Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)

I share the views expressed about the purpose of this debate. It is disappointing that the Minister has not shown up for it. This is a major project costing a vast amount of public funding and it is a pity that he could not take the time to come into the House for the debate. It would appear that this slot for statements on Transport 21 is more about plugging a gap in the Dáil schedule and covering up the fact that the Government does not have legislation to produce than having a debate on what is required in the transport area in future years.

The Labour Party welcomed the publication of Transport 21 in so far as it goes. We welcome the approach taken in that there is a commitment to invest substantial public moneys in our transport system over a ten-year period and there is a roll-over programme in that we do not continue the stop-go approach to funding we have seen in recent years. To that extent we welcome it, but the Labour Party has a number of reservations about the approach taken in Transport 21 and the selection and timing of a number of the projects.

There is a shocking lack of detail in the list of projects. There are no costings on any of the individual projects. The Minister continues to refuse to publish the traffic modelling work which underpins the Transport 21 plans. We are told that modelling work was undertaken by the DTO but to date we have seen no evidence of that. There does not appear to be any justification for the Minister's continual refusal to provide that basic information. Members of the Dáil, and the public as taxpayers, are entitled to know the basis on which the Government decided to select the projects it selected. Why did it select certain projects over others? What is the basis for its proposed phasing of those projects?

We are talking about a massive amount of taxpayers' money and taxpayers have the right to know the reason the Government selected those projects, whether the costs stack up, whether it makes economic sense to proceed with them and whether there are cost benefit analyses that show a positive return for the economy. Unfortunately, there is no information on that. Further, there is no information on the way cost overruns are to be addressed, given the bad experience in the past of major transport and other projects ending up costing multiples of what was originally estimated. I expect the Minister would have at least examined the mechanisms that could be put in place to ensure, first, that robust cost benefit analyses were carried out at the outset and, second, that a mechanism was put in place to ensure cost overruns could be controlled as the project developed.

In the past, an early cost benefit analysis was done on major projects such as this one. At that point the estimate of the cost of the project might be X million euro but as the project went on there was no control on cost overruns. In some cases — this applies to roads projects — the original estimates were completely off-beam. Changes were then made to the contract, the specification was changed and so on and the project, as it proceeded, increased in cost.

There does not appear to be any mechanism in place to keep those projects under ongoing review. There is no doubt that in the case of some projects in the past, if at some point half way through the planning of a project or before the contract was awarded a cost benefit analysis was done, it may have shown a negative return on that investment. It is a question of being careful with what are vast sums of public money.

For any of the projects in the transport area, whether it is a public transport project or a roads project, we are talking about vast sums of money. That is why there is an even greater requirement on Government to have in place mechanisms to ensure that the costs are kept in control and that there is a constant evaluation of the return to the Exchequer on that investment, right up to the point where the contract is being awarded. So far, however, there is no indication that any of those lessons have been learned from the past and that there are new systems in place to deal with that problem, which has been prevalent in respect of public projects in the past decade or so.

The Transport 21 plan has come far too late. We are now at the point where, on any day in the city of Dublin, one is liable to be faced with gridlock. We are no longer talking about particular peak times in the day or year, or busy times coming up to Christmas. There is an ongoing problem with traffic congestion throughout the day and the year. It is a bit rich for the Government to come along, after nine years in power, with a plan to deal with congestion and transport when the problem has been allowed to deteriorate to its current point. We know now that the average speed in Dublin is seriously declining. The last count put average speeds at 10 mph. Dublin Bus has highlighted that average bus speeds during the morning peak have dropped 11% in the past four years — they are now at the 12 km/h mark. We all know that if it rains on any given day, traffic grinds to a halt.

In a modern society and economy, which we claim to have, it is intolerable that we are on such a knife-edge that a little rain can bring traffic to a standstill. It is clear that, over many years, there has been a complete lack of forward planning in respect of land use and the formation of the transport links required if houses are to be built to the extent they have been in recent years. The Government is now attempting to play catch-up, but will do so over the next ten years. Circumstances are bad at present and there is very little prospect that they will improve in the foreseeable future under Transport 21.

While I very much welcome the inclusion of the rail interconnector proposal and the emphasis on rail transport in Transport 21, it is a serious mistake to place the rail interconnector so far down the schedule. It is not to be in place until 2015, at the earliest. Of all the transport projects spoken about over the past 20 years, the interconnector project is probably the most significant. The initial investment will deliver a very significant return in terms of additional capacity and it will provide relief for the entire greater Dublin area and all the surrounding commuter counties. It can be achieved reasonably quickly and very cost-effectively.

It is important to note that, unlike private sector operations and many public sector operations, Irish Rail has delivered great improvements to date, particularly in respect of safety. These have entailed the replacement of a vast quantity of tracks and the delivery of many new rail cars. All the projects Irish Rail carried out over the past decade have been delivered within budget and on time. This is a remarkable record. Given the company's project management experience, which is second to none, there is no doubt that it could deliver the rail interconnector very quickly, perhaps within the next three years, if it were afforded priority in Transport 21. The Government's placing of the project at the end of the schedule is a very serious mistake and is regrettable. It is delaying a potentially considerable expansion of rail capacity. Irish Rail serves many thousands of commuters on a daily basis.

The Labour Party is also concerned that the Minister still has no policy whatsoever on rail freight. From economic, environmental and social perspectives, there is an urgent need to tackle this problem. We are all familiar with the many cities, villages and towns throughout the country that are brought to a standstill frequently because of large numbers of articulated trucks trundling through their streets which were never intended for such heavy traffic.

We know from accident statistics that trucks are disproportionately involved in fatal accidents and have an environmental cost in terms of wear and tear of the roads. The Government really needs to draw up a policy on how we can encourage industry to switch from road transport to rail freight. There are many good reasons for doing so. This important area has been completely ignored in Transport 21.

The traffic congestion associated with the school run is very significant. We all know how much congestion lessens in cities and towns when the schools are on holidays. This is a critical problem and requires attention. It is another problem that has been ignored in Transport 21.

I am concerned that Transport 21 seems to reflect existing regional developmental imbalances. Rather than act as a mechanism for rebalancing the skewed development that has featured all along the eastern seaboard at the expense of the west, Transport 21 does very little. It reflects the mindset that has been evident in the Department of Transport over recent years to the effect that priority has been afforded to roads and train and bus routes to and from Dublin. Adequate consideration has not been given to the need to have better connectivity between cities and towns outside the Dublin region.

The main criticism of Transport 21 was probably that the Government had no plan whatsoever to deliver on the various projects contained therein. Both sides of the House have recognised for many years that we very much lack a centralised transport authority to deal with projects in the Dublin area or nationally. There is no point announcing a long list of very expensive transport projects unless there is a body or authority charged with delivering them. When the Minister was criticised in this regard this time last year, when he announced Transport 21, he very quickly attempted to correct his mistake. Only after announcing a budget for the projects amounting to almost €35 billion did it occur to him that he might need an authority to deliver them. Deputy Olivia Mitchell referred to the long delays in this regard. Professor Margaret O'Mahony was appointed to produce a report and gave it to the Minister last March, yet we are only discussing it in November.

Today's newspapers state the Minister is to make some announcement on this matter this afternoon. That is probably why he is not present. It would be more appropriate for him to be in the House to tell us what he has in mind. Some 12 months after Transport 21 was first announced, there is still no body or authority to deliver the projects.

I gather from newspaper reports that the Minister is to announce a transport authority for Dublin today. I certainly hope he has taken on board the comments and criticisms made over many years on the delivery of projects. I hope the Dublin transport authority will have a role in respect of land use. It makes no sense whatsoever to divorce land use from transport. I hope there is very clear, democratic involvement by public representatives and local authorities in the authority and that it does not end up as a white elephant in terms of regulation. It has been estimated that if a separate body such as the Dublin transport authority assumed full responsibility for the bus market, it could cost approximately €35 million per year. There should be light-touch regulation. Dublin Bus has a very good network in place and it has expertise. The Dublin transport authority should concern itself with benchmarking Dublin Bus's costs rather than setting up a new layer of administration and engaging in a very expensive regulation process. We want a body that will deliver the projects which are planned, first and foremost. It should also be accountable, it should have democratic involvement and it should have a clear role in land use.

See this speech in context