Statements on Transport Policy -1st December 2005

Statements on Transport Policy – 1st December 2005

Mr. Norris: In fact, I may not use all of the
time allotted.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House.
I am rather sorry she indicated she will not continue
in public life after the next election. Her
absence will be a great loss to Irish public life. I
have happy memories of serving with her, going
back to my first term on the Oireachtas joint committee
dealing with women’s rights. I am sure she
will find many other ways of contributing to Irish
public life but she certainly will be a loss to political
life in the general sense.
I welcomed the Transport 21 initiative. I almost
fully welcomed it and I still welcome it in outline
but I was disappointed with the Minister’s speech
because it was so generalised. It contained no
particular detail. Reference was made to the
\34.4 billion cost. It contains evasions and
excuses. Some of them are credible enough, such
as not wanting to give away commercially sensitive
information. It also contains generalised
comments on the need to update urban transport.
One aspect I find extremely sinister is the lack
of any mention of the metro from beginning to
end. I campaigned on this for 20 years. I amended
a bill concerning Dublin transport seven or eight
years ago when, through an accident of politics,
this side of the House was in the majority. The
Independents held the balance of power. It was
discussed by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on
Transport. I will return to that point because it
seems the recommendations of that committee
are being subverted in some way by what one
could describe as the permanent Government
which has always been against the metro.
I must pay tribute to the Leader of this House,
Senator O’Rourke, because she had the backbone
and gumption to run with the metro proposal
where her two male predecessors were
frightened off by the gurus. I am not a partisan
person. I am genuinely independent. I praise the
Government when I believe it is right and I look
to the work of the Oireachtas Joint Committee
on Transport because it is non-partisan and we
all unite. I am concerned that some of our recommendations
are being ignored. People on the
Government side pointed out the lack of a timetable.
Let us not be sold a pup. I did not join in
the chorus of condemnation from this side of the
House. I welcomed it but we need specifics.
Budget figures have been revealed and now is the
time to come clean and make it clear and
targeted.
This morning I received an e-mail from the
Meath on Track campaign as I am sure did many
other people. Its members seek support in calling
for funding to be made available for the complete
outline design scheme for the 26 miles to Navan
next year. That seems to be an ideal project.
Navan is one of our growing dormitory towns
with a large and increasing number of people who
need to get in and out of the greater Dublin area
using public transport. The e-mail states that once
the design scheme is completed it will be possible
to ascertain the costs involved in reinstating the
Navan line and the issues of levies, funding and
delivery timescales can be addressed based on
factual information. Without this information, the
proposal for Navan contained in Transport 21 will
leave the people of Meath no closer to the reintroduction
of rail services than prior to the
announcement. There is no provision for a
detailed examination of the situation, which must
be done prior to the commencement of the project,
and this concerns me.
Senator Dooley referred to Professor Melis but
unfortunately I was unable to visit Madrid. I have
met Professor Melis and I was responsible for
bringing him here through the agency of Cormac
Rabbitt and Rudi Monaghan, transport engineers
who have been very helpful to the Joint Committee
on Transport. Rumours were spread around
the committee that Professor Melis had been
unhelpful in some way and had not maintained
contact. That is not true and the reverse is the
case. Professor Melis offered to train Irish personnel
in Madrid and he has yet to receive an
acknowledgement of the offer. I ask if we are
serious and suggest we examine this situation.
We were told building costs in Ireland were 2.4
times the costs in Madrid but this is not correct. I
have been provided with factual information that
suggests costs are directly comparable to the
point of being almost in line. We can scotch that
excuse. Disadvantageous comparisons were made
between tunnelling schemes such as the Dublin
Port tunnel and the Madrid technology. The
machines used in Madrid were of a substantially
different design. The boring machines used in the
port tunnel had to be stopped for 20 minutes at 45
minute intervals to replace side panels. Machines
used by Professor Melis in Madrid go straight
through, non-stop, and this represents a saving.
The Minister was somewhat coy about costs in
his speech and perhaps there is a reason for this.
The figure of \34.4 billion over ten years
announced in Transport 21 must be considered in
light of recently published pre-budget Estimates.
These figures add another piece to the puzzle.
The Department of Transport has \2.28 billion,
of which \1.6 billion appears to be for capital
expenditure. On this basis even someone as innumerate
as myself, who failed arithmetic in the
leaving certificate, can calculate that it will take
21.5 years to complete the project, finishing in
2027. In these Estimates, the total spending for
the whole country, \48.5 billion, of which \34.4
billion is capital expenditure, means that Government
spending on transport over the next ten
years must be 10% of total Government spending,
a considerable sum of money.
External agencies have commented on this and
I refer to one A&L Goodbody report which suggests
there is a missing figure of \1.5 billion for
the aviation sector. Where is this in the Government’s
calculations? Examining the situation
further, the 39 selected projects include six Luas,
comprising five Luas extensions and one new
Luas line to Lucan and two metro lines, one running
north to Swords via the airport and one running
west to Tallaght, Clondalkin, Lucan,
Blanchardstown and Ballymun. There was a
lovely map at Dublin Castle showing the routing
of the Luas and one aspect is curious and troubling
to me. The deficiency that is the absence of a
link between the two metro lines will be supplied
twice. A Luas line will run on the surface, which
will be problematical in terms of street arrangements
and building structures, as well as a metro
line.
This is the most expensive section for either rail
system and raises the question of why the
Government is duplicating it. One is driven to the
conclusion that the Government will build the
Luas and hump the metro. This concerns me and
if this is the position of the Government let us be
open about it. Let us not pretend we are going to
build a metro if it is not going to happen. Those
of us in all parties and members of the transport
committee who believe a metro is essential can
then make the argument. At present we are firing
into cotton wool. We need a clear commitment
from the Government.
There is also a curious reversal of priorities,
with the completion of certain projects now
deemed essential before work commences on the
metro. These include the three extensions to the
Luas and the metro between Tallaght, Clondalkin
and Lucan. The Joint Committee on Transport
unanimously adopted a report prepared by
O’Reilly Consultants that contains nothing partisan.
That report indicated the metro was advantageous
to the citizens of Dublin and Ireland but
also that there would be a substantial cost, albeit
partially concealed, in not building the metro.
This does not seem to have been taken on board.
What is the standing of the Joint Committee
on Transport in the eyes of the Minister and his
advisors? Do they take the extensive work done
on the metro seriously or is the committee a decoration
while decisions are made behind the
scenes by people not accountable to citizens? I do
not mean any disrespect to our Civil Service, for
which I have high respect. It is not the fault of
civil servants if they get their way, we need politicians
who will stand up to them and continue to
tell the truth.
Yesterday, an important meeting of the Joint
Committee on Transport coincided with the
Order of Business in this House. That shows complete
contempt for Seanad E´ ireann as meetings
never coincide with the Order of Business in the
Da´ il. I have drawn this to the attention of the
Chairman, the staff and leaders of different parties.
I have asked them not to allow Senators
attend such meetings just once, so that there will
be an insufficient number for a quorum. If we do
this once we will put manners on those arranging
the meetings. There is always someone who slithers
in at the last minute and saves the bacon.
This House should agree not to attend the next
meeting that clashes with the Order of Business.
I have been advised over a number of years
by two remarkable people, one of whom, Rudi
Monaghan, is dead. The other, Cormac Rabbit, is
a significant traffic engineer. He made connections
with Professor Melis, spoke to the committee
on transport and has the necessary facts and
figures. His Dargan proposal, named in memory
of William Dargan who built so many railways,
concerns a circle line. Dublin, as city with a bay, is ideally constituted
for this suggestion. There would be a 12.2 km.
circle line, the loop line would be upgraded and
extended by the construction of a 5.9 km. tunnel,
located mostly south of the Liffey, with interchange
stations to the existing six rail and nine
road spokes. It is planned to locate stations
approximately 0.8 km. to 1.2 km. apart. The tunnel
could be built on wayleave land, 80% of
which is publicly owned. We will not have problems
with land if we follow this plan. The wayleave
allows tunnel construction and maintenance
and does not imply land purchase. The circle line
profitably provides a rail hub by its utilisation of
existing infrastructure. Simply said, it benefits
from extensive working infrastructure to maximise
the number of fares. In addition, the project
capitalises on currently available low interest finance.
The foregoing helps to contribute to a minimum
investment return in year one of 5.2%.
Acting Chairman (Mr. Leyden): I must derail
the Senator at this point.
Mr. Norris: I will be happy to make this information
available to the Minister. I have detailed
figures here and have requested that Mr. Rabbitt
be allowed to make a submission to the Joint
Committee on Transport. A colleague from one
of the Opposition parties poured scorn on this
and spoke about self-appointed experts but Mr.
Rabbitt is an internationally acclaimed expert,
while my colleague is a self-appointed expert herself.
When we have talent in this country, recognised
by the O’Reilly report, we should call it in.
We do not have to take the advice given, but we
should add it to the mix.
This project is based on public private partnerships
and is an innovative plan. It is based on the
type of model that gave us the International Financial
Services Centre, which, I admit, I mocked
in the beginning. That is the kind of entrepreneurship
we need.
Are we serious about the metro or is Transport
21 just a lot of camouflage? I suggest it is the
latter, based on the Minister’s speech and the lack
of figures, timetabling and public commitment.