Shane Ross (Dublin Rathdown, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the opportunity to respond to what has been a very useful and constructive debate. I thank the Senators for the mature, sensible and constructive way in which they addressed this issue. Everyone knows there are serious difficulties in the public transport sector. Traffic congestion is a major problem that has to be addressed. In some ways, it is worse than we would expect. Certainly in Dublin, it is chronic. This debate has been marked exclusively by pleas by Senators on behalf of people in their own areas, particularly Dublin.

I will address the BusConnects issue first because it has been a common theme, certainly among those from Dublin. I understand the difficulties that people from all constituencies and areas of Dublin are encountering with this project. Radical change of this sort cannot be introduced without some very understandable, constructive, sensible and, in some cases, absolutely correct opposition. One cannot do anything as radical as drawing on a clean sheet of paper a map of bus routes in Dublin to reduce journey times dramatically and relieve the traffic problem without upsetting certain people in certain areas. There is no intention of doing that. The intention of BusConnects is to relieve the traffic congestion. The projections being made are quite dramatic in that regard.

As everyone knows, the plans as produced will increase the frequency of buses, increase capacity and introduce new, very exciting and much-needed routes. That must be applauded. I will not go into the detail but there will be new routes introduced that have been necessary for a very long time and that will satisfy many of the demands many have made about UCD, St Vincent's and such places. Quite understandably, those projects and initiatives tend to be banked by those who get them while all the more vocal responses are from those who are inconvenienced by some of the projects suggested. Like all the Members who mentioned this, I am especially sympathetic towards those who could not reach hospitals, universities and schools before now. Some of them see the project has not introduced a way for them to do so.

It is important to state that the criticism is not so much of the project itself but of the communication of it. There were circumstances in the past in which I would not have said this - Senator Ned O'Sullivan quite rightly referred to this - but the ambitions of the NTA and its constructive attitude towards this very difficult project have been commendable. In many cases, it has gone the extra mile to involve the public regarding this initiative. That is because the NTA, all politicians and I realise the heartbeat of the people of Dublin is contained in the trains and buses, which carry them every single day of the year. It is the commuters who count and who must be accommodated.

Buses, including those of Dublin Bus, are not run exclusively, and not even primarily, for profit. They are run for those who are unable to travel by other means, sometimes for economic reasons. We want to move as many people as possible into those buses. The NTA realises that and the very important social role buses play. That was a surprise to me. Nevertheless, the criticisms of the consultations have been coming in faster than expected. I suspect that is because there is a misunderstanding over what is going on.

The NTA has held numerous public consultations across the city of Dublin in recent weeks, and staff from Dublin Bus were present. They have been well advertised. People have been invited at various fora and through various media to go to them. Many have turned up and many have been reassured by what they have heard. These consultations have not taken the shape of public meetings with people rabble-rousing or anything like that. There are not politicians stirring people up at these meetings. There are serious people going along with serious problems and explaining them to people from the NTA and getting an answer on how they may get from point A to point B most easily and quickly, or on why they cannot. Many people have come away happy from those consultations, reassured after having been fed a lot of misinformation.

Some people have come away from those consultations still worried about the links. I refer in particular to old people and the disabled. They are worried about links and having to change where they did not have to change before. That is understandable. Those views are serious and must be taken into account. If communities are cut off, of course they must be looked after. If groups of people who were habitually used to getting from point A to point B, including the elderly, now find they cannot do so for various reasons, their cases must be considered with great sympathy, and there must be a practical response. My sense of what is happening now is that the consultation, which will end on 30 September, will prompt a constructive response from the NTA.This is not window dressing or cosmetic. This is for real. The public has responded to the invitation from the NTA to communicate. It is not the only way the public can respond.

There are other actions the public is invited to take on the BusConnects website. A telephone line is available where the public is invited to ring in and ask the questions it wants answers to and see if that is satisfactory. Is it working? I rang it myself. I did not say who I was. I just gave my Christian name. I asked quite a complicated question and they came back to me with a full answer. I rang again and asked another question and they came back to me. I will not say whether the answer was satisfactory but the answer was full information about how to get from point A to point B. That is a very good service because if someone gets that particular response, he or she can decide whether the new system suits him or her. People are misunderstanding the maps, which are very complicated and very difficult to understand, and are unable to make decisions about whether this benefits them, but once they get a reply from this service, and they will get a reply, they are able to decide.

The next step they can take is to make a submission. The NTA is taking submissions by email and letter and will consider them very seriously. My sense is that the options are open and public representatives behaving responsibly will tell those who come to them with legitimate worries about what is going to happen that they can at least rectify the fact that they are not fully informed by ringing up, finding out the information, making a submission and seeing the result of that. Submissions close on 30 September so there are another ten days or so. There is plenty of time to do that.

After those submissions are made, and it is fair to give the NTA time to consider them, it is likely that a new version of that plan will emerge. I am not making any promises but I appeal to the NTA to put the new version out for consultation again when it appears because this is a serious matter and entire communities are affected by it. We realise that and we want to see a serious and proper toing and froing. We know these measures will not come into force until 2020. One or two might come into force very late in 2019 but, in effect, it is a 2020 project so there will be time to consider sympathetically the difficulties people encounter and sort them out. I appeal to everybody to indulge and involve themselves in this process because that is the best way of getting a result. They have a willing listener at the other end of this process who wants to see a new programme of buses that works where all the benefits of the new radials and orbitals will be seen and felt by the majority of people and where those who are or have been unable to find out or who are puzzled and worried about this can be reassured in the months to come.

I will answer some of the questions asked by some Senators because it is appropriate of me to do so. Senator Ned O'Sullivan spoke about underinvestment in transport. He is right. I will not indulge in political blame for all of this because it is unhelpful, but there has been and there still is a problem with underinvestment. This is why we need a plan. If we could produce all the capital today, we would do all those things the Senator would like and do them faster. There has been underinvestment because of the usual reason, namely, a shortage of money. The reason there is a shortage of money is something we could probably debate for a very long time. From what the Senator said, the projects of which he approves are projects of which we also approve. We are not really on different sides. We might be on different sides when it comes to the speed of it and the source of the capital that will come forward.

The Senator also referred to the Luas Cross City debacle. Everyone knows there were problems to start off with but it is working pretty well now. One of the great merits of a good transport company is being flexible. There were serious mistakes and difficulties in the beginning such as overcrowding but they were responded to fairly swiftly by the company behind Luas and the green and red lines of Luas are now working very effectively apart from the damage caused by the storm last night for which we cannot blame the company or Government. It is now working flexibly and is showing a willingness and an ability to adapt pretty quickly to changing conditions.

Senator McDowell said no cost-benefit analysis was done.