Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister here today. This is a timely debate. I congratulate the Minister also on his script because with the exception of the development at the National Sports Campus there is not a single time or date commitment mentioned anywhere. This worries me as a general proposition because it is easy to talk about things it is intended to do between now and 2040, but when will these things be done, how will they be done, what will they cost and will we get good value for money? These are the issues with which I am primarily concerned. I heard what Senator Ned O'Sullivan said about national rail and transport infrastructure and I agree with that. I hope the Minister will forgive me if I look at the issues which arise for discussion today slightly from a Dublin perspective.

First, I note he Minister's speech mentions the MetroLink project and I was struck by former Senator Sean Barrett's speech to the Dublin Economics Workshop, in which he developed the proposition at length that there has been no cost-benefit analysis for the MetroLink project. The vaguest statements have been made about it but a cost-benefit analysis has not yet been published. It should be done but more fundamental than that is that the alternatives to it should have been considered in some form of public dialogue and that never happened. I note that the Minister, for instance in his contribution today, speaks about the Luas green line - which goes right past my garden so it is a thing which I have always supported and of which I am strongly in favour. The Minister stated it is intended to increase the capacity on that line by 27% by lengthening platforms and lengthening tram sets. That is a good idea, which I favour, but if the platforms on the Luas green line are to be lengthened let us remember that the MetroLink project, as it was explained to representatives of the Oireachtas, including me, Senator Humphreys and other people, involves a different form of platform, a different metro system, perhaps driverless trains and entirely different stations. Consequently, are we spending money now on extending the capacity of the Luas green line at this stage in pursuit of one strategy, while at the same time preparing for a MetroLink which will go the whole way to Sandyford and which will involve the radical transformation of all of the stations on the intervening line? I refer to the raising of their height to accommodate the kind of trains it is envisaged will run on them and the destruction of all of the existing platforms, including the extended platforms to which the Minister refers. Which are we doing? What is our plan?

It is the case, and I remember it from my time in government, that the Luas green line as it is now called, was planned with a view to its incorporation into a metro system at the time. That was a possibility but it was not done at the time and it was left aside. Bodies such as Iarnród Éireann came up with alternative schemes for different metro configurations in Dublin, including an east-west link between Heuston Station, Pearse Station, Connolly Station and the like. One thing that we should remember is that we committed €368 million to the construction of the cross city Luas and if the MetroLink project, as currently envisaged and as is currently out for consideration for public consultation is proceeded with, the Luas green line will effectively cease to exist. It will connect Charlemont station with Broombridge on one tram service and an entirely separate tram service from Sandyford to Bride's Glen on the other side. I want some answers to these questions. Why are we extending the platforms for trams when we know that we will be digging all of those platforms up and putting a high vehicle platform system in place if we are going to construct the MetroLink the whole way to Sandyford? I note the Minister's speech did not mention connecting the MetroLink the whole way to Sandyford. He talks about the city centre and Dublin Airport and I can see that there would have been a logic if a metro system was to be built from source to the city centre, to leave it at that and to have interconnectivity with the expanded green line Luas service, with longer trams and to stop the idea of trying to break up the Luas green line service into three separate components, one of which is the Broombridge to Charlemont section, the other of which is the portion of the metro which runs from Charlemont to Sandyford which would be a high speed train operation and then reverting to a tram system between Sandyford and Brides Glen. This is not joined-up thinking and the cross city Luas would not have been built had it been intended to also serve places such as O'Connell Street with the MetroLink project. We will have two stations on St. Stephen's Green and two more on O'Connell Street. All of this money would not have been spent in that way if we had a clear view at that time when we authorised the construction of the cross city Luas, that MetroLink or something like it was in the pipeline.

I return to the fundamental point, namely the absolute necessity for the publication of a clear, unequivocal and convincing cost-benefit analysis for such an investment. I ask again why it is the case, if the capacity of the green line will be expanded by lengthening platforms and tram sets - which I fully support - we are also pursuing a different strategy, namely, to install a high vehicle train system on a portion of that line that will involve the destruction of all of the newly expanded platforms and the like and their replacement with a very different system which the engineers in the National Transport Authority have in mind? If possible, I ask that at some stage, before we go further with all of these projects, the Minister will publish the detailed cost-benefit analysis for the MetroLink project.It is important that the public, and particularly the Dublin public, are given a fair and reasonable estimate of the duration for which the entire Luas green line will be out of commission if this goes ahead. It was suggested to myself and Senator Humphreys that the everything would be done in six months, which is laughable. It was then admitted that however long it took to construct it, there would be a further three months for commissioning it. The truth is that between 12 and 24 months is a much more likely timeframe for the temporary abolition of the Luas green line service.

Today the The Times, Ireland edition features a plea from cyclists for the investment of significant sums to make a cycling-friendly city. It is an area on which the Minister's Department and Dublin City Council should now concentrate. Dublin is not a hilly area and it could benefit greatly from the use of bicycles but most parents and people of my age fear going out on bicycles in city centre traffic. There are not enough dedicated thoroughfares for the use of bicycles. There needs to be a significant rethink of the commitment of the city council, which is the most relevant local authority, and the Minister's Department to making a major contribution to building new cycleways, new bridges across the canal, opening up old laneways, and dedicated ways of getting around Dublin by bike, which is unthreatened by heavy vehicles and traffic dangers. I welcome the Minister's paper today. It is short on specifics and I would like a clear picture of the Luas green line cost-benefit analysis and the project, as he has not mentioned it in detail.