Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

As always, I welcome the Minister when he comes to the House for transport debates. I support the Bill he has put before us this afternoon to place responsibility for both rail and road infrastructure under the one body. Transport Infrastructure Ireland brings together the engineering expertise and, one hopes, the economics expertise of the bodies being merged. The two bodies compete for investment funds that we need to develop the country.

I support the Taoiseach and Minister in regard to the tendering of bus routes. I do not believe there is a threat to anybody's employment. In fact, experience shows that the opening up of bus routes results in the employment of more people. The Dublin–Galway route is a notable example in that there was an increase from one bus per day to approximately 60 per day. That means 59 more bus drivers. If the business can develop by diversity of provision, it will be the way to go forward. The PSO money is approximately €90 million. There cannot just be a block grant; there has to be competition for it. I see no reason the two large companies cannot actually win some of the contracts. Therefore, I hope there is no strike on 1 May.

I commend the Minister on not bowing to pressure from the Stock Exchange, in particular, to make quick decisions on the Aer Lingus case. This requires a major decision on how Ireland presents itself, particularly in respect of the north Atlantic. I hope the report, when it goes to the Cabinet, will include a number of options allowing all of us in this House to decide the best approach. I am glad the report has not been rushed. I strongly feel that retaining Aer Lingus is the best approach rather than having it as part of British Airways, or IAG.

Turning to the measures before us, I commend the Minister on what he has presented to us. I am sure the number of people offering to help the Minister spend the €3.4 million saved on administration has already increased tenfold. In a sense, that is what happens to Ministers.

Let me consider the infrastructure prospects. A proposal put to the former Minister of State responsible for local government, Deputy O'Dowd, implied that a road system with cars only would be virtually maintenance free, particularly if that system were designed to the standard of the Irish motorway system, which is designed to the highest international standard. Therefore, we must ask how we get the trucks using the system to cover their costs, as a good pricing system should do. There is very strong evidence from well-respected studies conducted in the United Kingdom over a number of decades suggesting the correct basis for the taxation of heavy goods vehicles is the laden weight per axle. However, for historical reasons we use the unladen weight of the vehicle. A large vehicle with many axles will impose fewer costs and a lesser burden of the kind the Minister mentioned. I refer to the €300 million that was short for maintenance. If studies give us evidence that certain trucks with a large number of axles that carry the same amount of goods as other trucks impose fewer infrastructural costs, which would lower the cost for Transport Infrastructure Ireland, why do we not have a taxation system that rewards people who buy vehicles with lots of axles? This was suggested to the former Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, and he said he would look into it. Perhaps the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, which has responsibility for the taxation of heavy goods vehicles, could attempt to secure the shift towards what I advocate. When people's purchasing plans and conduct do not impose a burden, or impose a lesser burden, on the Exchequer, it is in the interest of both the Exchequer and the transport company to reward the good conduct. The road and track cost studies are worth examining.

On Saturday last, I attended the funeral of Mr. John Carrick, the former county engineer in Kildare who designed the first motorway in the Republic, the Naas bypass. It was a long time ago. We did cost-benefit analyses of it. It was built by a company from Northern Ireland, Elliott's. At the time, such a project could be carried out by a county engineer. Responsibility has since been transferred to the NRA, and we now have a national system of motorways. I note the Minister has added the sections between Gort and Tuam, and this infrastructure will link up with the motorway to the west. That expands the network.

I am not so concerned when the Minister says we had a surge of investment historically and that it then fell back. There is no need to build the motorway system every single year, build a new harbour every second year or build a new airport every year. Therefore, while the rules of thumb are handy to have in deciding the optimum amount, we need a cost-benefit analysis to assess the projects. One goes through investment surges and there is no need to duplicate an investment once it has been made.

Safety is an important dimension. I am beginning to become concerned that the RSA has gone down an advertising route based on telling people to put their seat belts on and not to drink. I support this but I wonder whether we need something new. We could ask what measures we are taking to improve the safety of vehicles and enforcement. Are there roads that contribute to accidents? We have done very well to reduce the number of deaths on the roads from over 600. One hundred and sixty was the lowest annual number of deaths but the number is starting to increase again, unfortunately. Do we need to examine new approaches? Perhaps the new body might examine this. Does transport infrastructure improve safety? Is it making a contribution in this regard?

On safety, probably one of the luckiest days for transport safety in Ireland was the day when the Broadmeadow Estuary bridge in Malahide fell down. It is used by 90 trains per day. Happily, the driver saw what was happening and put on the alerts. We were so lucky that day. Have the rail safety lessons been learned? Is this an issue the new body the Minister is establishing might consider? The day in question must have been the luckiest for us in regard to safety.

With regard to unpaid tolls, the estimates from the M50 Liffey bridge are that approximately 10% of the vehicles are not registered. They do not pay tolls. Tolls are collected by means of recording electronically the registration numbers of the vehicles. If we have some way of collecting the lost revenue, which we need for the infrastructural projects, we must use it.

I was a bit taken aback by the number of unregistered vehicles recorded on Irish roads, using the M50 bridge as one of the recording points. A vehicle that is not taxed is, by definition, not insured. I support the Minister in taking measures to collect tolls and ensure motorists are using our roads legally.

Extending the Luas to Broombridge and connecting with the Sligo line, which the Minister mentioned, seems to be a very good idea. If we had extended the line to the airport even a small number of years ago, the track would have been built in open country. The longer we delay the project, the more expensive it will become because a substantial amount of the area will be built up. This is worth exploring.

The Minister referred to the updating of the business case for the DART underground project. To me, "business case" means advocacy. Analysis is much better. Since we have the port tunnel on the east side of the city and the M50, and since we are to have the new Luas line, it is possible to get to the airport remarkably quickly. Metro north does not seem to make sense and, therefore, the DART underground does not make sense. I welcome the Minister's initiative in reopening the line through the Phoenix Park between Connolly and Heuston stations. It will offer a service in Phibsborough and Cabra, where there is quite a lot of rail infrastructure.This opens up greater possibilities at lesser cost than the projects before us.

I welcome this Bill. The new functions for the National Roads Authority in relation to local roads are important and I look forward to discussing these further on Committee Stage.