Mr. Peter Strachan:

I absolutely agree on the number using public transport versus private transport, if I can call it that. We would not be surprised to see that. I am not surprised to see those numbers because they mirror the modal split in many other countries around the world. We should not think Ireland is different in that respect because it is not.

The Deputy is absolutely right about provision. With regard to public transport, it is glib to say "build it and they will come" but there is a ring of truth to that, particularly when you go into areas where there is a scarcity of public transport offering. In one of my previous statements, I said that, as the NTA, we need to make sure we are balancing the profile of provision and not just concentrating on areas where we get big upticks in business-cost ratios because there are big centres of population and big opportunities to get a return on the business case and the spend. We have to also have a mind to social inclusion and equity across the rest of the country. That is what excites me about this being a national role and not just a role focused on a geographical area like Dublin or another city.

Rail is interesting. I say this as predominantly a career railwayman, having started in heavy rail and then branched out into different modes. It is breathtakingly expensive as a mode. If we look at the revenue per subsidy, fare box or whatever and the profile of rail in comparison with bus transport, we see that nowhere in the world have we ever really cracked the question of efficiency or how to run a rail service that is the leanest and meanest it could possibly be. I do not think this country is any different. There are legacy working practices and a whole bunch of other things we could probably discuss for another two or three hours that explain why rail is disproportionately more expensive. As I have said, it is no different in the rest of the world. Where there is a good case to be made for rail expansion - DART+ is a good example - we will continue to make those cases. However, going into resurrecting previously closed rail lines or looking at greenfield rail propositions is a very expensive thing to do and, with limited resources in the fiscal envelope, I am not sure we should convince ourselves that we can make a return on that. I will just give the Deputy that as a strategic piece.

The funding envelope is difficult, is it not? We are no different from anywhere else in the world, are we? I have just come from a board meeting in Cardiff as part of my Transport for Wales responsibilities and, earlier this week, I was in London as part of my Transport for London responsibilities and there is no money to do any of these things in those areas. We are no different. As an authority, we have to make a compelling business case to the Department of Transport and the wider Government that this is a sensible thing to spend our money on as a State in comparison with all of the other competing demands in the areas of education, health and so on because of the social and economic benefits of transport. We have to value that wider benefit stream and not just transport per se. That is what we have to do. Our responsibility as the NTA and the delivery responsibility of bodies such as TII is to make sure that, when that money is allocated, it is spent wisely and effectively to bring projects in on time and on budget. That is the quid pro quo. These things will always cost a lot of money. There is no doubt about that. We have seen it elsewhere. It is about asking where it fits in the country's overall priorities.