Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Over two months ago I asked the Minister in a parliamentary question for his views on the reliability of the route profitability figures published in the 2016 rail review carried out by Roland Berger from the National Transport Authority, NTA, and whether his attention had been drawn to anomalies in the figures in the report. His response was that his Department had consulted the NTA and the NTA was not aware of any anomalies. I had a fair idea of what the NTA would say and I was probably more interested in the Minister's thoughts.

On 3 January 2017 the Minister was sent a letter from a statistician raising serious concerns about the reliability of route profitability figures in the 2016 rail review. I have a copy of the letter and the generic response from the Minister's private secretary. In the letter the statistician provides clear evidence of cost misallocation across various routes, including four earmarked for closure. Across ten routes he examined he noted that the cost figures were either impossible or improbable.

The most glaring anomaly in the figures appears to be on the Gorey to Rosslare segment of rail track, a route that could be earmarked for closure. Here I will give just three examples but there are many more. Perhaps someone can explain how the five stations on the Limerick to Ballybrophy line - three staffed and two not staffed - can cost €31,000 per annum to maintain while the four stations on the Gorey to Rosslare line - two staffed and two not staffed - can cost €1.17 million per annum to maintain? How can CCTV on just one crossing on the Limerick Junction to Waterford line cost €252,000 per annum to maintain while on the Ennis to Athenry route, CCTV costs on seven crossings work out at €71,000, or just over €10,000 each? Why does the report state that €194,000 could be saved in wages for centralised signalling by closing the Gorey to Rosslare segment, when the centralised signalling base is in Greystones and the controllers will still be employed?

There is no doubt the figures Irish Rail, the NTA and the Department are working off which will determine whether rail lines are kept in service or closed, are flawed. I am aware the NTA states it is confident the route profitability methodology used by the experienced consultants is robust and suitable for the comparative analysis that was carried out, but why have these experienced consultants only been awarded one contract across all Government Departments since 2011? I ask the Minister to direct that an independent audit be carried out on the figures arrived at in the 2016 rail review.

Closing rail lines is probably one of the most regressive decisions any Government could take. Threatening to close rail lines using incorrect costing figures in conjunction with a flawed business model is doubling down on this stupidity. The Rosslare to Dublin rail line is one of the most spectacular routes, not just in Ireland, but in Europe. However, not enough people avail of it, the route is slow and the service is not regular enough. The trains do not match up with the ferries that arrive in Rosslare and, in another moment of madness, the station at Rosslare Harbour was relocated a good distance away from the terminal - close to 600 m away. It is almost like someone set out to sabotage this line to make it unusable and then adjusted the figures to make it seem even more unprofitable and unviable.

There is no doubt there has been no political pressure for many years about this line. However, while it does not require political will to continue to have it operating, closing it would essentially amount to branding Wexford as a backwater of lesser socioeconomic relevance than towns like Sligo, Killarney, Westport and Dundalk. It would be a poor decision if it was ever closed.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad we have the opportunity to debate this in the House so I can expand on the reply which I gave in written form to Deputy Wallace. It is a bit of a straw man that he is putting up. He is saying that another consultant produced figures which would indicate there was a good case for closing this line. Let me say one thing. While we can argue this until the cows come home, including the merits of the various consultants, I and the Taoiseach have said there is no intention whatsoever to close rail lines. That is Government policy. To say the idea of closing a rail line is abominable is something the Government and the Deputy share. However, we are the ones who make that decision, as Government policy, and it is not Government policy to close any rail lines, which includes the Rosslare to Dublin rail line.

I note that Deputy Wallace is concerned about this and he has every right to be because it is his constituency and he is doing the right thing. However, whereas, as he suggests, the Dublin-Rosslare, Limerick-Galway, Limerick Junction-Waterford and Limerick-Ballybrophy lines were the ones which came out worst in the review, there is no intention to close any of those rail lines, despite the findings. We recognise the need of people for railways and we recognise the need to run what are, in certain cases, very uneconomic rail lines.

That may not be a good commercial decision, but it is a good social decision, and it is Government policy that these rail lines, despite the findings of the rail review, will not be closed.

This review was undertaken jointly by the National Transport Authority, NTA, and Iarnród Éireann and was published in 2016. The purpose of the review was to look at the existing rail network, identify the funding required both to maintain the network and to provide the necessary capital works and to consider the gap in funding. The review also examined the potential of the rail network to meet the economic, environmental and social needs of the State in the future and discussed the importance of maintaining a rail network to support sustainable strategic growth in travel demand. The review highlighted the considerable amount of taxpayer support currently provided to the rail network. It also provided an overview of the estimated amount of additional funding needed to support the network over the period from 2016 to 2021. My Department has consulted the NTA on the matter raised by the Deputy and the authority has advised that it is not aware of any anomalies in the figures published in the 2016 rail review, despite what the Deputy says. The NTA has stated that it is confident that the route profitability methodology used by experienced consultants on behalf of the authority and Iarnród Éireann is robust and suitable for the comparative analysis that was carried out. The review identified a funding gap for Irish rail of the order of €100 million per annum at that time.

I am glad to point out that since the report was published in 2016, the Government has announced significant additional funding for rail infrastructure and services, which is addressing the funding requirement. Public service obligation, PSO, subvention increased in 2016 and 2017 and is increasing further this year. Over those three years, PSO subvention will be increased by some 35%. In budget 2017 alone, we allocated over €50 million in additional funding to Irish Rail, bringing the total amount for the year to over €300 million. This significant increase in funding allows for increasing investment in maintenance and renewal of the network and the rolling stock, and also provides more funding for safety projects. On the capital side, in budget 2018 we announced €2.7 billion of Exchequer investment in public transport infrastructure and facilities over the next four years. The recently published ten year national development plan will prioritise key investment actions that protect the quality and value of the existing extensive transport networks and progress new key capital public transport programmes over the years leading up to 2027.

The public consultation process held by the NTA following the publication of the review helped to begin an informed discussion about the current and future role of rail transport in Ireland. More than 300 submissions were received in response to that consultation process.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad to hear the Minister confirm again that he does not have any intention of closing the line. However, I could be forgiven for suspecting that Irish Rail does not have much of an appetite to keep it open. I still insist that this particular report, which would have been driven and very much determined by Irish Rail, is a flawed one. The Minister and the Taoiseach may not be captive to it, which is good news. I am sure the experienced external consultants referred to are very experienced, but they would have been totally captive to the way Irish Rail presented the information to them. What input did the Commission for Railway Regulation, CRR, have into the review, particularly in respect of attaching infrastructure costs to specific routes in the network? CRR is mandated to independently monitor the infrastructure costs of the network. That is distinct from the role of the NTA in awarding PSO services contracts, which is purely related to the operation of the services. The NTA is, therefore, not expert on infrastructure costs of maintenance and renewal.

The Minister must agree with me that assumptions on data on those infrastructure costs are critical to any analysis of route profitability. Although he says that neither he nor the Taoiseach have any intention of closing it, God knows that there may be a change of Government one of these days, and maybe Irish Rail will get its evil way and force the closure.

The Minister said that more money is being invested in this area. Is any money specifically targeted at the Rosslare-Dublin line? At the moment an express train runs from Gorey to Dublin, which is good. What about a train from Rosslare to Wexford and Enniscorthy, and which then goes on an express run to Dublin? The line needs help. I know it is not used by an awful lot of people, but we can change that. It would be a good thing to do all-round.

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think the Deputy has raised this question about the south-eastern line before, and I think he got a response. It is significantly constrained south of Bray as it is a single-track line with limited passing capacity. This reduces the competitiveness of rail against travel by road. In addition, Wexford is currently well served by commercial bus services provided by Wexford Bus and Bus Éireann and as a result, there are no plans to provide an express rail service from Wexford. In other words, the roads have had a large amount of money spent on them already and there are no plans to do what the Deputy has suggested.

The merits of various consultants and their reports can certainly be argued by Deputy Wallace or myself. My guess is that the consultants to whom Deputy Wallace referred, who were asked to produce the rail review, had a mandate which was very much weighted towards the commercial side. What they came up with in the rail review were the figures for losses on the Dublin-Rosslare line, which I have read out. The cost per passenger journey to break even was €30.80 in 2014 while in 2015, it was €29.10. However, we cannot measure its value by this alone. That is what Governments and Government policy are for. We cannot measure every rail line in terms of commerce. These are commercially unviable rail lines which we are running for social reasons.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about the environment? Is that an issue?

Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the whole point. We are not closing them, even if consultants say that they are not commercially viable. They are run for the benefit of the people who live in the areas, to which the Deputy referred.