Ms Anne Graham:

I will pick up on the rest of Deputy Canney's questions. He asked about the budget and a three or five-year budget that gives some kind of certainty. We would also like that certainty because as we only get our operational budget on a yearly basis, it is difficult for us to plan, which also makes it difficult for the Local Link offices to plan ahead.

In terms of the western rail corridor, our role with regard to rail infrastructure is very specific. We have a contract related to the provision of services and the only place where we influence the provision of infrastructure is in the greater Dublin area where we fund the capital investment in infrastructure. The overall policy relating to the provision of rail infrastructure outside the greater Dublin area is a matter for the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. It manages the infrastructure through a contract with Irish Rail for the improvements on and maintenance of the infrastructure. As an authority, we have views from a transport planning point of view about rail infrastructure because it is costly infrastructure to provide and maintain. We obviously feel it is important for high-quality commuter services into cities. This does not just include Dublin but the regional cities as well. It is important for moving people on an inter-urban basis. We need high volumes to be able to cover the cost of providing the infrastructure to make a business case stand up for providing the infrastructure but also for keeping it maintained and the value for money associated with that.

We respect what was set out in the national development plan regarding the western rail corridor. In terms of the submission we made, there is a bit of a misunderstanding when we refer to abandoned railway lines and their potential for use as greenways. This did not refer to the western rail corridor. That was not what we intended and we will clarify that with the particular regional assembly. We were talking about railways other than the western rail corridor, of which there are a number around the State. It is for those to be used as greenways. We were not referring to the western rail corridor. If there is a business case to support the development of rail because it is important from a public transport point of view, we will support it if it stands up economically.

As for Deputy Ó Cuív's questions about who develops bus and rail services, it is a combination. In some cases, we develop the plans because we have our own transport planners and service planners. We put forward proposals whether they are for the bus company or the rail company to see whether it can provide those services with the resources it has or what the cost associated with providing those would be. In some cases, we instigate the changes but in other cases, the operators instigate the changes. When we were set up initially, we did not have the resources to be doing the transport planning. We are developing that service planning role far more as we have been in a position to increase our resources in that area. Ultimately, we must approve whatever changes are mooted. Where we instigate such changes, we obviously wish to approve them but we must check whether the operator is in a position to deliver them. We also are open to the operator having its own ideas and innovating in services. We would approve those services if the funding is there and if we feel it is the right service to provide. We have been pushing for services like evening services, off-peak services and services that probably do not provide the same return in terms of fares but which we still think there is an obligation to provide.

It is the policy of the NTA to develop and improve services at off-peak times, evenings and weekends. I acknowledge Deputy Ó Cuív has made a particular request and has met us to discuss a certain service. We are waiting for our operator to furnish us with the timetable and an outline of the cost. The formal approval process will then begin. We are very open to any suggestions for improvement, particularly where off-peak and weekend services are concerned.

In regard to fares, the NTA tends to be the proposer of fare structure. Trying to rectify and simplify the fare structure that we inherited six or seven years ago has been a difficult process. We have focused on simplifying the number of rail fares and fare stages, particularly in the short-hop zones in city areas. It took about five years to get some form of distance-based fare system in the commuter zone, but a lot more work needs to be done on that. We will be doing a similar exercise on the intercity fare. Similarly, Bus Éireann has a hugely complicated fare structure and we are working with it to simplify those fares. We are simplifying the relationship between an standard adult single ticket and the deductions for child or student fare in order that it is much simpler for people to understand what fares are being offered.

The argument the Deputy has made to us is there should be the same fare structure in the cities as there is in the rural areas. We do not agree with that. In order to function, a city requires a lot more people to use public transport than does a rural area in respect of congestion. We therefore must encourage as many people as possible to use public transport in the cities. Moreover, there is a greater cost associated with providing transport in rural areas than in city areas. As such, a simplified fare structure and lower city fares allow us to provide more services to meet the congestion in those areas. We feel there should be a different fare structure in the cities than applies in rural areas. However, we subvent our fares in rural areas to a higher level per passenger journey than we do-----