Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

Speaking earlier, I omitted to congratulate the Minister and wish him well in his brief. The new Dáil arrangements aimed to ensure we did not end up trying to be in two places at once. I am, unfortunately and fortunately, on the Business Committee, which meets at 10.30 a.m. I may get back but, as roads and public transport are the major component of the budget, I wanted to focus on these areas. Does the Minister see the balance between the spend on roads and public transport changing substantially in the future? We need good roads to provide bus services and to move goods and people, but our climate obligations will have a dramatic impact on our approach to this sector. They will have an impact on agriculture and the built environment, too, but transport will have to carry a heavier load by virtue of its conflicts with agriculture.

I wish to drill down into some of the items in the documentation. My first question relates to public transport. One of the reasons there was investment in the link between Heuston Station and the Phoenix Park was that the railway order in respect of the DART underground was not proceeded with.

That is the real game-changer in terms of public transport in the greater Dublin area. It is estimated to grow public transport usage to 100 million passenger journeys a year. It is an expensive project but when one starts factoring in the resultant savings over the decades, for example, congestion, accident rates, insurance costs and productivity, is it really possible to avoid undertaking that project? What efforts are being made to see if funding can be obtained for that project, even from sources such as the European Investment Bank? There is a need to square the circle of trying to keep the deficit to the permitted levels and the debt in compliance with euro rules that are substantially imposed on Ireland. We also have obligations, such as climate change obligations, that we cannot fulfil unless we have the money to invest in fairly large initiatives in major urban centres. The DART underground would be the critical project in the greater Dublin area but if we are to grow cities at a regional level, like Galway and Cork, there will have to be a greater focus on public transport and much of that will involve capital investment. Where will such capital investment come from? Is that being factored in? Where will that be positioned in regard to the sectoral plans, one of which will come from the Department? There is a conflict between the obligations we have signed up to as a member state of the European Union and fulfilling those obligations through having the wherewithal to provide the alternatives. Obviously, that is something we must see in budgeting in future years to a much greater degree.

On investment in public transport fleet replacement, one of the issues that came to light locally - I am sure the same is happening elsewhere - was the inadequacy in the rail rolling stock where there are peak-time deficiencies. In fact, it is putting passengers off using rail services where that is obviously the most efficient way of transporting them. I presume there has been some modelling of the needs, even with the existing services for DART, Arrow and the other suburban services.

On the subvention to CIE, when one considers the need to grow the numbers using public transport, the cost of transport is cropping up as an issue and adds to the issue of the cost of living. It is difficult to see how the Minister will live within those budgets if there are continued wage demands. I wonder what the attitude will be to further subventions, as would be the case in other European countries, such as Italy, France and Spain, which invest heavily in public transport. The public transport in such countries is well used but it receives subventions. We are certainly not one of the countries that invests out of line. In fact, we are one of the countries with a low subvention in public transport, which is picked up in the cost of living for passengers.

It is not the case that there is a reduction in the amount for road maintenance. There was a dramatic reduction in the early stages following the economic crash and I recall some of the local authority officials talking about sweating an asset. There is a point beyond which that is advisable. Has the Minister information on the point where it becomes even more expensive to carry out repairs, where one allows the asset to become a significant liability? The former Minister, Mr. Pádraig Flynn, when roads were the responsibility of the then Department of the Environment, famously declared war on potholes. So bad had the under-investment been, it became a dominate issue. What analysis has been done on the condition of primary, secondary and regional roads?

On road fatalities, a decade and a half ago a mechanism was put in place to undertake a cost-benefit analysis. That was the mechanism that was used when, for example, road deficiencies were deemed to be a contributory factor in road fatalities. Is that cost-benefit analysis model still as robust as it was in the past? It seems horrible to say, but I am aware that the cost of a life formed part of the analysis. There may well have been changes. Has that changed in recent years? Such fatalities are mapped and one can see, for example, the kind of collisions that happen and the contributory factors in those road fatalities. Sometimes fatalities are due to road conditions, while on other occasions they obviously occur as a result of driver behaviour or other factors. That matter is one which is specific to the Department. I would be interested to hear whether that is being examined or whether it needs to be examined.

The number of passengers using Leap cards is growing and that goes back into the cost of transport. Is it intended to do further work there or is the Minister satisfied with the good progress? Consumers are looking to their pockets and the Leap card is obviously a positive for regular transport users.