The Department of Transport has refused to release any information on the business case for the two metro lines proposed for Dublin in the Government's €34.4 billion Transport 21 investment programme.
After the programme was unveiled on November 1st last, there was such a paucity of detail that Irish Times reporter Mark Hennessy wrote: "Never in the history of public transport has so much been promised by so many ministers backed up by so little paperwork."
On November 2nd, The Irish Times submitted a request to the department under the Freedom of Information Act for documents dealing with the justification for and cost-benefit analysis of the metro plan - one of the most costly elements of the package.
It also sought information on why the proposed metro line linking the city centre was not to run southwards to Sandyford, as envisaged in 2001, as well as the reasons for not serving a large swathe of Dublin between Sandyford and Tallaght.
The request also covered the proposed Luas extensions, the rail interconnector between Heuston Station and Spencer Dock and the electrification of suburban services as well as the reopening of the western rail corridor between Ennis and Claremorris.
Of the 18 documents relevant to the metro and Luas extensions, 11 were not released and another was subject to deletions.
These related mainly to the "outline business case" prepared by the Railway Procurement Agency (RPA) for both metro and Luas.
Also withheld by the department were letters exchanged between RPA chief executive Frank Allen and the department's secretary general, Julie O'Neill, and assistant secretary, Pat Mangan, on the Government's 10-year transport capital investment framework.
Another letter dealing with the "robustness" of the estimated costs of projects in the RPA's draft transport investment plan was also not released. Previously, the agency had been strongly criticised for wildly varying estimates of the cost of an airport metro line.
One of the reasons given by the department for denying access to most of the documents sought by The Irish Times was that the information was "commercially sensitive" and its disclosure "could reasonably be expected to result in a material financial loss or gain".
Another reason given was that documents would "disclose positions taken, or to be taken, or plans, procedures, criteria or instructions to be followed . . . for the purpose of any negotiations carried on or being carried on or on behalf of the Government or a public body".
The department also cited sections of the Freedom of Information Act which exempt disclosure of records that relate to the "ongoing deliberations" of a public body, or were "given by third parties in confidence" on the understanding that they would remain confidential.
The decision to withhold most of the information requested was made by Michael Hughes, of the department's Luas/metro division.
He said it would "not be in the public interest" to disclose the estimated costs of projects that would be the subject of a competitive tendering process.
Disclosure "may result in increased costs for the projects concerned at the expense of the public purse by prejudicing the RPA's negotiating position, which in turn could lead to delays in implementing these projects and delivering critically needed transport infrastructure".
Given the scale of the Transport 21 investment programme, The Irish Times will be appealing against Mr Hughes's decision in the public interest.
