This morning we will engage with the National Transport Authority to examine its financial statements of 2024. On behalf of the committee, I welcome our witnesses: Ms Anne Shaw, chief executive officer; Mr. Hugh Creegan, deputy chief executive; Mr. Philip L'Estrange, director of finance and corporate services; and Mr. Jeremy Ryan, director of public transport services at the NTA. We are also joined by the following who are attending in a representative capacity from the Department of Transport: Mr. Andrew Ebrill, principal officer, and Ms Akriti Brady, principal officer. We are also joined by officials from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, including the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, who is a permanent witness to the committee, and Ms Georgina O'Mahony, deputy director of audit. They are all very welcome here this morning.

Before we begin, I wish to explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards reference witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected, pursuant to both the Constitution and statute, by absolute privilege. This means that they have an absolute defence against any defamation action for anything they say at the meeting. However, they are expected not to abuse this privilege, and it is my duty as Cathaoirleach to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, witnesses will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Witnesses are also reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity.

I call the Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Seamus McCarthy, to make his opening statement.

The National Transport Authority undertakes a wide range of statutory responsibilities relating to strategic public transport planning, development, regulation and funding. This includes responsibility for ensuring the achievement of a substantial reduction in the level of greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector.

The authority's income in 2024 amounted to just under €2.3 billion, up from €2 billion in 2023. Most of its income comes from Exchequer grant funding, almost all of which is paid from Vote 31 - Transport. In 2024, this amounted to €1.775 billion.

In addition to covering the authority's running costs, this included grant funding earmarked for a recurrent support of public transport operators and investment in transport infrastructure. The authority receives public transport fare revenue under contract arrangements with the transport operators. In 2024, fare revenue amounted to €501 million, up from €471 million in 2023, mainly reflecting increased public transport passenger volumes.

The authority's expenditure in 2024 amounted to €2.19 billion. Just over half of this, €1.6 billion, was in respect of public service obligations, PSO, payments. These payments are made to the operators of public transport in respect of public transport services that otherwise would not be financially viable. The contracts between the authority and the operators set standards of operational performance and customer service, and control fare setting. The contracts also allow for the authority to impose PSO payment deductions where the operator's performance does not meet contractual standards or to make incentive payments where performance exceeds standards.

The second largest area of spending by the authority is in respect of the provision of capital investment grants to a wide range of bodies. This amounted to just over €882 million in 2024. In addition to the investment funding provided to other bodies, the authority invested €138 million in the purchase of buses that were added to its own bus fleet, which it makes available to public transport operators. The carrying value of the whole bus fleet in the statement of financial position was just under €519 million at the end of 2024.

I certified the financial statements on 13 June 2025 and issued a clear audit opinion. However, I drew attention to the delays and cost overruns on the ongoing national train control centre project. In July 2019, the authority approved an Iarnród Éireann project to develop a new national train control centre to manage and regulate all train movements on the national rail network. The project includes the construction of a new central train control building at Heuston Station, the refurbishment of the existing train control building at Connolly Station, and the development of a new train traffic management system and a related backup facility. While the new building at Heuston Station was completed in 2022, there is significant ongoing delay in the development of the train traffic management system. The original plan was that the new management system and the backup facility would both be commissioned by March 2025. Note 25 to the financial statements discloses that, at the reporting date, the latest estimated date for completion and handover of the system and the backup facility was November 2028. The original budget for the full project was €148 million but the authority estimates the outturn for the project is now expected to be of the order of €189 million. This represents an expected cost overrun of €41 million, or 28%. The chief executive officer will be able to provide the committee with an update on the project progress.

I thank Mr. McCarthy for that. I now invite Ms Anne Shaw to make her opening statement on behalf of the NTA. As set out in the letter of invitation, she has five minutes in which to do so.

I thank the committee members for the invitation to appear before the committee today. I understand the committee wishes to discuss the transport financial statements for 2024. As has been already mentioned, I am joined by colleagues from the National Transport Authority to help with any of the questions that arise from today's session. For brevity, in the opening statement I will only cover some highlights around the key areas of responsibility of the NTA and that are included in the 2024 annual report and financial statement. These address the policy objectives around the economy, climate action and social well-being.

The National Transport Authority is a statutory non-commercial body which operates under the aegis of the Department of Transport. As has already been explained, the remit of the NTA, under various enabling legislation, relates to a variety of responsibilities, which include the planning, development and funding of sustainable transport modes on a national basis; the regulation of commercial bus services and small public service vehicles; and managing an extensive capital programme, including being the approving body for three megaprojects, namely, MetroLink, BusConnects and DART+.

The work of the NTA is guided by a national mobility policy to meet the Department of Transport's ambition for 50% of all journeys to be made by walking, cycling and public transport by 2030, the aim being to ensure the provision of a transport system which benefits people by facilitating and enabling social, cultural and economic development as well as responding to the challenge of meeting carbon neutrality by 2050.

The need for the investment that is being made in transport can be highlighted in two sources of research by the Department of Transport on the impact of congestion on the economic performance within the State, first concentrating on the greater Dublin area, GDA, and then on regional cities. The research identified that, within the GDA, the cost of congestion to society will rise to €1.5 billion by 2040 and €2 billion nationally without intervention and that it will have many other associated social, health and well-being impacts as well. To minimise the cost of congestion, accommodate the growing population and meet climate policy obligations, continuous improvements are needed in sustainable transport in each city, as well as the Connecting Ireland programme covering the non-urban areas. This brings sharply into focus the work of the NTA and its delivery in 2024 towards achieving these targets.

In carrying out its responsibilities during 2024, the NTA engaged with a number of local authorities nationally on the preparation and development of local area plans for key towns and settlements to assist in the prioritisation of transport investment in local areas to support a growing population, tackle rising congestion and address those negative impacts on the economy and the environment. During 2024, ten local transport plans were drafted and consulted on and have helped inform the direction of travel for investment in sustainable transport modes, working closely with those local authorities and communities. The financial statements set out the areas of delivery and investment during 2024. They also set out key successes as well as progressing future programmes through their statutory processes for future delivery working towards the targets mentioned previously.

Some of the outcomes of the work undertaken are captured in the annual surveys conducted during November in Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Galway and Limerick, which show that sustainable travel is on the rise. Within the Dublin region, the annual Dublin canal cordon count identified that 74.1% of inbound trips were made by sustainable transport modes, the highest percentage level since this survey commenced in 1980. In Galway, 43% of journeys across the city cordon were made by bus, rail, walking and cycling, representing an increase of 25% on 2023 figures for bus usage and an increase of 6% on rail journeys. In Cork, while bus and rail movements showed year-on-year increases, overall movement across the cordon by sustainable modes was 23% compared with 75% of car use. Separately, Waterford recorded a 38% increase in bus passengers across the city centre cordon compared with 2023, with inbound trips by sustainable modes across the city cordon totalling 16%. In Limerick, positive increases, albeit small, in each of the sustainable modes were recorded when compared with 2023, with a total of 27% of people travelling inbound towards the city using sustainable modes of travel. These highlight the outcomes moving in the right direction but there is obviously more work to do in all places to meet the relevant targets.

Public transport use continues to grow at exceptional levels. Overall, passenger numbers on contracted bus and rail services in 2024 were 32 million, higher compared with 2023 and an increase of 10.6%. Passenger numbers increased on all service types during 2024, from rural transport to the urban rail services, with the largest increases evident across the network in Dublin. Unlike many other international jurisdictions, overall public transport passenger numbers in Ireland now significantly exceed the 2019 pre-pandemic levels, with 344 million passengers carried on State-provided services in 2024 compared with 295 million in 2019. The increase has been supported by a number of capital projects which have increased capacity for services and provided improved customer experience to facilitate behavioural change as greater choice is provided. The 2024 budget provided an increase in capital expenditure from just over €892 million in the previous year to just under €993 million. Examples within the rail programme include the first of new carriages for the DART fleet being delivered in November 2024 for testing and commissioning; completion of the Limerick Colbert Station transport interchange; improvements on the Cork to Dublin line with the opening of stations enhancing passenger services on the Portlaoise to Heuston commuter route; and the implementation of enhanced timetables for Cork commuter rail services.

On the bus network, a number of new services have been launched as part of BusConnects in Dublin in addition to 45 new or enhanced bus routes introduced as part of the Connecting Ireland programme, including new services on Saturdays and Sundays. This is complemented by provision of new bus shelters, stops and passenger information as well enhancements to bus depots including electrification with the first double deck electric buses operating in Limerick.

The 2024 funding covered over 1,000 active travel projects providing new and improved walking and cycling infrastructure across the country. These projects contribute to reaching the Government’s target of delivering 1,000 km of new and improved walking and cycling infrastructure across the country by the end of 2025, with 938 km achieved by the end of 2024. This is leading to an increase in active travel trips and improving road safety for more vulnerable road users, including outside many schools.

Some €701.1 million of Exchequer funding was provided for public service obligation across rail, bus and tram services. This has generated an additional income of €510.721 million from fares and other revenue sources such as advertising. This funding has enabled increases in service provision and supported the driving up of patronage across all modes.

Operational costs have risen from €982 million to just over €1 billion. This increase is attributable to inflationary pressures on fuel and labour plus the growth in service provision, as well as the decision to maintain low fares in support of the cost of living and other concessionary fare commitments implemented throughout 2024. These factors should be considered when evaluating the overall financial outcome.

In summary, the funding provided and managed by the NTA has facilitated the target to increase more journeys through public transport and active travel and has prepared the way for future years’ investments, which have started to come to fruition during 2025 to meet the various national obligations around the economy, climate and social well-being.

I thank Ms Shaw. We will suspend our meeting at about 12.30 p.m. for a short break and resume shortly afterwards. I will open the floor to members now. The lead speaker today is Deputy Kenny who has 15 minutes. All other speakers thereafter have ten minutes. That will allow members back in for a second round.

I thank the Chair. I welcome the witnesses. I congratulate Ms Shaw on her appointment last year.

I will focus first on the national train control centre on page 124 of the annual accounts. The national train control centre building at Heuston Station was completed in 2022. How much did that building cost?

I will ask Mr. Creegan to respond to these questions. He has the detail on that particular project.

Actually, I do not have the building number straight away but I can come back to the Deputy later in the meeting. From memory, it was around €40 million but if the Deputy lets me check it out, I will come back to him.

Do the witnesses not know how much it cost to build the building in Heuston?

We do but it is part of the overall project. I do not have the actual -----

The overall project budget was €148 million.

That is right.

Therefore Mr. Creegan is estimating about €40 million.

Let me check it out and get back to the Deputy in a moment, if that is okay.

That is okay. The original plan was that the development of the train traffic management system in the back of the facility would be commissioned by March 2025. The NTA is now saying there will be a delay of three years and commissioning will be in May 2028. Is Mr. Creegan confident of that?

There is still uncertainty about it. This is a complicated project. I will give a tiny bit of context without eating up time. There will actually be three control centres located in this one building. The train control centre will be there, a Garda regional traffic management centre is there with 100 gardaí operating there and there will be a regional road traffic control centre that Dublin City Council is fitting out this year.

We knew that. That is not new news.

I understand. The software and the transition to the new train control system is taking longer than expected. Both the development and testing of the software is taking longer. It was initially intended that it would be done in one singular implementation and that the whole of the country would move onto the system on one particular day. We have taken the view with Irish Rail to divide it into phases to reduce the level of risk. There is a certain amount of risk inherent in doing it in one phase. Now it is being delivered in a series of eight phases. The first phase target for the software is in April this year but the whole testing of it is going to take months so it will be later this year before that first phase is fully completed. While we have given the date of 2028, we can only firm up that date when we see how the first phase has gone and take the lessons out of it and make sure we apply those to the remaining seven phases.

When will the first phase be done?

The software will be developed by the end of April.

When?

The end of April this year when it will be completely developed but then it has to go through a whole testing phase and approval phase, which will take a number of months. It could be the end of the year -----

When the original plan for the management system was to be commissioned by March 2025, was it not seen coming down the line that this would have to be put into phases?

A national train management system is a very rare thing. It does not happen very often at all around the world, and certainly it is a once in a generation thing here in Ireland. The view was taken at the design stage that we should be able to do it in one single phase but since then we have seen what has gone wrong in other projects in various other places like Crossrail in the UK. A more prudent approach is the one being taken now to divide it in phases. There was a conscious decision at the beginning -----

Does Mr. Creegan believe that prudent approach is the reason for the cost overrun?

It is absolutely a significant part of it, yes.

The NTA estimated that a cost overrun of €41 million or 28%. When did it estimate that?

It was 2024. I should be careful and say what we actually estimated was, because there was a range in cost, a range of likely outturn cost would be between €175 million and €205 million with the middle figure – what we call the P50 – of €189 million, which is the figure the Deputy heard quoted. It is still in that range. Given uncertainties, we do not want to pin a figure down. Hopefully it will be delivered in that range. We are just not sure yet until we see the project develop a bit further.

How much has been spent of that original €148 million project budget?

A total of €150 million has been spent to date with €15 million spent on it during 2025.

Therefore €150 million has been spent, the NTA is hoping we are another three years off and it is estimating a €41 million overspend.

We are estimating the final outturn will fall within the range of €175 million to €205 million. The €14 million is a specific figure within that range.

Therefore Mr. Creegan is estimating it could be €22 million over budget or it could be far more significant -----

A bit more, yes.

Up to €205 million.

Within that range I gave the Deputy there - €175 million to €205 million.

Can Mr. Creegan give a guarantee that it will be in that range?

It is very hard in life to give a guarantee about anything but we are giving that as our best expectation, based on the knowledge we have, as to what the outturn will be.

Mr. Creegan will appreciate the significant issue is that if we come around here again in another two or three years, this project might not be completed because, as he said, he cannot give a guarantee it is going to be completed and the significant issue is we do not know and a guarantee cannot be given on whether the significant overspend will continue rising. What we do not want now is another children’s hospital.

It is not that. This is a project that has not gone as well as we would have liked but the approach being taken now with the more incremental delivery of it is a wiser way of delivering it, a safer way of delivering it and a less risky way of delivering it. While I cannot guarantee an outturn price our expectation is what I have said to the Deputy there and all the signals I am seeing is that while there is lots to be done but we should end up in that range ultimately.

Considering the control system will not be up and running until 2028, what is ongoing in that building in Heuston now?

As I said, there are three control centres in the one building. The Garda Dublin metropolitan region control division occupies part of the building and has 100 gardaí there doing their controls, whatever they do, managing the Dublin metropolitan region. Dublin City Council is fitting out a regional traffic control centre, which will become operational later this year.

Irish Rail has moved certain functions into the building, including things such as overhead line control and some level crossing control. Personnel have also moved. I should have said that the incremental approach means that parts of the system will be moving into the building on an incremental basis from this year on. It is not that we have to wait until 2028 before the thing gets switched on.

Was it envisaged when it was completed in 2022 that parts of the Garda and Dublin City Council were going to occupy the building?

It was a fundamental part of the project that we would co-locate a centre. That was in the project plan from day one.

They will not continue to occupy it, however.

They will continue to occupy it. The intention was to put in these control centres where the personnel are in close proximity to each other. When it comes to emergency and crisis management events, it is easier to manage them if everybody is located in the one place. That was the plan from day one.

They will continue to occupy the building.

They will.

I will move to general legal costs for the NTA. The general legal costs for 2023 and 2024 amounted to €5.5 million. Will the witnesses give a short indication of what those legal costs were?

The majority of the general legal costs arose through the management of a number of judicial reviews, particularly in respect of the BusConnects programme. That is what accounts for the majority of those costs.

Does the NTA use the same legal company every time?

We have gone through a procurement process to engage a legal firm to deal with our legal issues. That is the best way to get value for money and to ensure we have the right levels of service.

When was that procurement process?

I will ask Mr. L'Estrange to come in.

The company would have been procured approximately four years ago, from memory. There are potentially another four years to run on the contract.

The company was given a contract for eight years.

For up to eight years.

For up to eight years.

That was to mirror the size and scale of the transport projects that are being delivered, many of them over a long timescale. It made sense to have the same legal adviser.

Is there no obligation on the NTA to put out a procurement every year?

There are extension periods in most of our contracts. The contract can be extended during the envisaged contract term. Those extensions can be confirmed later on. I will come back to the Deputy on the exact number of years confirmed at the outset of the contract and the number of years that are optional extensions. I will come back on that point.

Does Mr. L'Estrange believe that is providing good value for money?

It was a public procurement at the time. We had a lot of interest in the competition. The incumbent won the contract on the basis of a price-to-quality ratio. The answer to the question is "Yes".

In 2023 and 2024, the expenditure was €5.5 million. How much was paid in general legal costs in 2025?

We are finalising the figures for 2025. Today is only 15 January. We have gone through the accounts. They will be subjected to audit, too. It will be a similar figure because we have continued to deal with a number of judicial reviews on projects, working with our colleagues across the wider transport state. It will be a similar figure, but we cannot confirm that to the Deputy today. We will have to come back to him.

The figure will be in or around €3 million.

It will be a broadly similar figure.

It will be broadly similar. I will move to the renovation of the entrance of a south Dublin park at a cost of €750,000. Why did the NTA pay for that?

It was part of an active travel scheme connecting cross-county in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. The renovation dealt with some accessibility issues. That was why we were the funding party for the project.

The NTA had to pay €753,528, inclusive of VAT. On the face of it, there were only 14 steps. We can see the headline in the media. Only 14 steps cost €753,000. How was that the case? I understand there were accessibility issues. If I had to get 14 steps built at home, it would not cost €753,000.

We do similar at rail stations where there are approximately 18 steps to get to the bridge. Those are the 18 steps that allow people to get to the other platforms. In this case-----

Those steps would not cost €750,000.

By the time you put in lifts and that, it is that kind of price.

Is there a lift in the park?

No. In the case of the park, this is a project that has cost more than we would have expected.

How much did the NTA expect it to cost?

The initial estimate we were told was approximately €200,000. It went up quite a bit since then.

There was a €550,000 overspend.

That is correct. When we became aware of the cost overruns and had a look at the project, it was halfway through construction. It is a beneficial project, in that there is a need to do it. There is a barrier there to people with disabilities.

There was a procurement process.

There was. It was carried out by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council. It did a procurement process and appointed a designer and contractor.

Did the contractor give the estimate for how much the project would cost?

They did at the time, yes.

The estimate was €200,000.

There are different points to a project. The €200,000 was estimated at the very beginning. At the point they were appointed as the contractor, the estimate was three hundred and something thousand euro. It had gone up a bit. It went up further during construction as various things became apparent.

What were those "various things"?

There were some underground services that were uncharted. They were not on previous maps. They required redesign. There were some-----

Mr. Creegan will appreciate that the general oversight of that project was poor.

I agree that it could have been a whole lot better. We do not manage projects on-site, day by day. They are managed by the local authorities. However, the Deputy is right. There were things that could have been done better in hindsight.

Is there any case similar to that one?

I am not aware of a similar case.

Are any similar cases pending whereby the NTA has put out public procurements, has been given an estimate of the cost at contracting stage and now the project under construction is well over the spending estimate?

We have a portfolio of 1,000 projects. Within that, some projects are well under budget and some projects will exceed their budgets. I do not think there is anything of the scale of this example.

ICT expenditure increased from €5.2 million in 2023 to €6.9 million in 2024. What was that increase?

The primary driver was an increase in hardware and computer software licences. They were brought in to support the relocation to our new headquarters in Haymarket in Smithfield. That was the key driver in the increase of IT costs in 2024. We occupied the Haymarket building in quarter 3 of 2024.

Do the witnesses envisage any other IT issues within the NTA?

No.

There is nothing ongoing within the NTA at the moment. There is no significant IT project that might have a cost overrun in it.

No, not that I am aware of. Last year, we implemented a significant IT-related project, which was to implement a new finance system. That went live on 15 September. It was successful and is in operation. It is in full use through the authority.

Did that project come in within budget?

It came in under budget and on time.

The witnesses are very welcome. I congratulate Ms Shaw on her appointment. I am a member of the transport committee and look forward to working with her in the coming years.

The work of the NTA in the planning and delivery of public transport infrastructure for Ireland is absolutely crucial to the success of the country, particularly for areas such as my own, Dublin Fingal, which is growing rapidly. That is why the work of the NTA is a focus for me. We need to ensure that the authority is set up for success and has the expertise and competence required, that the governance is to the highest standards and that it really delivers value for taxpayer money.

The train control centre project is crucial to anyone who relies on our rail network. Right now, commuters such as me get frustrated when a DART to Malahide slips in front of a northern commuter line train when I am waiting to go home. I hope this system is going to put in place an efficient logistical, logical, safe and reliable system.

The delivery of it is absolutely essential. However, we need to focus on why it is delayed and why the cost overruns are so large. Following on from the questions already asked, the project was originally budgeted to be €148 million but a portion of that was for the building, which was approximately €40 million. The remainder was to be spent on the ICT software.

No.

What was the budget for the ICT software?

I do not have a detailed breakdown but let us say it was in the region of approximately €30 million. There were other elements of the project too. There were interface works for the signalling system. There was the transitioning of the personnel and training of the personnel on simulators and all of that. There were a number of elements.

If we just focus on the ICT project, Mr. Creegan-----

It was in the €30 million range.

The project itself, the ICT procurement, was originally procured for-----

It was only for the train management system part, which was the software part.

We are not looking at a 28% overrun there. We are looking at a 110% or 120% overrun if we are looking at a €40 million overrun.

It is the whole package of the project together. Yes, I agree. If you break down the percentages-----

I mean the overrun with the IT contractor, Mr. Creegan.

The percentage of increased payment for the IT element will be higher than the percentage of increased payment for the building and other parts of it, yes.

It will be higher by at least by 100%, by the sounds of it.

It is broadly in that order, I will say, yes.

It is important that Mr. Creegan follows up and sends a letter to the committee with the exact details of the procurement of the IT software. In terms of the actual software, was it to be an off-the-shelf product or was it to be a bespoke product? I am not clear on this.

It is very much a bespoke product. Every railway is different. There is not a big market for selling these systems, as the Deputy can imagine. It is very much bespoke.

At the outset of the project, it would have obviously had a project scope, key milestones and deliverables. How many times since that project scope and key milestones were decided has it been rebaselined?

It has been rebaselined a number of times. I will not give the Deputy an incorrect number but it has been a number of times.

I understand it might be in the region of four times?

It is definitely around that. It could be plus or minus one but that is not a bad number.

It is my understanding that the rebaselining, in large part, was due to the fact that key milestones were not necessarily included in the project scope or the first, second or potentially even the third rebaselining. Am I right in saying that?

Not exactly, no. There was greater clarity on the requirements as time went on. Things changed then because the needs of the railway operator and the rail system became clearer. These are once in a generation type projects. There is no written textbook there with all the detail fully in it. It has to be worked out each time. Yes, there were changes at various points that required the rebaselining the Deputy mentioned.

Going back to my original comments, we need to make sure the NTA has the right experience and the likes of Iarnród Éireann has the right experience and competence to manage these projects. These are really critical and important projects for the development of our public transport system. The whole project leads me to believe that it was not set up for success at the outset. We are looking at over 100% in terms of payments to the ICT supplier. Am I right in saying a large number of personnel within the Iarnród Éireann project management team and within the IT contractor team have had to be changed over the course of the project?

No, I do not think that is correct. There has been augmentation, particularly on the contractor side. It brought in a lot of additional resources but I do not regard that as a change. A lot of the original resources are still there. If you go back to the beginning, because this is so unique as a project, there was an underestimation of the challenge associated with it. There was an underestimation of the time needed. There was an underestimation of the level of granularity that the definition of requirement needed to have. That is now coming to light and giving us many problems.

I have worked on many projects. I am a lawyer and I have worked on many projects. Unless the business and commercial people are very clear at the outset as to what the project is for, what the key deliverables are and what the milestones are, the project is not set up for success. From Mr. Creegan's comment, I think we are agreed on that but it is absolutely essential we learn from this and make sure it does not happen to the other very big IT project - the next generation ticketing, NGT. I understand it is the same ICT supplier and we are looking at a budget of €220 million at a minimum. That is my understanding. This committee needs absolutely confidence that there have been lessons learned and there will not be the same issues, first.

Second, I am at a loss as to how issues with the ICT supplier have led to the State paying over 100% of what was originally contracted with the ICT contractor. Could Mr. Creegan help me with that? Were there any legal safeguards in the State's contract? Did we trigger them? Were we not able to trigger them because we had not included what was necessary in the original project scope?

With Deputy Boland's background, she will know it is all down to the definition of requirements.

Absolutely.

In hindsight, the level of granularity of the definition of requirements was not developed enough at the start. Therefore, there had to be more detailed requirements developed while the software was being worked on. That has triggered additional cost. It has triggered additional time. We have implemented a change of approach which is doing it in stages rather than one big bang with all the risks associated with it. The two together have caused us to have these additional increases.

Going back to the Deputy's NGT comment, it is fair to say we were aware of the need to be very specific about our requirements when we were tendering for the NGT project. There was a lot of effort put in during the tendering period to lock down the requirements in a very detailed way. In the work that has been done to date on the NGT project, that has shown itself to be correct.

Good. It is important that this committee is updated on both of these project and that we have clear line of sight as to how they are progressing. The Secretary General of the Department of Transport wrote to this committee before Christmas, indicating the national train control centre project was actually not governed by Circular 14/2021: Arrangements for Oversight of Digital and ICT-related Initiatives in the Civil and Public Service because it was not an IT project. We know the key driver of a €41 million overrun and three years delay is the IT element of this project. If Circular 14/2021 did not apply, what regime applied and did Mr. Creegan get support from the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer and the Office of Government Procurement?

As Irish Rail carried out the development and we oversaw it, I may not have all of the details. That circular the Deputy referenced requires a business case to be developed and it goes through an approval process. There is a separate set of guidelines, the public spending code, which requires a business case to be developed and goes through an approval process. That is what applied in the case of the national train control centre. There were similar things required under those ICT guidelines that were developed for the business case and the approval process it subsequently went through. While the circular might not have applied, the fundamental requirements within it were activated.

Did Iarnród Éireann get support from those offices?

I do not think it did but I cannot swear to that.

Okay.

I do not think it did, no.

I wonder is that part of the reason it was not set up for success?

I do not think so, no. This is such a specialist type of product, a railway train control system, that it is not a skill set you-----

Did we have the competence within the NTA and Iarnród Éireann and do we have it now?

Within the NTA and Irish Rail, the answer is yes. Some of that is resourced in from external sources but, overall, all of the competency requirements are present.

Just to confirm, the next generation ticketing falls within the circular and the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer has been included and the Office of Government Procurement has advised on it?

Full application of that ICT circular applied to NGT.

The witnesses are all very welcome. It is lovely to be here with them this morning.

I will pick up on what Deputy Eoghan Kenny spoke about, that is, the shocking news that broke this morning about the active travel scheme. If time allows, I also hope to ask some questions about the DART+ projects.

We all collectively scoffed at the idea that a bicycle shelter could cost €350,000 and quite often the question came back to why no one said "stop". Why did no one press pause on the project? How on earth can a project to build 14 steps ultimately cost €750,000?

It is a simplistic way of describing it. I understand it says 14 steps, but the reality is there was a gradient issue that separated it. There is a church and community centre on one side and a park and houses on the other side and that route was inaccessible to people in wheelchairs, people with buggies and so on. It required retaining walls, ramps, pedestrian crossings and a pile of other things. It should have been possible to do it more cheaply, but it was still a good project that is delivering good benefits and solved a severance problem that existed there previously.

Did those complexities not arise in the initial application by the local authority to the NTA? I was a councillor for a number of years. The active travel scheme was seen as really important funding that was available to local authorities. Did none of this arise when the local authority applied for the funding in the first instance?

The local authority gave us the concept of the project, which we agreed with, and an estimate. Then it told us the process it would go through to deliver it. That is the normal way we start these types of projects. The estimates at the early stage of a project are based on very limited information. They are rudimentary to say the least. We would have expected some of the things that materialised on site during construction as the project developed to have been found out about during the design phase and dealt with. I have some sympathy about uncharted underground services. They are not on any map, but if we come across them, we have to deal with them. Perhaps some additional trial testing should have been done to find them in advance and such things. There are things that could have been done better that would have reduced the cost.

Was a business case ever presented to the NTA by the local authority for this project?

That size of project does not require a formal business case. We probably would have got some details of what we call a scheme appraisal, which would have given us benefits. Yes, we were provided with some of that.

What is the formal process? Mr. Creegan will correct me. The overall annual active travel scheme fund is somewhere in the region of €350 million.

It is approximately €290 million.

Okay. This project is looking at €200,000. What is the formal mechanism local authorities utilise to seek funding beyond what was allocated by the NTA?

We have a well developed process, whereby they report to us monthly on any project we are funding. They flag issues that might arise from to time, such as cost, time or something else. In this case, the local authority flagged that a cost issue was arising and there is a process under which local authorities can apply to us. It is called an allocation adjustment request. They apply to us giving us the reasons they need a higher allocation. We have to make a decision about whether to fund it. In this case, we went to look at the site. It was half finished at the time. We think a good outcome will be achieved there ultimately and we decided to provide the additional funding.

How many of those requests were made by the local authority?

I do not know. An allocation adjustment request might be for €10 or €100,000 so I do not have a number. It happens across all local authorities all the time. Sometimes they adjust their allocations downwards because a project is not progressing as fast as was expected and we move the money to another project. It is an ongoing thing so I do not have a number.

Does the NTA ever say "No" to those requests?

Yes.

Why not say no on a project that has trebled in cost, when there is an alternative entrance that is accessible 50 m down the road?

No.

Is that wrong?

There are entrances to the park elsewhere, but that road, which is North Avenue, has a 10% gradient. Sending people in wheelchairs down a 10% gradient road for approximately 70 m when they then have to go back up a path in the park is not a realistic alternative. This was and is a good project. It was worth doing. It is a pity it cost as much as it did. If greater care was taken at the design stage, some of the costs could have been taken out.

My frustration stems from having been a councillor in Kildare. There were many projects we would have loved to bring to fruition at a fraction of this price, which would have had a monumental impact. That is a significant amount of money. Would the NTA be willing to share the correspondence between it and the local authority throughout this process so we can see where the responsibility ultimately fell down in this? Will it share that with the Committee of Public Accounts?

A summarised version of it might be more useful than volumes of cost reports and things like that.

Let us say, how many requests came in and at what point certain decisions were made. That would be valuable.

On this specific Deer Park scheme, we will produce a note that sets that out comprehensively.

I thank Mr. Creegan.

Can I get an idea of how much has been spent in total on the DART+ project to date?

It is €512 million. Much of that is for fleet payments.

Does Mr. Creegan have that broken down in percentages of funds associated with external stakeholders, consultancy bodies and so on? There has been a considerable amount in the various different phases.

It is not readily broken down, but there is some synopsis we could do fairly easily.

Okay, if it is available, that would be great.

Has a decision been made on the location of the DART+ West depot yet?

It is our intention that a decision will be announced, or more correctly, that there will be a consultation on a proposed alternative location next month.

Will that be a public consultation?

Yes.

The last update I saw in media reports is that a Minister from the Kildare North constituency announced that a decision had been made that the depot would be in Kilcock. Can Mr. Creegan confirm that will be the case, or, as he said the NTA is going to public consultation, it is not the case?

The original depot was beside Kilcock, as the Deputy will be aware. If he waits until February, we will announce the proposed location. It is what we and Irish Rail think is the right solution, but we have to go through a public consultation process. It is not that there is a variance in the position. It is just standard practice to go through a public consultation process and take the feedback before a final decision is made.

Is that a statutory consultation?

No, it is not statutory.

When does the NTA expect, from the DART+ West perspective, to see the first lot of passengers being able to avail of what will be a phenomenal service?

Realistically, it is about five or six years away, between us getting the DART+ West constructed, the new trains in place, a depot built and the whole thing operational. Construction will start on it next year, but there is a lot of work to do between now and its full delivery.

It is five or six years away for a project that is likely to start construction in 2027.

That is correct.

What is Mr. Creegan's understanding of the status of the south-west project?

The transport sectoral plan says certain works can continue on DART+ South West, such as purchasing land and doing some design work, but the construction under that plan will not start until after 2030. However, there will be a review of the national development plan in two years' time and consideration is being given to whether any other funding avenues could be explored to bring it forward. While the sectoral plan gives one date, I think a lot of effort is going into seeing whether that can be brought forward.

Does Mr. Creegan foresee the construction phase of the south-west project to be likely to have a similar timeframe as the west project? If it starts in 2030, it will not see passengers until 2037 or 2038. Is that reasonable?

No, certain things can be delivered incrementally. What matters to passengers is the new train fleet. They do not really care whether there is an extra track or crossing or such things. We expect to see benefits appearing on DART+ South West a lot earlier than the timeframe the Deputy alluded to.

Is that work contingent on the DART+ West project progressing?

Only part of it is. There is a section of common line so there is an interdependence, but only for part of it.

There are other bits of DART+ South West that could be implemented. There is a four-tracking section that could be implemented and provide benefits in advance of the remainder of the project, and things like that. I am sure that is something that will be looked at in more detail in the coming period.

The next questioner is Deputy Dolan. We will take a break at 12.30 p.m.

Gabhaim buíochas le gach uile dhuine atá anseo ón NTA. I appreciate the NTA being here today to go through the issues it is facing with the accounts and its expenditure at local level. I will start with a local issue, namely, the proposal concerning the 425A bus service from [Monivea to ]Athenry. I thank the NTA for carrying out a public consultation on the proposal. The consultation, which closed on Friday, 9 January, was hugely successful in that it engaged a huge number of people in the locality to reflect on the current bus service and consider the NTA proposal. I want to make clear that the proposal to reroute the 425A into Athenry, back out the road to Cussaun Cross and on to Galway city is unacceptable to the people on the Galway road who would lose their direct service to Galway city. It would also increase travel time for people who live further back on the route and use the service to commute to college and Galway city. Athenry is a town with a population in excess of 5,000. It needs its own dedicated bus service to Galway city. As the consultation process has just closed, I do not expect the witnesses to comment on it. When does the NTA anticipate that it will have a report done on the findings?

We are collating the responses we received. It will be a number of weeks. I commit to getting a report together by the end of quarter 1.

Will Mr. Ryan confirm that the plans to reroute the 425A will be paused until such time as the report on the consultation is complete?

Yes, I can confirm that.

That is fair enough. I emphasise that the service is vital for the people who live on that road and they really appreciate it. Over Christmas, many of them used it to travel to Galway and do their Christmas shopping. People use the service to get to college and live their lives. It would be a disaster to reroute the service into Athenry.

I have read many of the submissions made as part of the consultation process. Interestingly, people in Athenry who engaged with the consultation said they do not want the proposed service because they know it would take a service away from other people who live out the road. I believe a dedicated bus service for Athenry would wash its own face and cover its own costs. It is about timings. What made the previous service unviable and led to the private operator pulling out was that the morning and evening services were very busy but the services in the middle of the day were dead. The private operator could not carry it. The PSO obligation has been determined in this regard and we now need to deliver on it. I will happily work with the NTA to make that happen. I appreciate its continuous engagement on the matter.

My next question concerns active travel funding at national level. How does the NTA determine the amount of active travel funding that is allocated to each local authority?

It is based on the projects the local authorities propose. We have ongoing discussions with every single local authority throughout the year. The local authorities put together a set of proposals. As the Deputy will probably know, we have developed a plan in every county, including Galway, for what the network should be. We have to make judgments after that to allocate funding for what we think are the sensible projects in each location.

Does the NTA have a league table? Which local authority is the best for delivering active travel projects at speed?

That is not a winning question to answer. There are lots of good local authorities but I am not sure it would be wise to pick one and say it is a star performer.

The feedback I have been getting from local authorities, in particular Galway County Council, is that when active travel started councils found it easy to draw down the money and tear into projects during the Covid period. The idea of active travel was really welcomed. Then all the gateways were put in place and it now seems that Galway County Council has a number of projects that are in the planning phase. They are being designed and considered but there are no shovels in the ground. I am not seeing projects being delivered tangibly on the ground. For example, the Oranmore active travel project has been talked about for the past two years. It has gone through the planning stage and there have been public consultations. It seems to be never-ending, but maybe a flurry of projects will come to life in the next few years. What performance metrics does the NTA hold local authorities to in order to ensure they draw down the money and perform by getting boots on the ground and making things happen, rather than getting consultants in place to give them reports?

It is a feature in certain places that there is a lot of consultancy support provided and not much delivery on the ground. We are aware of that. We monitor what local authorities are doing. We give them an allocation at the start of the year to do X amount of work on a project. If they are not doing that amount of work, we take the money off them and transfer it to other projects. Sometimes we transfer it within the county because there is something else that is able to progress. In other cases, we transfer it to another county that has a project looking for money in which we are willing to invest.

Between 2021 and 2024, around €1 billion was allocated to active travel. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Galway County Council serves a population of about 190,000 people. I know the money is never distributed on a per capita basis but if Galway County Council had even got 3.75% of the funding over the last few years, it would have received around €39 million. Galway County Council only got about €20 million, which is 50% less funding than it would have got if it was done on a per capita basis. Why did the council draw down or receive less funding?

You cannot allocate active travel on a per capita basis, in my view. You have to have a network that is going to be well used. The reality is that is largely in urban areas and the bigger the urban area, the more likelihood we get useful networks developed. On a per capita basis, you would not dream of installing cycle tracks along rural roads in a one-cyclist-a-day scenario, so we do not do it that way. The logical way to do it is this. We have a network across the country in every county and we work with each of the councils to decide what their priorities are. We then try to distribute the money that is available fairly so that the councils can move on with their priorities.

There are a lot of large towns under the remit of Galway County Council that could drive on projects for active travel. Is it a funding issue, a delivery issue or is it just that all the projects are in the planning phase and we are about to see them come to life?

I think some of it is funding. About three years ago, I would have said we had more funding than we had projects available as people were only getting up the curve as regards knowing how to do them. In the last two years, the situation has changed and we now have far more projects than there is funding available. Therefore, there has to be some level of rationing. Every council would have a similar complaint. They will say they have an ambition to do far more and ask us to please provide more funding, but we cannot do so because we do not have it.

I have conducted a lot of research on purchase orders and payment flow. Does the NTA publish its purchase orders online?

Yes.

The reason I ask is that Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, recently published data in a machine-readable format which covered a huge volume of spend. Does the NTA publish in a machine-readable format?

I will have to check that.

That is okay. We have had great success with many State bodies publishing in a machine-readable format over the past few years.

I want to ask specifically about one piece of information that was in the TII data. It concerns Turner & Townsend, which is a company I do not know. In the data it appears that approximately €56 million was spent over a period and that the company was a client partner for MetroLink.

The NTA will obviously be heavily involved in MetroLink. How many people are working on or involved in that spend? The witnesses might give me some detail on what is happening there.

TII, with us funding it and with our agreement and support, has engaged a consortium which it calls a client partner - it is really an engineering design team - to do the design work on MetroLink, prepare tender documents and various other things. That was procured about three or four years ago. It has a lot of people working on the project. It varies up and down depending on what stage it is at. When people were preparing for the railway order, it peaked at a certain number. You would have up to 1,000 people working on it at a single time.

There would have been up to 1,000 people working on the planning and tendering. MetroLink is obviously going to be a monster project. It is a huge project, so I accept that everything that would go into that project, from audio to structural engineering to civil engineering, would be massive. It is 1,000 people.

Up to 1,000 people. The same occurred on BusConnects, which had up to 1,000 people. It is important to say that they are not all full-time equivalent people who are there all of the time. They are exactly what the Deputy said. Acoustic engineers are brought in who might take two or three weeks to do something.

They are brought in to do a specific job and that is it.

Exactly, yes. That is the scale of a project like this. They are really big numbers.

I will finish on this. Does the company I referred to manage all of the client partners involved in MetroLink, or how does that work?

That company is the client partner and TII oversees and manages what it is doing, controls the resources it is assigning, etc.

I thank Mr. Creegan.

I thank the witnesses for coming in today. I want to raise a few issues with them in relation to BusConnects, especially in regard to how it affects Dublin South-Central. In some ways, the horse has bolted. We have been having meetings on BusConnects for nearly a decade. There are still issues and input from us that I hope the witnesses can consider.

I congratulate Ms Shaw on her new role. Dublin is an old meandering city with a lovely medieval core. It then extends out to Georgian and Victorian districts, while other parts of our city are Edwardian. It is not a grid-like city. We have a lovely historic city and many of the bus routes in the past were meandering, especially in areas of the inner city that I represent, such as the Liberties, Crumlin, Drimnagh, Walkinstown, Ballyfermot, Chapelizod and Inchicore. A lot of the communities in the inner city are connected to communities in Crumlin, Walkinstown and Ballyfermot. That is linked to our housing programme in the 1950s. Many of the communities in the inner city moved out to parts of Walkinstown, Ballyfermot and Drimnagh. For some in the local community, an integral, central part of their week, maybe on a Wednesday or a Saturday, would be to continue to go to the same church or have the same shopping days. The link between the suburbs and the inner city is tangible and real. Imposing a grid system on top of our meandering city has not improved access in many cases. It has disimproved access for a lot of people. They are having longer journey times, reduced reliability, increased walking distances to stops and a loss of direct access to schools, St. James's Hospital, which is a huge one, and the inner city. Those community ties between the old and the new have been really affected.

The 123 bus service is no more and we now have the 122 service. It is a real shame that the 123 service was replaced. It was not just a commuter service but one that functioned as a bus route for children going to school. As part of the development of these urban areas, especially in Crumlin, schools were developed along the same road. There was a bit of thought put into that back in the 1950s. The service came to an abrupt stop, which has caused serious upset for a lot of people, especially elderly people and those with reduced mobility issues. Dublin 12 alone has one of the highest rates of people with disabilities. That is because people want to live near children's hospitals if their child had been diagnosed with a disability. We have a high number of hospitals in the area. Did the NTA formally recognise that the 123 route was heavily used by schoolchildren and elderly people? Was an impact assessment done in regard to school travel? Does the NTA accept that removing the route in this way had unintended consequences for families and people living in the area? I do not know if there is a BusConnects person here. I am grateful for this opportunity because it is very hard for us, as public representatives, to talk to the NTA. It is great to get an audience with the witnesses today.

We do not usually have any issue with elected representatives. I am not quite sure what difficulty the Deputy had. In any case, in relation to the 123 service, the 73 service is a replacement service for the 123 route. It goes to Marino, as well as cross-city. The 122 route was changed at the time of the launch of the 73 service as well to cater for areas that were no longer served by the 123.

More generally on the BusConnects programme, there is certainly a lot of change. Of course, change can be good for some people and not so good for other people. Overall, in relation to the network redesign that we have implemented so far, we are seeing a very positive passenger response. We have seen that in the areas of the city where we introduced the BusConnects network redesign to date, passenger numbers are up by about 30%. That compares to the rest of the network that has not yet had BusConnects, which has had changes of only 6%.

I will stop Mr. Ryan there and ask him generally about another area and bus route, the 80 service. I have been on to the NTA's offices via the Minister in regard to that route. There have been a lot of changes to that route recently. It still is not perfect. Did the NTA do any impact assessment on the change from the 26 service to the 80 service? It is not working for people. We are seeing buses disappearing from live timetables, massive delays, unreliable peak-time services, the phenomenon of ghost buses, missed connections and huge overcrowding. It is really having an impact on people living in Chapelizod and on people commuting into the city. It also has a huge impact on children using the bus. I have been in direct contact with the Minister about this on numerous occasions. I am sure he has been on to BusConnects and the NTA's offices in relation to it. Is there a commitment to properly engage with the community in relation to the 80 bus going through Chapelizod?

The 80 bus service did indeed suffer from teething issues when it was launched. This was for two reasons, namely, driver availability and congestion. There was also some concern, post launch, around connectivity to O'Connell Street. There are connections to O'Connell Street but they require changing on the quays and there are two very frequent services that go to the O'Connell Street area and O'Connell Bridge. As a result, particularly of the congestion issues that the 80 service was experiencing on its new route in an area of the city we had not run buses through before - Bridge Street and on to High Street - we did experience unexpected levels of congestion. We went that way because of the College Green plaza and the plans by Dublin City Council to pedestrianise the area between Trinity College and South Great George's Street. To get to South Great George's Street, which is where the 80 service has to go to get to the southside, we had to use an alternative route. That route was more congested than we expected and delays were larger than we expected.

Subsequent to that, we reviewed the route and, on an interim basis, we are diverting the service along the quays, via O'Connell Bridge and down around Trinity College, Dame Street and South Great George's Street. In advance of the pedestrianisation of the College Green plaza, that is the route it will take.

At a later date, we are planning to-----

I do not mean to interrupt. I have one more question in relation to the DART. The Chair might bear with me as well.

Just one other thing on the 80. In the longer term, we are going to route that service through to Clontarf along the north quays, so it will still go by O'Connell Street. The large majority of people who are currently using the 80 route and who were using the 26 route will have the connections they had in the past.

Okay. I might contact Mr. Ryan's offices again about it for people.

I would like to address the DART+ South West project. I attended the recent opening of the Kylemore town housing development in Cherry Orchard. One of the big selling points is that there will be a station beside it. Obviously, we know now that it has been pushed back to 2030. It is really disappointing for residents there. How does the NTA justify advancing major housing delivery without confirming rail capacity when it is such a selling point to local authorities? In the interim, what public transport guarantees are going to be provided to residents in Cherry Orchard living in the new development?

We do not control housing development as the Deputy is aware. We produce the transport strategy and-----

I know, but they work hand in hand.

I understand. We produce the transport strategy and try to deliver against it, but it is within the funding envelopes that we have been given. Deputy Ardagh said that DART+ South West is commencing post 2030. As I said earlier in response to Deputy Farrelly, the belief is that this will be brought forward. There is a mid-term review of the NDP in 2028. There is an opportunity there to do something.

What can we do?

In the meantime, in advance of the delivery of DART+, we are going to have to ensure we have enough bus capacity there to serve that area in advance. That is the reality of it.

Does Mr. Creegan have any recommendations for us to try to help to get it on the agenda?

It is all about money and it is all about funding, so whatever the Deputy can do on that front is very welcome.

I thank Mr. Creegan very much.

I thank Deputy Ardagh. We will take a short break. The meeting is now suspended for ten or 15 minutes.

The next questioner is Deputy Neville.

I thank everyone for coming in today. I congratulate Ms Shaw on her appointment. Mr. Creegan has been answering lots of the questions. I suppose the next time the authority is in, it might be completely different. At the same time, I totally understand the situation. If they do not mind, I will continue to direct the questions to Mr. Creegan but, obviously, Ms Shaw should feel free to jump in. I do not want to look like I am asking Mr. Creegan while Ms Shaw is sitting there but I know the situation.

Regarding DART+ South West and the DART+ project in general, has it been said that €500 million has been spent on DART+ so far? Is that correct?

Yes, €512 million.

It is a lot of money. How is that broken up between the different DART+ projects?

I have the figures in front of me for this.

Within reason.

Within reason, DART+ West is €83 million. DART+ South West, so far, has been €36 million. Fleet accounted for the largest part of it, at €295 million.

What has accounted for the largest part, sorry?

Rail fleet.

Rail fleet. That is capital.

That is the new DART fleet that has been ordered.

That is what I mean. Is that an upfront capital payment?

Exactly. It is upfront milestone payments at the start of the manufacturing process.

When would that have been paid?

It has been paid in a number of tranches since 2022. The first order we did was in December 2022. There has been a number of tranches since then.

Of the €295 million since 2022, roughly how much of that have we received to date?

So far we have three train sets in Ireland, two of which are under tests and the third one is to go, I think, under tests shortly. There are three so far.

Three out of how many?

It is three train sets. I think they are five carriages long, so 15 carriages. We have to get 275 carriages altogether over the next number of years.

Sorry, Mr. Creegan said, "Three rail sets." Is it three rail sets, and out of how many rail sets is it?

If I do it in carriages instead-----

Fine.

-----a train set on the new DART fleet is ten carriages long. A half-train set is five carriages long. I think we have three full-length trains, which would be 30-----

Thirty.

-----carriages. I think we have. I am not sure if they are full-length or half-length, now that the Deputy asks me. In total, we have 275 carriages to get delivered over the next five years.

Around 11% or 12%.

Correct.

That is fine. I was not sure. What was the number for DART+ West?

It was €83 million.

What makes up that €83 million?

In this case, there would be property costs because some property was bought-----

There is a capital element to the €83 million as well as------

It is all capital, but part of it could be design costs, Irish Rail-----