Ivor Callely (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to address the Seanad on the Clare Street initiative, CSI. I thank Senators for raising this matter in the context of my new initiative and the Government's ongoing commitment to an efficient and sustainable transportation system for Dublin and the greater Dublin area. The issue of transport and mobility management is not only an important and interesting question, but one of day-to-day practical concern to all of us, particularly public representatives debating in the Seanad at the heart of our capital city.

There have been obvious and substantial improvements in Irish social and economic life since the 1990s, especially over the past eight years. We have seen increases in population and employment, in the number of houses being built, in car ownership and in personal wealth. All of these changes have a direct impact on our transport needs.

I confirm to the House that the Government places a considerable emphasis on ensuring that our transport systems can cope with increasing demands. In particular, the Government's ten year transport investment framework will identify the investment and outline the measures that are required to further develop all elements of national transport infrastructure. This means addressing existing bottlenecks and capacity constraints, enhancing quality, optimising the use of the network and making prudent advance provision for future economic growth.

I strongly believe we must develop a new model of co-operation for our capital and in doing so, we need to ensure we are grounded in our thinking. We need to move up the value added chain in our transport delivery. We need to collaborate, co-ordinate and integrate in an intelligent fashion in order to maximise the potential and foster new innovations in the way transport providers operate. We have heard many times about the benefits of reduced traffic congestion, reduced pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, improved health and safety, more balanced regional development and social justice. However, we must recognise that Government action alone will not solve all our transport problems.

I place on record my commitment to ensuring that a broadly based, consultative and innovative approach is taken to provide an efficient and sustainable transportation infrastructure for the people, communities and social and economic partners of the greater Dublin area. This approach is the starting point for any discussion on the future of transportation in the greater Dublin area. That is the basis on which I pulled the CSI group together and I am delighted I got unanimous support when I put the question to the group for the new charter to be adopted.

As Senators will be aware, members of my new initiative, referred to as the Clare Street initiative — the reason for the name is because that is where much of the homework took place — have been drawn together at my request to work together to brainstorm and drive forward innovative and, I emphasise, practical proposals for tackling traffic problems in Dublin. Success against congestion requires the efforts not only of one organisation, it is a problem that must be attacked on a number of fronts. It also requires co-operation between transportation agencies, businesses and the public. Since we are all affected by congestion, it is important we all work together and listen to each other in addressing the congestion problem.

The charter, adopted by steering group of the CSI at its meeting in Clontarf Castle on 5 October last, lays down the working framework for the initiative. The participants agreed that the purpose of the CSI will be to progress the effective implementation of traffic management and related measures in the greater Dublin area. The focus of the Clare Street initiative will be on measures which have the capacity to make a material difference, large or small; measures which are capable of delivering rapid results; and measures that might not otherwise attract high priority for implementation.

In particular, I want to develop and carry forward projects that will contribute towards more effective traffic management. While it is difficult to predict the future, we will all agree one thing that can be stated with assurance, namely, unless more transport options and solutions are available, future commuters will make longer trips at slower speeds. With this in mind, the CSI will focus on the development of innovative measures that have the capacity to make improvements on the ground quickly.

The CSI provides the opportunity for experimentation and small-scale field testing of practical measures, for the transfer of know-how based on best practice and for the implementation of innovative concepts and emerging technologies. Also, it permits the business sector to assist in a practical way by providing relevant expertise and will bring together business and public bodies to work on shared challenges.

The CSI is intended to complement and bring added value to the major transport investments under way or planned for the greater Dublin area. It will focus on smaller scale traffic management and related initiatives rather than large scale infrastructural or other capital investment projects. It will also focus on the practical delivery of projects rather than advocating or opposing particular projects. Projects under the CSI will be funded from the resources of implementing agencies, as appropriate, and, where necessary, from my Department.

Participation in the CSI is on a personal basis rather than as a representative of any agency, company or interest. Members, only some of whom belong to planning and transportation agencies, do not represent any organisation within the CSI forum. Rather, the participants bring their own views and experience to the table. Each member of the steering group brings a specific dimension of expertise and experience to bear on the remit of the CSI. I would like to record my appreciation of, and thanks to, the members of the steering group who not only met and agreed the new charter in Clontarf Castle on 5 October last but who also worked with me over the past number of months, on a regular basis, to bring this to fruition.

The participants are finalising a manageable short list of projects to be taken forward in each of the first two years. Project sponsors for each project have yet to be finalised. It will be the role of the CSI to promote and support the implementation of projects but not in any way to substitute itself for existing agencies or to pre-empt their functions.

The CSI charter, adopted and agreed in Clontarf Castle at its inaugural meeting on 5 October last, makes it clear that the initiative will work with existing agencies and within existing governance structures and that it will be the responsibility of the relevant statutory or other agencies to decide whether or not to proceed with projects suggested by the initiative. Once the agency has decided to implement a project, the agency and the project sponsor will provide a brief report identifying how and within what timeframe it is proposed to implement the project.

The CSI, through the relevant project sponsor, will monitor progress on projects and there will be a reporting structure on progress to the steering group. Having considered the regular reports of sponsors, the group will decide whether to keep the project on its action list. Clearly, projects will need to be defined in terms of their potential for practical implementation and how they can be judged a success or failure.

The model for this initiative is the Inzeller Kreis initiative, jointly established by the mayor of Munich and BMW Company back in 1995. The initiative forged a new partnership between the public and the private sectors in the Munich region. In particular, the Munich initiative brought together representatives of local government and business in Munich to identify and promote the implementation of practical measures to address transportation problems. I hope we can learn lessons from the Munich initiative and other traffic models that Members may believe warrant consideration.

However, one is not always obliged to rely on models. We constantly learn more about the basic nature of congestion in terms of its trends, its impacts and what can be done about it. Accordingly, we are open to suggestions and ideas from as many sources and as many people as possible. Members will agree that anecdotal information from the public can often be useful in identifying the current locations and causes of major congestion problems. For this reason, I arranged for some members of the public who are not transport practitioners to give their views to the CSI on transport problems in Dublin and what they believed might be done to solve such problems.

For example, at the CSI's recent seminar on 5 October, five members of the public gave their viewpoints on aspects of transportation in Dublin. They were Louis Copeland, the well-known Dublin businessman; Clare Finnegan, a PhD student in the department of civil engineering in Trinity College, Dublin; Basil Goode, a hotelier operating in Dublin; Mary Prizeman, a retail store supervisor and housewife; and Joyce Ring, a full-time housewife.

All stakeholders have an interest in solving the congestion problem. Public transport companies are in the business of serving customers in the same manner as any private firm, except that the customers, that is, the public and other businesses, buy efficient and safe travel. The public, elected officials and businesses are more than simply consumers but are also stakeholders. Hence, these consumers should also examine their own decisions and policies to identify changes that can improve quality of life while recognising that transport companies cannot solve the problem by themselves.

A total of 37 projects were tabled by members of the CSI in advance of the seminar on 5 October 2005. Workshops were held to consider those projects in detail. I could go into great detail in respect of the work I put into the CSI. I approached a number of people whose presence would be appropriate around the table as well as including five members of the public who, as I mentioned, are not practitioners in the delivery of transport modes. I tried to get the mix right, as I did not want the practitioners to talk to themselves around a table. While one might ask why this has not been done before, I cannot answer such a question. For the first time I brought the relevant personnel together to foster a spirit of co-operation rather than of competition between them. I also wanted the seminar to be meaningful and fruitful, rather than a day in which a discussion would be held but which would require people to come back later to consider projects.

In that regard, we circulated pre-prepared templates to the group on which its members could include projects. This was the method used to arrive at the 37 projects. The templates included a number of items in respect of what was involved, the time period for implementation and the costs. In essence, it contained the relevant questions that one would expect in order to make a quick decision. The group then broke into workshops to consider the projects in greater detail. Each workshop subsequently presented its chosen projects to the plenary session whereupon they were considered and a short list of projects was identified. In some cases, individual projects were amalgamated.

However, the list of projects has not yet been finalised, as those who have been identified as sponsors of individual projects must confirm their acceptance of such sponsorship. I will clarify what I mean by sponsorship. If a proposal was made, such as putting an incentive in place to use public transport modes outside peak travel time, I thought it would be appropriate for it to have a suitable sponsor with his or her finger on the pulse, who would ensure it would go through the relevant stages and who might be in a position to help it do so.

In other words, we have requested people to take on sponsorship of projects to ensure they go through the relevant steps. In certain cases, I await confirmation of people's acceptance of such a sponsorship role.

Agencies identified as implementers of individual projects must formally accept responsibility for them before the list of projects can be formally announced. We must ensure the requested agency will be prepared to take on the project. However, given the group of people involved, the amount of effort, time and energy put into the initiative and the manner in which projects have been identified, I do not envisage difficulties from either sponsors or agencies.

In conclusion, I should point out that the CSI will not, of itself, solve all the traffic problems of Dublin. In the same way that members of the group will be required to work together to tackle traffic problems in Dublin, we will also look to other organisations to play their part. Success against congestion requires the efforts of more than one organisation and is a problem that must be attacked on a number of fronts. It also requires co-operation between transportation agencies, businesses and the public. Since we are all affected by congestion, it is important we all work together to address the congestion problem.

I am confident the future of the CSI is secure as a vital element of planning a sustainable transportation network in the greater Dublin area. I hope my comments have been helpful to the House.