I remind members and witnesses to ensure their mobile telephones are turned off. I welcome the Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and his officials to the first meeting of the new committee at which they are present. The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the following Supplementary Estimate, Vote 32 - Transport. A proposed timetable circulated to all members allows for an opening statement from the Minister and Opposition spokespersons followed by an open discussion on the Supplementary Estimate in the form of a question and answer session. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Vote 32 - Department of Transport (Supplementary).
Go raibh maith agat. I congratulate the Chairman and wish him well in his position. I look forward to working closely with members of the committee during the next four or five years.
My Department requires a Supplementary Estimate of €60 million for 2007. This additional requirement has arisen from the buy-out of the West Link bridge toll agreement by the National Roads Authority and more particularly to meet the obligation to pay up-front the associated VAT of almost €121.9 million to the Revenue Commissioners. The remainder of the cost is being met from a re-allocation of funds within my Department's Vote.
I should point out at this time that the €60 million being sought does not represent additional funding for my Department as the NRA will reimburse the Exchequer for this amount from toll revenue during the period to 2015. As members are aware, the M50 has experienced massive traffic growth in line with economic and employment growth and increased car ownership rates. Average daily traffic flows on a number of sections of the M50 is in excess of 85,000 vehicles.
The Government and the NRA are fully committed to improving the level of service provided to motorists on the M50 and believe this will be best achieved through the M50 upgrade and a move to barrier-free tolling. For commercial and strategic reasons, the NRA, with the agreement of the then Minister, decided in January 2006 to end the 1987 agreement with National Toll Roads, NTR, which permitted it to collect tolls on the West Link up to 2020. This decision was taken to develop and manage the M50 and to provide the best possible service to motorists. It will allow the removal in 2008 of the toll plaza on the West Link and its replacement by a single point tolling barrier-free arrangement along the same stretch of motorway. The design of the technical systems concerned must incorporate flexibility to meet potential future requirements. The introduction of barrier-free tolling will coincide with the completion of the upgrade of the M50 section between the Ballymount and N4 interchanges.
The discussions between the NRA and NTR in respect of the buy-out of the M50 West Link concession concluded with an agreement which was signed on 14 May 2007. Under the agreement, the toll plaza reverts to the NRA in August 2008. The cost of compensating NTR was a matter for determination between the NRA and NTR in line with the 1987 West Link agreement. NTR will receive annual payments of €50 million, plus inflation based on the consumer price index, for each of the years 2008-2020, in total, a sum of €600 million. Following an adjudication by the Revenue Commissioners, a VAT payment of almost €121.9 million arose in the context of this buy-out. To accommodate this payment with a minimum of disruption to the capital budget of the NRA, the Department of Finance agreed to my Department seeking a Supplementary Estimate.
Revenue from the barrier-free toll will be used to fund the compensation to NTR and will contribute towards the funding of phase 2 of the M50 upgrade and the cost of introducing barrier-free tolling. NTR had to be compensated in line with the 1987 West Link agreement which was a binding contract. However, the compensation arrangement will not leave the taxpayers any worse off than they would have been had the agreement been allowed to run until 2020. In the circumstances, it is a good deal for the Government, the taxpayer and users of the M50.
The NRA has entered into a contract with BetEire Flow for the provision of single point barrier-free tolling arrangements with the objective of having such arrangements operational on the M50 by August 2008. This development, together with the buy-out of NTR, represents significant progress on the upgrade of the M50. I am confident that when the upgrade is completed in 2020, traffic congestion and delays on the M50 will be reduced and road users will be provided with an improved level of service. Road users will begin to see significant benefits in 2008 when the first phases of the motorway upgrade are complete and the barrier-free tolling is in place. In the meantime, traffic management in the area is being monitored on an ongoing basis and measures are being taken, where possible, to alleviate traffic congestion resulting from roadwork.
In order to reduce the amount being sought by Supplementary Estimate, my Department has reallocated savings of €56 million from the public transport investment programme, €5.24 million from seaports and shipping and €650,000 from maritime safety. The reallocation from the Transport 21 capital envelope will be refunded to it by the NRA from toll income in future years. One of the great advantages of the ten-year capital envelope for Transport 21 is that it allows funding to be transferred as part of the ongoing management of annual expenditure and returned to the sector from which the savings arose at a later stage in the investment programme. This ensures no funding is lost to the programme and it gives my Department the necessary flexibility to manage a capital programme of this scale while taking account of accelerated or delayed progress on individual projects.
Of the €56 million from public transport, €51.4 million was under the light rail heading and arose mainly from a judicial review challenge which delayed construction on the new Luas extension to Cherrywood longer than expected but it was necessary work for the statutory approval process, and from delays in securing final sign-off with the development consortium which is part-funding the proposed Luas spur to Citywest. The RPA also encountered a delay in finalising satisfactory arrangements with third parties on the Luas extension to the Docklands and prudently delayed finalising consortium contracts until those arrangements were in place. In addition, some of the contingency funding set aside for tram extensions on the Tallaght line was not required as a result of good project management. The remaining €4.6 million from public transport related to the Dublin Transportation Office traffic management grant scheme. Unforeseen groundwork and technical difficulties were encountered and some scheme approvals took longer than expected because of the need to resolve local community and business concerns during the public consultation phase of individual projects.
A sum of €5.9 million was reallocated from the maritime sector, with the majority coming from funds for remedial work at regional harbours. Before any building work can commence on regional harbours, all the necessary planning and foreshore permissions must be secured, tendering processes must be undertaken and a consultant engineer's report must be forwarded to the Department. In the case of some of the regional harbours, there have been delays in carrying out this process in 2007. Included in the amount is funding of €3 million which had been allocated to Bantry Bay harbour but was not utilised because a full appraisal of the dredging project concerned had not been finalised. However, €5 million will have been spent on remedial work on regional harbours by the end of the year.
A shortfall in expenditure by the Irish Coast Guard on the new rescue centre building at Achill Sound, County Mayo, also allowed for a small reallocation in 2007. This shortfall arose from delays in putting a lease in place but a caretaker's agreement is currently being finalised to allow volunteers of the Irish Coast Guard and coastal rescue services to access and use the premises by the end of the year.
Despite the temporary reallocation of funds to meet the cost of VAT payments, real progress has been made on public transport this year. The two Luas lines to Tallaght and Sandyford continue to be highly popular and successful and it is expected that 29 million passenger trips will be made on the system this year, an increase of over 10% on the 2006 figure. To cater for the growing demand, more than half the trams on the Tallaght line have already been extended by 10 m. and remaining trams will be extended at intervals until May 2008. These extensions will increase the passenger capacity of each tram by 40%. In addition, the RPA has ordered eight new trams, four on each of the lines, to provide further capacity. These trams will enter service in the first quarter of 2009.
The RPA continues to make good progress on advancing major new Luas and metro elements of Transport 21. Construction is under way on the Luas extensions to Cherrywood and the Docklands. The route of the flagship metro north project has been decided and the initial phases of the public procurement process have been completed. Throughout the year, the RPA maintained close contact with interested parties and the general public on the detailed plans for metro north. Following the initial phase of public procurement, four qualified bidding groups have been formed for the purpose of tendering for the project on a PPP basis. The RPA expects to issue the tender documentation to each of these groups and apply to An Bord Pleanála for a railway order early next year.
The RPA has also maintained the momentum on other projects. Following extensive public consultation, the preferred routes for metro west and for the further extension of the green Luas line to the Bray area have been selected. The RPA expects to lodge an application with An Bord Pleanála very shortly for a railway order for the Luas extension to Citywest.
In relation to the Luas link from St. Stephen's Green to Liffey Junction in Cabra, the RPA is awaiting the completion of traffic modelling work by Dublin City Council, before progressing this project further. The route options for the proposed new Luas line to Lucan are currently the subject of extensive public consultation and the RPA hopes to select the preferred route for this line next year.
I welcome the progress made by the RPA throughout the year in planning and delivering these major projects, which will transform public transport in Dublin and deliver benefits for generations to come.
Irish Rail has also made major strides during 2007. Hourly services were introduced on the Cork-Dublin rail link in January and have proved a great success with customers. The Docklands station opened in March, two years ahead of schedule. Work started on the Kildare route upgrade and on the first phase of the western rail corridor. The way has been cleared for construction work on the Midleton line and preliminary works have been carried out. A railway order application has been lodged for phase 1 of the Navan line and planning work is continuing for the rest of that line. Public consultation got under way on the interconnector and it is planned to make a railway order application in 2009. The new intercity railcars enter service shortly, transforming the travel experience for rail users.
The bulk of expenditure under the DTO traffic management grants scheme is earmarked for the delivery of quality bus corridors, QBCs, in the greater Dublin area. QBCs are designed to reduce the travel time for passengers, improve bus performance and improve the quality of the public transport experience. Major works have been carried out in 2007. As a result, for example, the new QBC on the north city quays is delivering significant time savings for many bus routes and there have also been significant enhancements to the Malahide Road QBC and Swords Road QBC.
The national roads programme continues to deliver ahead of schedule, with significant developments on the interurban roads programme. The majority of national roads projects are coming in ahead of time. All of the seven national roads projects opened to date this year have been on time, including the Newry-Dundalk motorway which opened three months ahead of schedule, the Tyrellspass to Kilbeggan project which was six months ahead of schedule, and phase 1 of the Arklow-Gorey bypass which opened four months ahead of schedule. With the opening of the Newry-Dundalk project, the first major interurban motorway was completed and the remaining four are on target for completion in 2010.
I commend the Supplementary Estimate to the committee.
We will now have the opening statements of the Opposition spokesman, Deputy Fergus O'Dowd.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. I wish to ask questions rather than make a statement.
As this is my first time to consider Supplementary Estimates for the Department of Transport, will the Minister outline if Supplementary Estimates were required in previous years? I can understand that the Minister needs funds for the buy-out of the M50 West Link concession, but I am concerned about the significant underspend of €56 million in the public transport investment programme, in view of the needs of people in the city and country.
I did get a copy of the Minister's speech, but I have not got it with me. However, will the Minister in dealing with the buy-out of the M50 refer to the moneys in the three subheadings? What will change now that the tolling M50 has been bought out? I know the M50 upgrade works are ongoing, but I understand that when the works will be completed the speed limit will be reduced by 20 km/h to 100 km/h. The speed on most motorways is 120 km/h, so what is the reason for reducing the speed limit? The maximum speed is currently 120 km/h. The Minister proposes reducing this rather than increasing it. If the current motorway has the capacity for 120 km/h, how can the new widened and better motorway be efficient with a speed limit of 100 km/h?
I would like information in regard to the underspend in the capital programme. The Minister has given the reasons and I will not second guess them. However, there are other areas where that money could have been spent and much work that could have been done.
The issue of traffic management in the Dublin area has been brought to my attention. I left my home at 7 a.m. and arrived in Drumcondra at 8 p.m. but it took an hour to get from Drumcondra to Leinster House. There was a blockage in the centre of the city but once I got through that there was no traffic. I appreciate this is not the Minister's problem, but is anybody examining the problem of traffic management in the city? Traffic is particularly bad at this time of year. It was unacceptable today. When will the Dublin transport authority Bill come on stream? The Minister should, in the interim, ensure that traffic in the city of Dublin is properly managed. Notwithstanding Operation Freeflow, there are unacceptable delays. It sometimes seems that traffic lights are completely out of synch with everything else.
The Dublin outer orbital route, which the Minister supports, is not included in the national development plan. I understand the Minister is underpinning the buy-out of the M50, but is there any reason moneys that have not been spent this year could not be used for work on the orbital route, in terms of design and so on? The Department has underspent to the tune of €56 million. That money will be returned to the Exchequer at the end of this year and we must have this meeting to go through that process. Does the Minister not think that money could be put to good use rather than handing it back to the Exchequer?
My last question relates to harbours, ports and shipping and Annagassan Harbour in particular, which is in my constituency. We were to spend €550 million and only €170 million was spent. I would like an explanation.
I welcome the Minister and his officials to the committee.
Today is an interesting day in the context of the history of the administration of our State because clearly the 1987 agreement on the West Link toll bridge was a total disgrace. It was one of the greatest rip-offs of the taxpayer in the history of this State. The circumstances in which that agreement was signed still trail clouds of sulphur. The way in which the whole of this vital infrastructure for Dublin was provided was a major disgrace. There is no question but that we effectively gave NTR and its predecessors a licence to print money over 33 years. What was the total construction cost associated with the existing West Link bridge and what is the total return that NTR will get from this State by 2020? What is the total revenue it earned? Will the Minister calculate the annual rate of return based on the expenditure NTR incurred on this project? This is an issue the Comptroller and Auditor General has visited in the past and is likely to revisit in the future. Even the €600 million expenditure we are facing up to 2020 is astonishing. It is unbelievable that the State should have been landed with this and it is the reason some us have grave concerns about PPPs, how they will impact down the road, and whether they will end up ripping-off the taxpayer. Can the Minister provide more information on the agreement?
I understand an oral hearing begins tomorrow, which has been called by the National Consumer Agency, on the proposal for the M50 to become barrier-free. The National Consumer Agency already believes the proposed new charges are excessive and will have a detrimental impact on traffic management in all the districts that adjoin the M50. The M50 plays a critical role in the Dublin economy and I am among those who cannot see any reason the road ever had to have a toll. There has been one major development on the M25 in England but that was an underground tunnel and that is to be expected as the purpose of many ring roads in capital cities across the European Union is to get traffic out of those cities. Has the Minister any views on what the toll rates should be? The RPA will be present at the oral hearing but will the Minister be represented in any way?
It is still difficult to understand how the VAT issue is managed. Why is there a VAT charge on what is an astonishing amount of money, which is to be paid until 2020? How was it calculated? NTR will be as a leech on the Irish public to the tune of €50 million per annum, plus an additional amount for inflation as measured by the consumer price index, until 2020. That is a rip-off and a licence to print money which the Minister's predecessor granted ad infinitum, or at least to 2020. If the consumer price index is being taken into account why is a VAT payment necessary? Is it the equivalent of a contra, in accountancy terms, given the fact that the State is being charged the money and, in turn, takes the money back while the Department of Transport incurs the expenditure? Is it a one-off payment in this year’s budget? It will impact on the NRA until 2015 but will it have to pay VAT on the amounts paid to NTR until that date?
I welcome the buyout as I do not believe the toll should have been there in the first place. I have always been bitterly opposed to it as a brake on the region I am proud to represent. Why, however, was this amount not factored in originally and why does the Minister have to come to Dáil Éireann to look for more money, after raising an outrageous sum of €600 million for our own infrastructure? The people of Dublin, Leinster and the whole of the country have paid for this again and again, as the figures given in the answer to my first question demonstrate. We were grotesquely ripped off on that project and continue to be through this agreement. I do not understand why the Taoiseach would not seek a constitutional amendment over this matter to save the citizens of this country an outrageous additional payment.
These so-called savings are being made from public infrastructure and transport projects which we can ill afford to delay. The Minister's press office, or somebody in his Department, gave all kinds of hints to The Sunday Business Post and others in the run-up to the budget that it would do something about the interconnector. However, it had no intention of doing anything and did not even intend to make a start by looking at maps for the interconnector. The budget was very depressing for those hoping for dramatic movement over Transport 21. It is depressing that this big chunk of money, which we are being asked to come forward with today but which we should not have to, is being raised on the back of public transport infrastructure that should have been expedited by now.
Having experienced city centre traffic, I cannot disagree with Deputy O'Dowd on its severity, notwithstanding Operation Freeflow. Although yesterday morning's traffic was not too bad, problems arise on most days and one evening last week was particularly slow. Dublin City Council has responsibility for traffic management, although it obviously works with the Garda and other agencies. There is a high level of co-operation throughout the year and during this season in particular. I made inquiries regarding last Thursday evening and understand that long delays were expected due to bad weather and a number of sales which were being held in addition to the usual Christmas shopping activities. A range of factors thus came together to produce that evening's gridlock.
This committee will be discussing Transport 21 when we bring forward the consultation document on sustainable travel and transport planning for the country. Radical and innovative steps will be required in the Dublin area to manage the traffic levels the city will face in the future. However, further measures will be needed in the city to complement Transport 21, the metro, the Luas lines and improved rail services. Deputy O'Dowd is correct when he speaks about traffic difficulties generally and the M50 in particular. The measures we are introducing will improve the situation but will not solve our problems.
Will the Minister comment on the Dublin transportation authority?
The traffic management difficulties which have arisen due to the way the greater Dublin area has developed will need constant attention. The Dublin transportation authority will hopefully help to ensure a joined-up approach not only to modes of transport but also to land use and transport planning. Having served as Minister for the Environment and Local Government when the Planning and Development Act 2000 was passed, I am aware of the lack of coherence in the past between land use and transport planning. That is one of the areas of the Dublin transportation authority Bill which I have examined in detail since I came to this Department. The Bill existed in draft form but, having read it, I was not satisfied that it adequately dealt with this problem. I have completed my thinking on the matter and the Bill is being finalised.
Some other difficulties arose in respect of a new PSO directive that is being formulated in Europe. It affects grants for public transport and subvention, in addition to the case taken by private coach operators regarding subvention to CIE. The emerging position on this must also be taken into account and that is what we are doing. I expect we may be able to finalise the Bill and have it published before the end of this session or the start of the next session in January.
Is January blocked out for it?
Not yet.
Is every document published on a Sunday?
Not always. I did not publish the road safety strategy on a Sunday; I did so on a Thursday.
Basically, it is imminent.
I hope we will be able to keep to that timetable or, if not, publish the Bill very shortly thereafter.
The report on the Leinster outer orbital route has been made available to the Department and the cost-benefit analysis is positive. The route is not covered in Transport 21 but I have indicated to the NRA that I would like to see it advancing the preliminary work. Much preliminary work needs to be done, not least a full environmental impact assessment. I encourage the NRA to use its facilities and expertise to advance this project. The commitment in the programme for Government is to have a decision made in the post-2012 period, the next period of Government, after which decision the project can be advanced. I believe we will be able to meet this commitment.
Reference was made to the underspend on public transport. I share the Deputy's concern. We will not lose the money to public transport in that it comes back into the Transport 21 envelope. I would like to ensure, over the coming years, that we will be able to spend the earmarked sum on public transport.
If a project cannot go ahead, can a back-up project go ahead in its place? It seems dreadful to refund any money given the transport. We should ensure that if one button is not working, the other is. There should be flexible decision-making at official level such that a different project can be advanced instead of refunding the money.
I agree with the Deputy. We are not sending the money back. This cost associated with this Bill would have to have met by the Exchequer. If we did not have the underspend we would be looking for the full €120 million from the Exchequer for the reasons I outlined.
People accept that happens anyway. My point is that there should be an over-spend on public transport, if this can be managed..
The Deputy is correct. When I became Minister for the Environment and Local Government in 1997, we were building little loops around towns under the roadworks programme and calling them bypasses. I discovered we were doing this because money was limited and the NRA was planning accordingly. We did not have the large sums of money we have now. The NRA committed itself to a number of projects each year and when an event such as those we have spoken about occurred, it had no back-up. We are over this now. If I gave the NRA another €2 billion or €3 billion in the morning, it would spend it during the course of the year.
We need to get to the same position with the Luas. The Deputy is correct in this respect. While we started from a standing position, we are now moving. I do not anticipate that we will be handing back public transport money in a couple of years' time. We will be in the same position then with people looking for advances.
As for Annagassan Harbour, the problem there concerned invoices, etc., for work that was done that was delayed. Another delay had occurred previously. I can get specific details for the Deputy in this regard, if he wishes.
Yes, please.
I refer to Deputy Broughan's questions about the reason for the VAT charge on the buy-out of the toll bridge. The Revenue Commissioners decided there should be such a charge and that was put through--
Who initiated it? Was it the Department of Finance or the Department of Transport?
It was initiated by the Revenue Commissioners themselves.
They contacted the Department of Transport.
Yes, this is what they do. They consider various transactions and other factors and decide. It seems somewhat circular. The Revenue Commissioners are obliged to ensure that VAT and all other taxes are paid and on seeing this transaction, they decided VAT was to be paid on it. That decision was contested and the Revenue Commissioners then made an adjudication that a VAT payment was required. This also happens on a range of other transactions, whereby the Department pays money that then goes off to the Revenue Commissioners.
In respect of the general point made by the Deputy, I do not have to hand figures for the total construction costs, the rate of return and everything else pertaining to the West Link bridge. While undoubtedly this has been highly profitable for NTR, at the time of its construction no one else rushed up to build a bridge that has been of such great convenience to many hundreds of thousands of people in recent years. NTR undoubtedly saw a business opportunity. However, although an opportunity existed in this regard - as it does in other matters - for the public sector, the local authorities or whoever else to do the same thing, they did not do so.
Did they not build the road?
Who?
Who built the road?
NTR was responsible for the building of the bridge. There was not much point in building the road without the presence of the bridge. The Deputy is familiar with the situation at the West Link. I recall that in 1997, we envisaged reaching 20,000 cars per day on it by 2010. However, that level was reached by 2000 and now we foresee a usage of 85,000 cars per day. At the time the public sector, namely, the local authorities, did not intend to build such a bridge, the private sector saw an opportunity and took it. The contract that was drawn up was deemed reasonable and went through all the processes at the time. The need to buy it out arose subsequently, which was done. This decision was good and was wise from a taxpayers' perspective. However, one cannot break a contract once it is made. The Government is not in that business and NTR did very well out of it.
That assumes the contract was kosher in the first place.
We did not get legal advice that it was not.
I welcome the Minister and his officials. I have the utmost confidence that the Minister will deliver this programme. He has a very exciting programme, the delivery of which is needed urgently. All members share the commitment to ensure that we have a good public transportation system. I welcome the buy-out of the West Link toll bridge. It is in the best interests of the State and the taxpayer. I use barrier-free tolling with my prepaid tag and it is nice to be able to fly up on the inside when everyone is queuing to throw their few coins in. I think it will work well and it is a day to which I certainly look forward. The three lanes will work out well.
I welcome the Minister's comments in connection with metro north, for which I have campaigned for quite some time. I look forward to the signing of the railway order early next year and to the fact that the metro will come out to Swords by 2013. I look forward to sharing that day with the Minister.
Deputy O'Dowd and I have discussed congestion at nearly every committee meeting because we travel on the same parallel routes. I probably take a slightly quicker route by coming along the coast, while Deputy O'Dowd hits Drumcondra. Given my knowledge of the northside over the years, I think it is much easier to move oneself a little east of that. I use the toll bridge almost every time I come into town. Last Thursday was an horrendous day with rain teeming down all evening and people told me that traffic was backed up all over the place. On that day, I left the Dáil at 7.30 p.m. to get to an 8 p.m. appointment in north Dublin and got there at 7.55 p.m. because I drove down the quays and through the tunnel and had no problem after that.
I have made the point before that the tunnel should be opened up to the €3 charge on a 24-hour, seven-day basis. It is ridiculous to channel traffic through Drumcondra and the coast road when the tunnel is available. It was built by taxpayers' money, albeit that the original conception was to take HGVs out of the city centre. The reality is that it could facilitate a much freer Dublin city, would allow Deputy O'Dowd to get to the Dáil more quickly and would certainly allow me to--
I could get out fast.
I would prefer to be getting him out of here fast.
Equally we would like to get him back up to Louth as well and traversing Dublin North and the Meath constituency safely to keep him up there. I strongly recommend that the Minister asks his officials to consider applying the €3 charge. It would be in the best interests of the motorist from every perspective, including that of the environment.
I will address the €51.4 million which was not spent on the Luas because of planning delays. Like other speakers, I feel that given that this money was in our transport budget, perhaps we could have bought a few rail cars and put them on the northern suburban line which, coincidentally, would suit the Minister, Deputy O'Dowd and me. Putting a few extra carriages on the Maynooth line would possibly suit Deputy Áine Brady. If we know money is not going to be spent because we are stuck in the High Court, having voted the money through the budget, there should be a degree of flexibility to allow the Minister and his officials to put another three or four rail cars on the rail lines or to buy a few more buses. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on this issue.
I welcome the Minister's comments in respect of public transport. The Minister will be aware that the committee has decided that tackling gridlock in our five cities is our first priority and that by way of being supportive to the Minister and his efforts, we hope to produce a report in the coming months on the development of better traffic management and greater freeflow, particularly using bus transport. Therefore, I very much welcome the comment made by the Minister that radical and innovative measures are required to tackle gridlock in our cities. I also welcome the significant developments he outlined in respect of Luas and commuter rail services. However, given that four or five years will pass before these developments are up and running, he may need to add the word "urgent" to "radical and innovative measures."
In regard to the difficulties encountered by the Minister in coming into the city from the north, I hit traffic at the Spa Hotel in Lucan at 9.55 a.m. today and reached O'Connell Bridge at 11 a.m. Interestingly, only four Dublin Bus buses passed me even though a quality bus corridor runs along almost the entire stretch of the road. Urgent and radical developments are needed for bus transport in this city. In the coming months, this committee will approach that issue by supporting the Minister, who is a man with a "can do" mentality. Significant increases are needed in the number and frequency of buses if we are to solve gridlock, not only in Dublin but in Galway, Limerick, Waterford and Cork.
It is amazing that the Department has made considerable sums of money available to local authorities in the past four years for bus park and ride facilities, yet no moneys have been taken up other than by Cork City Council, which has developed a successful park in Black Ash. I am aware, however, a park and ride facility is planned for the west of the city. Are there any proposals for increasing joined-up thinking between the various agencies so that we can encourage motorists to leave their cars for the bus? Following our discussions with Dublin local authorities, Dublin Bus and the private sector, we will propose as an immediate measure, a high frequency bus service on the interconnector route so that we can start to have an impact on the current city centre traffic snarl-up. That will bring an immediate improvement and it points the way forward in terms of the need for the interconnector to be built as quickly as possible.
Has consideration been given to the complete development of the Leinster outer orbital route by the private sector? In the US, entire projects, from land acquisition through environmental planning to completion, are handed to the private sector, which then charges for road usage. Given that legislation has been changed to allow private sector companies make compulsory purchase orders under certain conditions if Government approval is given, it makes sense to consider them for the outer orbital route. I am being somewhat parochial in suggesting this because, as a Deputy from the west of Ireland, I am concerned that a significant amount of money is being spent in the greater Dublin region at the expense of the rest of the country. Throughout the country, we still have terrible secondary roads that need significant investment over the next ten years.
Will the Minister address the question of the M50? Deputy Michael Kennedy suggested a standard €3 charge for cars using the tunnel. What are the implications for opening up the tunnel to private motor traffic, why has it been found necessary to keep it closed for the moment? Would it not be a good example to establish whether motorists are prepared to pay extra for better quality roads?
We must start a debate on the need for more road pricing and congestion charges, if we are to further our objective of reducing the number of motorists and increasing the number of people who are prepared to use public transport. The reality is that the number of vehicles has increased from 1 million in 1996 to 2.1 million in 2007. There is no sign that this will stop. We must change our car culture. It strikes me that the radical measures to which the Minister referred will have to include some form of demand management which we have seen work successfully in other cities.
A number of the points which were raised overlap. Deputy Michael Kennedy raised the question of metro north, which is a key element of Transport 21 to serve the north side of the city as far as Swords. Significant progress has been made on it this year. The RPA would like to have been further advanced but my understanding is that it will go for a railway order in 2008. The RPA has tried to get as much consensus as possible on the route. There were a number of difficulties and the desires of the local people have been met in so far as is possible. I expect that to continue.
Both Deputy Kennedy and the Chairman asked about opening up the tunnel. The tunnel was conceived, designed and put in place to facilitate heavy goods vehicles. Its primary, if not its sole, purpose was to take heavy goods vehicles from the port and keep them away from the centre of the city. That is why from the outset it was always made clear that there was going to be a fairly hefty toll on vehicles using it. This was to avoid its becoming congested with motor cars and so on. I can say this with some authority because, as the then Minister for the Environment and Local Government, I was involved as it went through the planning process. It is serving its purpose very well. Since it was opened, the use was looked at to try to ensure that it was delivering value for money. On the basis of the information retrieved at that time, changes were made in the tolling structure to allow people use it at various times, for example, it is very handy if one is going to Croke Park on a Sunday.
Saturdays and Sundays.
The purpose of the tunnel is to take HGVs out of the port and away from the city. If one opens the tunnel completely at any stage to motor cars, and reduces the toll, it will be clogged up with cars and it will not serve the purpose for which it was built. Having said that, so far the NRA has looked at its usage and has opened it. It is not going to defeat the purpose for which it was originally intended. That will continue in the future. If it can be used to a greater extent following improvements to the M50 and in public transport, it will be constantly monitored.
May I make a suggestion? The tunnel is opened on Saturdays and Sundays and is well used for sports fixtures and so on. However, let us analyse the port times. When I travel in during the day, be it early or late, there are a certain number of trucks. I did not see three trucks in the tunnel coming in today. At certain times there are very few buses on the QBCs. The same applies to the tunnel. The €12 charge could come down to €6 for starters. If things worked, the Minister could then consider the €3 charge.
I often hit Dublin by car between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. The bus lanes can be used up to 7 a.m., but the tunnel can only be used until 6 a.m. in order to qualify for the price reduction for cars. Many people could be put through between 6 a.m. and 6.30 a.m. and that would stop the congestion that starts in the city. That congestion starts in Gardiner Street between 6.30 a.m. and 6.45 a.m. I travel this route very frequently, so I know what it is like. I agree with Deputy Kennedy. A lot of trucks go through at that time, but not a massive number. The tunnel could take extra traffic. People would have to be there before 7 a.m. There will not be that many of them there, apart from hard-working Dáil Deputies. It is worth looking at.
I take the point. Following the submissions made by both Deputies, I will raise it again with the NRA. At the moment, the rule applies to five-axle trucks but it is intended that it will soon apply to four-axle trucks, which will put more traffic in the tunnel. I accept the general point. I do not know whether my predecessor said anything to the NRA or whether the NRA did it on its own initiative, but it moved on the weekend usage. I will put the point to officials from the NRA again.
Deputy Kennedy asked whether money that was not spent in the budget could have been spent on rail cars. We have an order in for 183 intercity rail cars, which is what is needed over the next three or four years. Some of them have been delivered and will go into service quickly, but the roll-out will continue until next May. The order must be made 12 to 18 months in advance. When this kind of thing arises, it is not as easy as saying that we will order 25 more buses or rail cars. We are trying to anticipate our needs in the future and those orders are being put in place in time.
The Chairman and I have had a few private conversations about public transport and the need for making progress with buses. I agree with him on the issue. In Dublin, projects like the Luas, the metro and the interconnector are all extremely important. For the foreseeable future and even with all those projects in place, there will still be a huge market for bus transportation. People should get into their head the fact that it might not involve the same routes as now. However, as I discussed with Deputy Kennedy and Deputy Brady last week, there are huge new areas in and around the greater Dublin area without bus services, public or private. As Deputy O'Dowd said, we need the three CIE companies to think as one on the issue. If they do not, a Dublin transport authority needs to oversee matters and to say there is no need for buses on one route if they are needed on another.
The Chairman's point applies not only to Dublin but to Cork, Galway and everywhere else. There is a great future for public transport by bus but we need a much more flexible system and a much more responsive Bus Éireann and Bus Átha Cliath. We cannot have rows about unnecessary things, such as we had recently. The prospects for buses are very good.
Apart from the Dublin city area, part of the commitment in the programme for Government is to look at Luas-type public transport for Cork, Galway, Waterford and Limerick. Cork is well ahead of the game at the moment and I am expecting a report from the local authority on its public transport needs in the form of an update to a study which has already been undertaken. Galway has undertaken an initial study and is setting up a unit to look at the prospects for a good public transport system.
I have asked that city managers in each of the cities mentioned to tell me what they are doing in this regard because money is available for them. We now have control of the non-national roads budget and can facilitate change. We can facilitate quality bus corridors and other modes of public transport but we need local authorities to actively come forward with ideas. Local authorities in other areas, as I mentioned to Deputy O'Dowd at Question Time last week, such as huge towns like Drogheda, Dundalk, Navan and Naas, need to get their act together in this regard. The provision of park and ride facilities in the town he mentioned is very important but there needs to be, as he said, a greater sense of urgency in the provision of these solutions. The more people get used to sitting in their cars to get from one point to another the more we lose the battle and we cannot afford to do that.
On the question of the Leinster outer orbital road and the idea of a public private partnership, if I could get a body in the private sector to take on all the risks it would be attractive to me. My experience so far, however, is that the private sector wants to minimise risk and feels there is too much risk involved in areas like the planning process and the compulsory acquisition process. They want all that to be out of the way but if there was a clamour for somebody to provide a Leinster outer orbital road, or anything else, on a public private partnership basis, notwithstanding the risks, I would certainly be favourably disposed towards it. It would be a great step forward.
The Deputy also mentioned national secondary roads and we need to increase our spending on the maintenance and improvement of those roads. I do not foresee it happening before the major interurban routes are completed in 2010. We have a reasonable programme at present but I would like the investment to be higher because some of these roads are as important to the areas they serve, largely on the west coast, as the interurban routes.
I thank the Minister and his officials for attending. I was not stuck in congestion this morning because I am a regular train user. I support my colleagues' comments on park and ride facilities because no public transport system will work until they are in place. If a good facility was available at Maynooth Station, the Chairman and I could park our cars there and complete the remainder of our journey in one hour. Park and ride facilities are important enough to be brought into the Department of Transport's remit. Many of us cannot access public transport without travelling by car, so even a successful bus service needs park and ride facilities.
How far has integrated ticketing progressed?
I join my colleagues in welcoming the Minister and his officials and concur with the Chairman on the provision of bus transport. Investing in public transport is the most sustainable way of dealing with traffic congestion in Dublin and other gateway cities. In Cork, Bus Éireann is due to receive 32 new buses under Transport 21 but more than half are replacement vehicles. In the short to medium term, cities like Cork and Galway will have to focus on bus transport and, while I welcome the progress made on the feasibility study for a light rail system, the delivery of a project of that scale is still some distance away. We need to invest more significantly in bus transport because it affords us great potential. Commuters from suburbs in Cork, Galway and other gateway cities experience similar problems to those from Kildare and north Dublin in terms of rapidly growing communities which, in some cases, have no public transport links whatsoever. The provision of additional buses would greatly assist in that regard.
The Minister referred to the progress being made on the roll-out of interurban routes and noted that we are on target to complete the major motorways by 2010. The Cork-Dublin road has been transformed in recent years. However, he hinted that other projects around the country could suffer from the concentration of resources on the interurban routes. In regard to the N25 interchange in Cork city, the Kinsale Road interchange has been completed but currently there are serious bottlenecks on the Bandon Road and Sarsfield Road roundabouts on the N25. The project is ready to go to tender and is awaiting an imprimatur from the Department and the NRA. The N28, Cork-Ringaskiddy road, has regional significance because of the ongoing industrialisation of Ringaskiddy and the possible relocation of the port of Cork. Is there any prospect that projects such as the N25 interchange and the N28 will be funded before 2010 or will the focus remain exclusively on interurban routes?
I thank the Chairman and committee members for the opportunity to address the issues raised.
I agree with Deputy Áine Brady on park and ride facilities. I honestly do not understand why it has taken local authorities so long to provide them. Perhaps there is another issue to be considered and perhaps we should be asking some agency or other to identify sites and provide the services. I would be reluctant to do this, however, because I would prefer to see local government responding to the needs of local communities. The local authority in Cork has a couple of park and ride areas and the authority in Galway has been considering one. There have been a couple of reviews.
South Dublin County Council.
Yes. There is no great sense of urgency being displayed on this issue and I would like there to be.
I raised this issue when I was in Fingal County Council and was hopped from Billy to Jack. No one would take responsibility. Ultimately it is the job of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to sanction park and ride facilities. It should take responsibility just as the Department of Transport has done in respect of non-national roads.
I will discuss it with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Ultimately, it is the job of the local authorities. We have money set aside for park and ride facilities. A number of possibilities have been identified and a number of facilities have been put in place, which I acknowledge, but they are not being provided fast enough.
There is now a timescale for making progress on integrated ticketing. Most of the major transport companies, plus at least one private company, will be operational in this regard in 2009. There will be a pilot scheme in 2010 and one or two schemes will be launched by Bus Éireann. Again, I do not understand why it takes so long to make progress on these matters. I was talking about integrated ticketing in 1997 and 1998 as Minister for the Environment and Local Government. Deputy Mary O'Rourke was Minister for Public Enterprise at the time and we were all being told the project would be delivered very quickly. However, ten years later, we are being told it will take another two or three years. In fairness to the body that is now responsible, the integrated ticketing project board, integrated ticketing and real-time information will be the responsibility of the Dublin transport authority when it is established. There is a certain amount of high-tech work to be done but it is not rocket science. It has been done elsewhere and I do not understand why people feel they must reinvent the wheel.
On Deputy Michael McGrath's points, we are investing in public transport. I acknowledge and thank him for his support in this regard. We will continue to invest and, by 2010, the balance of investment under Transport 21 will be more in favour of public transport than roads. Bus Éireann is in the process of purchasing approximately 235 new buses and almost 70 are on the way or are in the country. The remainder will be put in place over 2008 and this will represent a welcome addition to the company's fleet.
I do not have up-to-date information on the specific projects raised. They are a matter for the NRA but I will obtain for the Deputy the specific information on the N25 and N28. Although I gave the Deputy a briefing on this issue approximately six months ago, he keeps coming back to me. I will try to provide him with the most up-to-date information.
I thank the Minister and his officials for the good presentation.
I still seek the information I asked for regarding the cost of the M50 and the rate of return for NTR. Members are being asked to approve an Estimate today and there is an element of buying a pig in a poke in this regard. Can members have this information?
If we have such information, the Deputy may have it. However, I expect it was private commercial information of the company concerned and, consequently, I am unsure whether we have it.
It is not private when the State will spend €600 million and possibly more. This is the business of the public.
We will leave it to the Minister to ascertain what sort of response he can elicit. While it is a pertinent point, members should leave it to the Minister as constraints may exist.
I advise the Minister and his officials that this committee intends to be supportive of their efforts. Members hope to proceed on an all-party basis and co-operation thus far has been exceptionally good, for which I thank the two Opposition leaders. As Deputy Áine Brady noted, members have perceived an unbelievable lack of joined-up thinking in the past. Hopefully, this committee can facilitate the Minister in bringing about a greater degree of such thinking. Our future meetings on bus transport certainly will address those issues as four city managers will appear before the committee after Christmas and so on.
A number of committee members will be in London next Thursday and Friday to consider, among other matters, the success that has been achieved in London and some of the smaller adjacent cities on park and ride, as well as the significant degree of joined-up thinking that exists there regarding integrated ticketing, contracted franchising and congestion charges. Hopefully, members will be able to bring back some ideas to the Minister in this regard.
I am unsure whether the Chairman read my mind or vice versa, but as I intend to travel to London some time in January to consider some of the same matters, we will have a useful conversation on our return.
I have spoken with my counterpart on the transport committee in the House of Commons and that committee's experience in this respect in recent years is both interesting and something from which we hope to learn. On behalf of the select committee, I again thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance.