The rail review has effectively torn up the Government's National Spatial Strategy, writes Frank McDonald, Environment Editor
If the first paragraph of the Strategic Rail Review (SRR) is taken at face value, then it has already failed to deliver. It says that the aim of the exercise was "to evaluate long-term rail requirements from a national perspective in the light of emerging spatial planning and regional development trends and policies".
Last November, before the SRR was concluded, the Government published its National Spatial Strategy (NSS), with the emphasis on developing "gateways" and "hubs" that would acquire a critical mass to compete with the Greater Dublin Area for inward investment. "Balanced regional development" was its buzz phrase.
Judging from the map produced at the time (see right), one might have anticipated that the Government would review its motorway programme in the light of this strategy. Not a bit of it. Despite soaring cost estimates, ranging up to €21 billion, Ministers remain committed to "rolling out" this programme.
The proposed motorway network is a radial one, with Dublin as its hub. "Strategic linking corridors" were also proposed by the NSS, notably a great arc curving through the south and west from Rosslare to Letterkenny, via Waterford, Limerick, Galway and Sligo. But these were given secondary importance to the radial motorways.
Now, as the Greens' transport spokesman, Eamon Ryan TD, pointed out yesterday, we are presented with a 20-year investment programme for the railways costing €8.5 billion primarily targeted at improving rail services on the same radial routes - to the exclusion of routes that would underpin the NSS.
Booz Allen Hamilton, the consultants who compiled the rail review, did consider three new schemes in their "Going for Growth" scenario - Cork suburban, Galway-Cork (via Limerick), and Limerick-Shannon-Ennis - commenting that they "fit particularly well with the NSS". But only Cork suburban made it on to the investment list.
The problem was that the other two schemes "perform poorly when projected patronage is factored in \ current levels of development and population density along the lines in question". In other words, they would only get the nod after they had developed a critical mass - the planning equivalent of putting the cart before the horse.
The consultants do say that the recommended investment strategy will need to be "revisited" during the course of the next 20 years in the light of such factors as the changing national financial position, progress achieved with implementation and "developments in land use and demographics both in aggregate and in specific locations."
What goes to the heart of the matter is the recent revelation - which would be denied to us by amendments to the Freedom of Information Act - that Charlie McCreevy had upbraided Seamus Brennan for "sponsoring proposals in the area of public transport. . .which are totally unrealistic" in the context of budgetary constraints.
The Minister for Finance has concluded, it appears, that if the choice comes down to motorways or public transport as investment vehicles, motorways will win out - whatever they cost. How does this square with the Minister for Transport's assertion yesterday that he wants to shift freight from the roads to rail?
After all, the principal justification for the motorways is to facilitate economic development by providing faster routes for road freight. That they will end up catering for an ever-growing army of private cars, notably those driven by long-distance commuters to Dublin, is simply not acknowledged in the Government's calculations.
Rail freight does get something of a boost from the SRR, however. Instead of Iarnród Éireann's grim reaper approach to the sector, which accounted for a €14 million deficit last year, a number of innovative measures are proposed to increase its market share, primarily through involvement of the private sector.
Even as public money is invested in motorways to cater for private transport, private-sector investment is seen by the Government as crucial in developing public transport.
The proposed metro line to serve Dublin Airport - which is not among the projects earmarked for funding - would not be considered at all otherwise.
What are the chances that Charlie McCreevy would go along with one of the most expensive items on the investment list - a tunnel linking Heuston and Spencer Dock? Even Seamus Brennan cast some doubt on it yesterday when he said he would need to be convinced first that the existing Phoenix Park tunnel is not a viable alternative.
Apart from the proposed rail interconnector, which would link up with the DART line at Pearse Station (Westland Row), other Dublin projects that made the list include a sensible doubling of the track capacity between Connolly Station and Howth Junction and between Heuston and Kildare to separate mainline from commuter services.
In putting forward "Going for Growth", as opposed to "Do Nothing" or merely "Staying in the Game", the review says: "There is potential to deliver a 'Cinderella story' from decades of under-investment and low asset utilisation. However, this requires, inter alia, significant funding, institutional reform and effective implementation."
As things stand, especially given the current budgetary situation, both funding and implementation must be regarded as questionable, if not altogether dubious.
The process of breaking up CIÉ and introducing a competitive market for public transport has a higher priority than investing substantial sums of money in the product.
But the central issue is compatibility with the National Spatial Strategy.
An Taisce complained yesterday that the focus on improving radial lines to Dublin would "simply exacerbate the 'suction effect' of the capital", at the expense of regional development. The same point was made by Fine Gael, Labour and the Greens.
Thus, the Minister for the Environment, Mr Cullen, was surely grasping at straws when he talked yesterday about the "strong synergies" between the NSS and the SRR. He zeroed in on the review's "valuable food for thought" on rail freight and held out the prospect that lines earmarked for "care and minimum maintenance" might one day be re-opened.
Yet the Youghal and Tuam lines are held on a "care and maintenance" basis and have sycamore trees growing up through their trackbed. To consign the Rosslare-Limerick Junction line to a similar fate would be a "supreme irony", An Taisce said, given that it runs parallel to the N25, which tops the table for road fatalities in the State.
Somewhat encouragingly, Mr Brennan expressed a certain coolness towards rail closures following publication of yesterday's review. He was referring in particular to the western rail corridor, which could link Cork with Sligo, and suggested that local authorities and business interests along the route might come up with proposals.
Mr Cullen said regional authorities were all preparing strategic planning guidelines to "roll out" the NSS in their areas and he would be encouraging them to take into account the potential value of a number of strategic regional links in supporting regional development.
But if all of this new batch of planning guidelines turn out to be as toothless as the Greater Dublin Area Strategic Planning Guidelines, which have been more honoured in the breach than the observance as councillors blithely continue rezoning land never intended for development, nothing will be achieved - least of all a revival of the railways.