I move:
That Seanad Éireann recognises the severe social and economic problems caused by traffic congestion in Dublin and expresses its support for a range of measures to alleviate the problem, including
(i) the invitation of tenders as soon as possible for the construction of the first phase of a comprehensive metro system for the city,
(ii) the use of public private partnership as the most efficient and cost-effective mechanism for delivering the metro system,
(iii) the improvement of the bus service by developing more quality bus corridors and by enabling new operators to enter the market and invest in new bus fleets, and
(iv) the implementation of remedial measures to ensure that the Luas light rail line does not exacerbate traffic congestion at the Red Cow roundabout.
I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Deputy McDaid, and hope he will find our contributions worthwhile to the debate on public transport in Dublin, as well as the resolutions we hope to offer.
In the mid-1990s we had a major debate about public transport in Dublin and came down in favour of light rail. The option of an underground metro system was rejected. Comparing the two at the time the then Minister for Transport, Deputy Lowry, said in the House: "Underground is less acceptable, less attractive, less safe, less clean and will cost more to build and operate." That was that.
At the same time a major debate was also raging in Madrid about public transport. The city had a metro system dating back to 1919 but traffic congestion was choking the life out of the Spanish capital and it was clear something had to be done. Major investment in public transport was required. The authorities again went for metro in a big way. In the intervening eight years over 110 kilometres of new lines, 75 new stations, and new interchanges with suburban rail have been built. Almost 90% of the new network is underground.
Here we are, almost a decade later, and a metro system in Dublin is back on the political agenda again. The Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats coalition agreed three years ago to build such a system but little progress has been made. The Government now has to decide whether it will give the go-ahead for the project. I strongly believe Dublin needs a metro system and do not think we will ever resolve our congestion problems until we have one. Every capital city in the European Union has an extensive metro system, with the exception of Dublin and Luxembourg. Luxembourg, a small city of less than 100,000 people, is hardly comparable to Dublin which has a population more than ten times greater, and growing. There are few who would argue against such a system for Dublin. Gone are the spurious arguments that an underground railway would not be safe for women, that houses and shops would fall into the tunnels, and that such a system is simply not affordable.
It is now widely recognised that a metro system is essential for the smooth running of our capital city. It alone offers the high-speed, high-capacity solution which works well in other major cities and which would work well in Dublin. It alone offers a real long-term solution to the transport problems of our capital city. People like Senator Norris saw the logic a decade ago. Everyone sees it now. If we accept that a metro system is needed, we must start putting in place as quickly as possible a system to develop it. Several questions have to be answered. These relate to the affordability of the project, its management and scale and design.
According to the Rail Procurement Agency, a metro link from Dublin Airport to St. Stephen's Green would cost almost €5 billion. For a rail link of just 10 kilometres, that figure seems off the scale in terms of affordability. We have never built a metro system in this country and have not built a major rail tunnel in almost 90 years. It is only natural, therefore, that we should approach the project in a cautious and conservative mood and seek to avoid underestimating costs and then running massively over budget but it is only natural, too, that in such circumstances we should seek to learn from others, above all our partners in the European Union. This is a particularly important point when it comes to a metro system.
The world leader in metro development is the regional government in Madrid where, as I said, a massive programme of metro development has just been completed. The project team is headed by Professor Manuel Melis. In an article published last month he wrote, "In Madrid we believe that any metro can be built and commissioned within 40 months at a cost of no more than €50 million per kilometre". He is coming to Dublin next week to address the Cabinet sub-committee on transport. I am sure its members will listen carefully to what he has to say. He has built more metro lines than anybody else in the world, and built them faster and cheaper than anybody else. We have a lot to learn from the Madrid experience.
It may be that costs in Dublin are higher than in Madrid. They may be 20% or 30% higher but they are certainly not ten times higher. It is vital that we look again at the costings for the Dublin project. Let us take Madrid as our benchmark and get as close as possible to its costings and timetable. Time is money in the management of major infrastructural projects. The most recent project in Madrid is Metrosur, a 41 kilometre metro system linking five satellite towns with 27 stations, all underground. The timetable is worth noting. The project was first floated during the regional elections of May 1999; planning began in September that year and the line was officially opened on 11 April 2003. It would be wonderful if we could emulate that kind of performance in Dublin.
The affordability of a metro system depends to a very large degree on how the project is managed. There are two main alternatives – conventional contract or public private partnership. Madrid has shown how such a system can be delivered quickly and efficiently by the conventional contract approach. The authorities in the city put in place a very small but very skilled and experienced team of engineers to manage their programme of metro development. They have stayed on schedule and within budget. It is fair to say they have mastered the art of metro building using the conventional contract. We could adopt such an approach in Dublin. If we do, it is imperative that we put in place the structures and personnel to ensure the overall project is delivered on time, within budget and in accordance with best practice elsewhere in Europe.
The alternative is to use the public private partnership – PPP – as the best way of delivering a Dublin metro system. Such an approach would transfer the bulk of the financial risk to the private sector, bring in substantial private funding and give the private sector a real incentive to complete the project as quickly and efficiently as possible. It would only make sense, however, if it enabled us to deliver the same project at a lower cost to the Exchequer than a conventional contract. The Exchequer's contribution to a metro system delivered by way of PPP should be no more than a fraction of the figures put forward by the RPA. As I stated, the costings put forward by it are not realistic and would impose a huge burden on the taxpayer for years to come.
The choice between conventional contract and PPP is a matter of efficiency, not ideology. We should pick whichever option represents best value for the taxpayer. My own view is that PPP is the best option. We do not have the structures in place to handle a project of this magnitude by conventional contract. The best way of advancing it is through the PPP route.
The scale and design of the metro project are also critical. Press reports suggest that what is envisaged is a short link from Dublin Airport to the city centre, not a line across the city. I do not think such a proposal would be right for Dublin as it would not offer a real solution to our traffic problems. There should be no half-measures. If we are to build a metro line, let us build a full line, not half a line. This means running a line straight from the airport to a destination on the south side of the city. Otherwise we would be unique in Europe in having a metro system which terminated in the city centre. It would be madness to have a metro line terminating underground at St. Stephen's Green. We would then have to return in four or five years and start the whole planning process all over again in order to complete the southern line. Surely it makes sense to save time and money by building the whole line as a single project. Piecemeal planning has made a mess of our road system. Let us not repeat the mistake with a Dublin metro system.
With regard to system design and route alignment, if we opt for PPP, we should allow as much discretion as possible to private sector bidders. If we are to going to use the PPP model, we should ensure that we secure the maximum benefits from the private sector in terms of smart design and smart routing. The metro saga has been running for a long period and decision time is approaching. We have received many reports, studies and evaluations. It is time now to decide whether we are going to proceed with this project.
The Government must address a number of major questions before it arrives at a decision on what is be biggest infrastructural investment project in the history of the State. Will it be possible to deliver the metro at an affordable price and in line with best European practice? Are the correct structures in place and do we have the right personnel to oversee the project? Will it be possible to limit the Exchequer's financial exposure and leverage the maximum level of private sector investment?
If the answer to each of these questions is yes, we should press ahead without further delay and the people of Dublin could be travelling on a metro system within five years. If the answer to any of the questions is no, we must think carefully about proceeding with the metro project. If we are confident that we have the capacity to deliver the project efficiently and effectively, we should press ahead without further delay. If not, it would be better to call a halt to the entire process.