can see the huge increase in the number of cars on the roads this year. An estimated 30,000 cars come into the city at peak times at present. By the year 2011, the number will have increased to 40,000. Clearly, this volume of cars cannot be accommodated by the existing street network, especially between the canals.
It is said that there will be gridlock while the Luas system is built. We have gridlock already. I experienced this for the first time last Friday week when my second eldest son graduated from DCU, Glasnevin, Dublin. I brought him to Leinster House for lunch. Afterwards, he wanted to return to DCU to meet his colleagues for a social evening. It was a very wet evening. We made every effort to take him across the city. We tried every route known to us, including the toll-bridge, but Dublin was in gridlock and it will get worse.
The strategy behind DTI is to provide an attractive public transport system so an alternative is available to motorists, and light rail is an important part of it. We have argued for some time, as the Minister well knows, that this must be an integrated strategy and I am pleased that, according to the information which has now been supplied by DTI and the Dublin Transport Office, an integrated strategy is taking shape.
A weakness in today's debate is that we are discussing Luas in isolation. Unfortunately, the Minister's officials sold the Luas system in isolation initially but now we see it is an essential part of a package to deal with Dublin's traffic problems. However, there are other aspects which are very important. If these are put in place, Luas can be a success.
One of Dublin's main traffic problems relates to the number of cars which pass through the city. It is estimated that 50 per cent of cars going north-south or vice versa traverse the centre city without doing any business there. There is no facility for that kind of through traffic, it adds no value to the city and it has a detrimental effect.
The elements of the DTI which deal with the problem must be given priority and the first aspect of that is the completion of the "C" ring-road motorway. The northern route will be opened in December but the southern cross route, which is the key factor in the completion of the motorway, is held up unfortunately by a case taken in the Supreme Court at present. I hope this matter can be resolved and work on the southern route will commence in the near future.
There has also been a tremendous increase in traffic to Dublin Port. It is good to see that Dublin has a vibrant port because that leads to a vibrant economic city. The port tunnel access is now a major aspect of the DTI and Dublin Corporation has put in place the procedure to amend the development plan.
Other aspects create traffic in the city. We know that traffic to schools when they reopen after the holidays can generate between 5 per cent and 10 per cent of traffic. There are also problems with Dublin Corporation's cleaning department. The trucks which clean the streets can be seen in the middle of the city during peak hours. That is a matter which Dublin Corporation has tried to address but it must seek the approval of the unions to operate these trucks earlier.
In order to reduce morning and evening commuter traffic in the city it is important to provide quality public transport and the light rail system will play an important part in this. However, many areas of the city will not be served by that system and I am pleased to note that a substantial number of quality bus corridors will now be put in place. It is important that these bus lanes are monitored properly to ensure motorists do not park on them. If they do, we are back to where we started.
It is essential that a director of traffic for Dublin be appointed as soon as possible, and the enforcement functions of the Garda in this regard be transferred to Dublin Corporation. There must be the immediate introduction of cost effective traffic violation systems, improved tow away and wheel clamping systems and streamlined traffic fines. Enforcement, which has left something to be desired in the past, is one of the most important aspects of traffic movement in the city.
Another aspect of the DTI package relates to the provision of facilities for cyclists. An increasing number of people cycle to and from work and, at peak times, 3,000 cyclists cross the canals. Cycle lanes are being made available and proposals for a new lane are before Dublin Corporation at present. It is hoped that, when a number of cycle ways are put in place, the numbers of people cycling to and from work will increase from 5 per cent to 10 per cent.
Another important aspect of the DTI proposal for traffic in the city involves environmental traffic management. The development of a network of environmental traffic cells is a key component of this strategy. It is a concept through which traffic will be excluded from the city centre area. It is vital for the conversion of the city centre from a car and heavy goods vehicle dominated area to a vibrant pedestrian, cyclist and public transport friendly environment.
The first of these traffic cells was agreed by the traffic sub-committee at its meeting on 21 October. The Portobello cell is the first of six which will be put in place in Dublin. This cell was selected as a pilot scheme for implementation during the current year and it will be completed next year. The study area is bounded by the Grand Canal on the southside, the South Circular Road on the northside and to the west by Clanbrassil Street and South Richmond Street. This area is predominantly residential in character but it also used for educational, commercial and light industrial purposes. The Jewish museum and the George Bernard Shaw House, which are of interest to tourists, are sited in this area and there are a number of restaurants situated on the canal. The first phase will be completed this year.
The purpose of environmental traffic cells is to reduce rat running and the volume and speed of traffic, enhance additional facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and mobility impaired and disabled people. They are also aimed at improving safety for all road users, reduce air and noise pollution and enhance the visual environment through landscaping, etc. When the six cells are completed, many of the rat runs used by people travelling through Dublin will no longer be available. This will improve the environmental aspects of the areas in which they are placed.
There are a number of other aspects of the DTI package which I cannot mention in the time available. When they are put in place, however, the light rail system will play a very important part. However, it will not succeed on its own. Only when the other measures are put in place will we be able to comprehensively deal with the traffic problem in Dublin.
When I was first elected to Dublin Corporation, traffic was very low on the agenda. However, it is now the first item to be dealt with at every meeting. Traffic problems are also a major issue at the meetings of residents' associations I attend. People want the traffic problem in Dublin resolved. The city should be like any of its European counterparts and people must be able to shop and carry out their business in comfort. I have a vision of Dublin as civilised and vibrant a place where people live, work, relax and enjoy themselves and a city that is accessible to everyone. When the light rail system and the other measures proposed by the DTI are put in place. I hope we will witness the birth of such a city.
Would it be in order to share time with Senator Henry?
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I propose to allocate 15 minutes to myself and five minutes to Senator Henry.
I welcome the Minister and I am glad he has devoted his time and attention to this debate. I am very disappointed with the way the debate on the light rail system for Dublin has progressed since it was last discussed in this House. At that time, the light rail legislation was passing through the House and I convinced myself that the Minister and his Department were listening to what was said. There were expressions of regret that the consultation process was inadequate and there were assurances that our concerns would be addressed on a rational basis. The message we received was that the Department had seen the error of its ways and that the debate would be carried on in a reasonable manner which took full account of the general reservations expressed by Members.
What occurred during the past number of months has been the reverse of what we had been led to expect at that time. I feel disappointed and betrayed. It almost seems the Department formed the view that, following the passage of the legislation, it is not obliged to care about the people's thinking on this issue. As a result, not only was there a return to the previous arrogant approach and a refusal to listen to any contrary views but there was an intensification of the attitudes about which we had cause to complain.
During the summer, there was a repeated and systematic rubbishing of views which dared to question any aspect of the Luas proposal. Reasoned argument has been met with abuse, a reiteration of the assertions that have long since been shown to be wrong and systematic misrepresentation of the case being put forward by the questioner. In the world of business, when they put forward investment projects, people expect to be questioned closely and they have their answers ready. Those answers consist of facts which can be substantiated. If the proposer of a project responded to every question not with facts or reasoned arguments but with systematic abuse of the questioners, the investment proposals would receive short shrift.
The former Taoiseach, Dr. FitzGerald, has invested a great deal of time in researching this issue and he has convincingly shown that many of the premises on which the Luas argument is founded have no basis whatsoever. Dr. FitzGerald may be right, or wrong. I will not be convinced that he is wrong by someone who pours abuse on his beliefs nor by someone who reiterates the very propositions that Dr. FitzGerald has painstakingly shown to be rubbish as some kind of mystical mantra.
Every week, with increasing urgency, we are informed that time is running out. During his contribution, the Minister used similar expressions. We are informed that anyone who questions Luas in its present form is delaying the solution to Dublin's horrific traffic problems, perhaps forever. This is a specious argument. It makes no sense to state that we must do anything. If we could be certain that Luas could do some good or could, at least, do no harm, we would be wrong to question it. However, because there is a real possibility that Luas will make traffic congestion considerably worse, we have a responsibility to question it every step of the way. The real issue is not making a decision between the underground or overground options but whether the proposal, in its present form, will make matters worse. That is the nightmare scenario that the Department and the Luas team steadfastly refuse to consider.
One thing has emerged during the summer. Those of us who questioned the wisdom of the present plans argued that the amount of street space occupied by the trams will considerably reduce the space available for cars and bicycles. Over the summer, with their guard let down, the proposers of Luas have come clean on this. Far from denying the charges, they now admit that this is precisely what they are trying to do. Their dream is to squeeze cars off the streets of Dublin. They want to make congestion so bad that people will, in desperation, use public transport. That is the shabby little strategy that is now revealed for everyone to see.
Now that the proposition is out in the open we can see how utterly foolish is that strategy. The number of people who would switch to Luas is very limited. As Dr. FitzGerald has pointed out, the total capacity of Luas is very small in relation to the total likely level of demand. Luas simply could not take all that traffic, even if people wanted to use it. What we will do, if we proceed on this route, is systematically and expensively guarantee day long, permanent gridlock across the city. No matter what the Minister says to the contrary, that is what Luas will bring.
Is it too late for common sense to prevail? I hope not. Realistically the only hope left is the statutory inquiry. If that is conducted properly the shallowness of the Luas arguments will be conclusively revealed. That is why the inquiry must be genuinely independent and carried out by an inspector in whom the public can have absolute trust.
The recent study into the tunnelling option is an example of what must be avoided. Consultants were employed to look into something on which a position had already been taken. Some of these consultants were part of the team committed to pushing the Luas proposals. That approach has no credibility and, therefore, their conclusions have no credibility either.
The study into the Ballymun line is equally questionable. For five months the Department haggled with Brussels over the terms of reference and would not let go until those terms were defined in a way which prejudiced the outcome. Even then the grudging nod of approval for the Dundrum option was accompanied by a public rapping on the knuckles by Brussels. The crunch will come with the public inquiry.
The Minister now has a grave obligation and I know he will give serious consideration to it. In view of the quasi-judicial role set out under the legislation he must appoint an inspector whose impartiality is beyond question. That person must be open to reviewing this entire issue from scratch, without prejudice or from an entrenched position. My hope is that, for the first time in the sorry history of this project, common sense will prevail at that inquiry.
In the meantime, traffic congestion gets worse by the day. We are entitled to ask what else is being done apart from pursuing this questionable Luas proposal. Is there any evidence that measures which could alleviate matters are being implemented or even considered? We cannot wait for Luas. To judge from what I see in the streets I fear that nothing else is being done. I wonder how much worse the congestion must become before people say enough is enough.
I listened carefully to the debate and the Minister's speech. I was delighted that he spoke about the environment but I have a number of concerns on that issue. Can we accept that a 40 metre long vehicle will help the environment? Have we really made provisions for bicycles, particularly in the inner city area? I would like to be reassured on that. I was delighted the Minister said that the refusal to build an underground section was not a question of cost because I hope we will keep that option open.
I agree with Senator Hayes that the main issue is to build what is best for the people of Dublin. I have a huge fear of the gridlock that Senator Doyle spoke about. We are not at the end of this road yet. Much of the plan is worthwhile, particularly the bus corridors. However, there is a lack of foresight in the overall plan and the city will be doomed to gridlock. Let me leave the Minister with this Latin phrase obesa non cantava— the fat lady has not sung yet.
While the merits of the light rail bringing people from the suburbs are obvious, as someone who lives in the city centre, I support Senator Quinn in his concerns about whether this plan will actually make things worse. A great deal of the plan is concerned with making the traffic situation so impossible that motorists will not travel into the city.
I hate to say this in the presence of Senator Doyle who is a distinguished member of Dublin Corporation, but little effort has been made on two measures which could improve the traffic problem, the first of which is facilities for walking and cycling. The corporation is to be praised for eventually doing something about the footpaths so one can walk with more comfort. I walk to the Seanad and to one of my places of work and it is possible to walk around the city if the footpaths and traffic management are improved. Senator Doyle is grossly optimistic about the ease with which one can cycle around the city and the amount of work done to improve such facilities. It is almost impossible and appallingly dangerous to do so at the moment. Would it not have been wiser when widening footpaths in the city centre to have installed cycle lanes? If one wants to cycle to one's place of work in the city centre one must be separated from the traffic in the interests of safety. This is not the case at the moment.
The integrated approach of buses and the light rail is to be praised, however, a further extension of the bus lanes would be welcome. It has already been pointed out that the light rail will compete with cars, so how much more competition will there be between buses and the light rail?
Senator Roche is correct to mention city centre aesthetics. I hope that option will be re-examined in view of the fact that the tunnelling need not be of such great length. For example, the system in Helsinki contains only five kilometres of underground track which makes an enormous difference to the aesthetics of the inner city. Similarly, in Stockholm only nine kilometres of track are underground. The problem with the tunnelling option is not insurmountable.
Gridlock in the city could be prevented if the traffic regulations were enforced. The Minister should be told that someone is parking a Mercedes on double yellow lines outside his office. One of the staff should tell the driver to move it because I am sure the Minister does not want it there. I live on that side of the road and have noticed it. The traffic regulations should be enforced. On Baggot Street one frequently sees an articulated truck double parked in order to deliver trays of yoghurt. I have not witnessed such sights in any other European city but they are common here. Buses cannot pull in because everyone thinks it is perfectly legal to park at a bus stop. If one puts on flashing hazard lights, one can park anywhere — that must be part of this city's traffic code because I have seen it happen often but I cannot find it in the regulations.
Clamps should be put on cars that are parked illegally. There should also be more tow trucks. A £100 fine sharpens one's wits greatly. I went to the fines office with a friend who parked on double yellow lines around the corner from the Minister's office. If such fines were regularly imposed, the tow trucks would be paid for in no time.
We can do an enormous amount to prevent gridlock in the city. However, we are throwing that word around rather a lot — someone told me about being stuck in gridlock in Mallow. I thought gridlock only happened in places such as New York but apparently it is now so bad in Ireland that it occurs in every small town. The traffic laws should be enforced and we should see what we can do with our pedestrian, bicycle and bus transport systems before embarking on this enormous plan, which will have a huge impact on the city.
I am surprised that more of our country cousins are not here for the debate on traffic in Dublin. Those of us currently in the House experience this traffic on a daily or twice daily basis. I either use my car to come into town and then walk or I use the DART, which is recognised as a good system, and I know the problems that exist and which grow worse on a daily basis. If we do not address them we will have ongoing difficulties in a couple of years and into the next century. If we do not get the planning right and explore all the possibilities, we will have mayhem.
The previous speaker mentioned the importance of enforcing traffic laws. There should be a specific corps to enforce the regulations. At present, the standard procedure is to park one's car and put on flashing hazard lights if one is, for example, leaving something in to be dry cleaned or buying something in a shop. Skips are sometimes left in bus lanes and this adds to the traffic problem. The Minister should consult with his colleague, the Minister for Justice, to ensure that the rules are enforced. I agree with Senator Henry that there is no quicker way to focus the mind than having to get a taxi to collect one's car from the pound. If more people had that experience, the traffic would move more easily around the city.
The alternatives to driving one's car are not good enough at present. There are "Nitelink" buses and other services but the taxi service is not sufficient. I went home last night at quite an early hour, 12.20 a.m. I was waiting at a taxi rank in Abbey Street along with 40 other people but not one taxi was there. My colleague, Senator Doyle, has been dealing with this at city council level.
It is not our fault — look to the other side of the House.
I know he is concerned and if other colleagues had given greater attention to the problem further progress would have been made.
A debate on light rail is useful. We can examine where the lines are going and what must be done. Presentational mistakes have been made and many self-styled experts have emerged in the discussion on traffic management. Do some of these drive their own cars? They lecture the Minister, his officials and the organisations; are the same people able to listen? Senator Doyle and other Members who attend the races will know the phrase "horses for courses". Some of these so-called traffic management experts have not stuck to their own course. Not only do they wander or switch from flat racing on turf to all-weather racing, they try to jump fences at Aintree.
Some of them have fallen.
These experts should be called to account and made to inform themselves better on these matters. Did they speak to the Minister or his officials before giving their lectures? The Department is always available to listen. Perhaps some of the misinformation can be blamed on the Department but we should learn from the mistakes and go forward.
Whatever plans we have for light rail should be dealt with thoroughly. There are lines for the northside, Dundrum and the southside. People were misguided in the past and took the short term measure. My colleague, Senator Ormonde, knows how her constituents are affected by not having the full facilities they want.
I hope the Minister can give a positive reply about a link-up with the DART. There are difficulties with the parking facilities and feeder bus services at DART stations. Often the bus leaves just as the DART arrives or vice versa. This service should be planned better and there should be a link between the DART, mainline rail stations and light rail.
I welcome this debate. Senator Quinn made a contribution, based on his experience of business travel, which showed that lessons can be learned. There are problems with the underground system. In an ideal world we might go for that but cost and other factors are involved. We must sort out the problem and be better informed. We need fewer experts and more reasoned discussion of the matters to find the best way forward. This debate has been useful even though it is Dublin oriented. I am sure the Acting Chairman, Senator Finneran, can travel swiftly from his own part of the country as far as the M50 but it takes a long time to cover the last few miles into Dublin.
I see where all the money is being spent.
One can travel a couple of hundred miles by air in an hour but the last four or five miles from Dublin Airport can take just as long. This also applies to Members arriving in Dublin at Heuston Station. I hope the Minister will take on board the various comments that have been made. His Department does not have all the answers and neither do Members of the House but they are giving practical advice from their own experience.
I wonder why we use names such as Luas and DART. Luas, of course, means speed and the exercise is to seek a way to get from A to B quickly but where do we start? An integrated bus and rail system connecting with the DART has been rejected but the underground option is still being discussed for the city centre area. The situation is so confused that there seems to be no answer, yet with all the expertise there must be a short term solution to alleviate Dublin's chaotic traffic problems.
To go from my area in the Dublin South constituency, including Rathfarnham and Knocklyon, into the city centre takes two hours on any weekday. To make a 9 o'clock appointment one must leave the house at 6.45 a.m. It does not add up. We are locked into a terrible position which is near breaking point.
Every day constituents and professional colleagues of mine raise the matter with me but I do not know where to start talking about the subject. We are going around in circles. We cannot halt progress or stop building houses, yet we do not have the right transport infrastructure for a densely populated urban area. The case involving the southern cross route has been locked in the High Court for the last ten years and the northern ring will open in a couple of weeks. When the latter route comes onstream one can imagine the volume of traffic coming off the M50 into the southside of Dublin. As it joins the existing suburban traffic a bottleneck will be created with cars entering the city crawling to a halt. The matter has reached an all time low.
We are seeking short term answers. Land is available, for example, the Harcourt Street line. I do not have any hang-up about saying that a mistake may have been made in the past concerning that line but we are now ready to look at it again. Even if a mistake was made then, it is not a mistake to re-examine this discused railway. Why can it not be used in the short term to absorb some traffic coming from the Dundrum pocket?
Last week it took only 20 minutes for people living in Knocklyon to drive to work in Dublin because of the mid-term school break. If we provided a proper school bus service catering for every road in the area it would encourage people to keep their cars at home. In many of the more mature areas, young graduates now have their first cars. They are still living at home with their parents so one finds families with two, three or even four cars in the driveway. In many built up areas houses are being rented out to graduates and young workers so five or six cars can be parked outside. This adds to traffic congestion every morning.
We cannot reach any conclusion on the merits of a light rail, underground or integrated system because we do not know the answer and neither does the Minister. The matter is still up in the air and the Minister is as unsure about it as the rest of us. We do not have it right yet because we are in an assessment phase. When one questions traffic management people from the Dublin Transport Authority on a one to one basis they become unstruck in their thinking about whether or not the light rail or underground systems will work. Different research throws up different results.
We need a proper bus service to alleviate congestion. The Departments of Education and Transport, Energy and Communications should get together to see how best we can run a school bus system that might help parents who drive their children to school. There is a lesson to be learned because, as I said earlier, traffic from Knocklyon to Dublin flowed more swiftly when schools were closed last week for the mid-term break. We will not be able to answer this question for the next four or five years but the short term answer is to discuss with residents' associations and local authorities how best a local transport system can be integrated for the benefit of each area.
We have failed to develop the infrastructure for an integrated bus service through Dublin's suburbs. We must regenerate bus services in urban areas. If you complain that buses only come every 45 minutes you will get a reply six months later to say the matter is being investigated. I am not a negative person by nature and I think positively about how best we can find a way forward in the short term. Luas is a long way down the road. The underground option is still being considered. I do not know where it will all end but we have a huge problem on our hands. It is frustrating. Unless we get this right it will affect everybody. With an election next year we must say how we can best answer this question. The infrastructure is failing and we cannot allow development. We are preventing jobs being created because houses cannot be built. There are no roads to service them and where there are roads there are no proper services.
In the first instance there must be an integrated approach between the DART and the bus service. The Department should also liaise with the Department of Education to see if a bus service to transport pupils can be provided. A proper bus service will encourage people to leave their cars at home and that might help alleviate the problem in the short term. However, the bigger project will come on stream but that will be far in the future.
I thank Senators for their constructive contributions which will be taken into account. The divergence of views is an indication of the difficult task we confront. They have ranged from doing nothing to providing on-street rail lines to providing an underground rail system. Other suggestions were valuable but they are already in the public domain and are included in our implementation plans under DTI.
It is worth recalling how fickle has been the public debate on light rail. Before the DTI study was carried out light rail was touted as the answer to all our transport problems. Prominent people, a number of whom have since changed their minds, suggested that the solution to Dublin's transport problem rested solely in light rail. The DTI in the course of its detailed analysis and assessment of Dublin's transport problem looked at all investment and policy options and objectively concluded that on-street light rail should form an important element of the transport strategy.
I fail to understand and find it difficult to accept why the DTI strategy is now being strongly rejected by people who were actively involved with the DTI. I have no difficulty accepting suggestions when the people who make them mean what they say and are anxious to make a positive contribution to the debate. However, I will not countenance the political hypocrisy I have witnessed in the past six months.
The DTI was established by the former Minister for the Environment, Pádraig Flynn, and was overseen by successive Fianna Fáil Ministers. Is Fianna Fáil rejecting the recommendations of the body set up by that party's Minister? The DTI carried out the most in-depth study ever undertaken in the history of transport in Dublin. There were inputs from various groups, including every relevant Department, the local councils in the greater Dublin area, CIE, the National Safety Council, University College Dublin, Aer Rianta, the Garda Síochána, student organisations, business associations in Dublin, national transport, the Council for the Status of Women, the Port and Docks Board, the Town Planning Institute and automobile clubs. They commissioned various studies and made a valuable contribution to the DTI process.
Arising from that process the DTI brought forward proposals, one of which was an on-street light rail system. I agree with Senator Doyle that there has been too much emphasis on light rail. Light rail in isolation will not solve Dublin's traffic problems. It is one element of an integrated plan which involves the provision of additional quality bus corridors, the extension of DART, provision of park and ride facilities and integrated ticketing and interchange facilities. I agree with Senator Cosgrave that integration of facilities and the access people will have to other modes of transport from light rail is extremely important and they are included in the strategy.
Better traffic management and enforcement are major elements of the strategy. I accept Senator Henry's prompt and have already discussed the matter with my driver. I told him not to park the car outside that door again and I am happy to inform the House that he is making alternative arrangements. There is also a suggestion that we appoint a director of traffic. We are making arrangements to establish that position. The other elements of the DTI plan are the "C" ring-road and the port tunnel. Approximately 18 important initiatives in the DTI package are agreed. We must ensure that the package is looked at in full rather than isolate the light rail proposal from it.
With regard to the inspectorate and the consultative process, I made it clear to the project team that it must take into account the views and legitimate concerns of local communities about this project. On numerous occasions I have emphasised that the project can only be successfully implemented with the full cooperation and support of local communities. It must be a partnership approach. I have received feedback about the consultative process and, after a bad start, the comments from local communities have been exceptionally good.
The project team has been meeting local people, organisations and business interests and explaining what is proposed. I am confident that when I receive the final draft order from the CIE project team it will reflect the views of local communities and that there will be many alterations to the preferred technical routes of the project team which are in the public domain. I expect nothing less and local communities are entitled to nothing less. I have met many interest groups and public representatives in the context of consultation and I have been available at all times to give the information that is available to me.
I accept I am no expert on the traffic problems of Dublin. I must take into account the professional technical advice I am given. That advice is given by the DTI which, after detailed analysis, suggested an on-street light rail system. There is also the Semaly report. I reject the criticism levelled at CIE. The suggestion is that because CIE commissioned an independent study it is no longer independent.
Semaly has been involved in many projects around the world which include light rail systems. They are acknowledged experts in the area. They have stated that Dublin should have an on-street light rail system as it is appropriate to our needs. They are not strangers to tunnel systems. The Semaly group of consultants has recommended tunnelling systems in many other cities where they were asked to prepare reports. They were involved in the construction of 5,000 kilometres of tunnels in various parts of the world. Semaly does not have a bias against tunnels; they looked at Dublin's requirements and decided in favour of the on-street light rail system. They are professional, qualified people with expertise in this area. They will not sign a report that is not factual or properly assessed and evaluated. Semaly and DTI are clearly in favour of the light rail system.
The real debate is about our vision for the future of Dublin. Do we want to reclaim the streets for the citizens of Dublin or do we want to abandon them forever to the domination of the private car? I make no apology for saying that the dominance of the car must cease. The city of Dublin is unable to cope with the existing number of cars, even without taking the projected growth into account. It is not possible to keep expanding the infrastructure to meet that requirement. The car will continue to have a place but it must be put in perspective. The other modes of transport which must be accommodated in Dublin city should be taken into account. The DTI philosophy, endorsed by citizens of Dublin through public consultation, is based on that fact. It foresees a living and vibrant city centre. On-street light rail is an essential part of that vision. The only way we can get people out of their cars and onto public transport is if we offer them an attractive alternative, which the Luas project is. It will be reliable, efficient, frequent, environmentally friendly and safe.
The light rail system has been implemented in approximately 500 cities around the world. I think Senator Norris mentioned Sheffield. Initially, the Sheffield experience was a bad one as the implementation of the system was not carefully managed. Strasbourg, Grenoble, Nantes and many other cities throughout the world have successfully implemented efficient light rail systems which have been of enormous benefit to people in those cities, particularly in alleviating traffic congestion. Dublin is not different from any other city. There are problems peculiar to Dublin in terms of the construction of light rail, but all of those will be taken into account. A project team will manage the construction of it. Their job will be to minimise the level of disruption and inconvenience.
I have heard the argument that if we go underground, this disruption will not take place. The reality is that an underground system will cause more disruption. People think that a hole can be opened at the top of O'Connell Street, the city centre can be tunnelled under and nobody will know work is being done. The reality is that the cap of O'Connell Street must come off to allow the services to be put underneath and to allow the attachment of the rail system to electrical appliances.
There will be disruption, irrespective of whether it is under or over ground. It is our job and that of the planners and the project team to ensure the system is carefully managed and that there is consultation with interest groups, residents and local business interests. We can then implement the scheme with the minimum of disruption to daily activity in the city.
The public consultation process is under way and is nearing conclusion. I believe it has been successful and we have learned much from it. When the final order from the CIE project team arrives, it will reflect the genuine concerns put forward during the process. The next phase is the independent public inquiry. I assure Senator Quinn and Senator Norris that this will be genuinely independent. All interest groups and any person who feels they have a contribution to make can put forward their case and be heard by the inspectorate, which will be totally independent of my Department. In appointing an inspectorate, I will consult with An Bord Pleanála. I am adamant that all of the powers necessary for the inspectorate to do his or her job will be made available. This will ensure that the report from the inspectorate will be independent, objective and will take on board many of the legitimate objections already raised at the public consultation stage.
The inspectorate, taking due consideration of all the views during the public inquiry, will make recommendations to me, which I intend to observe. It is not a question of the Government or me imposing our view. We have clearly established our priorities. It is up to anyone who disagrees with those to go before the public inquiry and make their case. I have provided a vast amount of detailed information arising from the research and analyses of the transportation problems in Dublin, particularly the light rail system. We have put that in the public domain and I look forward to those who have other suggestions and proposals bringing them before the public inquiry. More importantly, I look forward to them substantiating some of the arguments they have already put forward with the necessary detail to allow the inspector to make an accurate assessment of the pros and cons of their proposals.
Sufficient studies have been carried out. We had an underground study 20 years ago which did not achieve anything. DTI recommended on-street light rail as the preferred approach. We must move to the next phase, which is the public inquiry. Arising from that, I am confident that when people who are genuine in their approach to resolving the problems of massive congestion on our streets have put forward their views and the inspectorate reports to me, they will find that the procedure has been fully complied with, openly and fairly, and that all concerns and views have been taken into account.
I thank Members for their interest in this matter. We have had a number of constructive and useful debates. It is not fair to say we are not listening. This can only be judged when the final order from the CIE project team arrives and when I sign a light rail order. When I do that it will reflect the genuine views and concerns which have been conveyed directly to me as Minister, to the project team through the public consultation exercise and through contributions made in the media and elsewhere.
As Minister, I must make an informed decision. I welcome the fact that many people have made valuable contributions to this debate, although I do not agree with their arguments in some instances. I am entitled to convey that view through the media, based on the technical advice and the knowledge available to me from the Department. Those with opposing views are entitled to put them forward. I look forward to the public inquiry stage where some of these sincerely held views which have been argued vociferously must be substantiated by real, hard facts and professional advice. If they are, the inspectorate will have to make a decision as to whether the advice and technical expertise that was available to me was correct. I am happy to abide by the inspectorate's report arising from the public inquiry.
As regards bicycles in the city centre, concern was expressed about the possibility that they would not be allowed in Grafton Street or Nassau Street. Can the Minister put my mind at rest in this regard?
A number of contributors made the point about greater facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. I assure the Senator they will be taken into account and provision will be made for cyclists. I understand that in the locations referred to by the Senator, the needs of cyclists and pedestrians have been accommodated in the plan put forward.
Acting Chairman
When is it proposed to sit again?
Next Wednesday at 10.30 a.m.