Mr. Peter Nash:

I understand. The second is policy, and our concern that this proposal represents a wasteful approach to transport infrastructure investment. The third is politics, which is about the public consultation on the project, which we feel has been inadequate to date. I will deal briefly with each concern in turn and, following that, my colleagues will address queries or questions from members.

The negative impact of the emerging segregated overground MetroLink solution has not been adequately considered in the process to date. Converting the current green Luas line to a segregated high-speed overground MetroLink southwards from Charlemont has significant adverse social, environmental and commercial consequences for the adjacent neighbourhoods. Because of its speed, frequency and inaccessibility, segregated high-speed overground rail, necessarily creates a clear physical partition within communities. Notwithstanding its most recent response to our local politicians, the NTA has asserted that complete segregation of the line will be necessary as a design principle for the MetroLink. That will directly impact on local communities at not one but five separate locations, namely, Dunville Avenue, Cowper Drive, a smaller crossing at Albany Road, and two crossings in the Milltown and Alexandra College area.

As a result of the proposed MetroLink solution, traffic volumes on the remaining key Charleston Avenue link route between Rathmines and Ranelagh will increase hugely with significant knock-on effects. As pedestrian crossing of the upgraded line will not be permitted at any point, the proposed availability of a lift solution, in addition to overpasses, at crossing points as the only way of crossing is problematic. At peak times, in particular during school term, the volume of cyclists crossing the current Luas line could not in any practical way be facilitated by lifts. The displaced cyclists will have no choice but to reroute to busy alternatives compared to the quiet streets around the existing surface crossings. We are talking about safety and the threat to life, not about inconvenience. Our area has had a cycling fatality in 2018 so it is a huge concern to us.

Equally, the implications of the proposed segregated rail solution for families with young children and persons with limited mobility are of particular concern. The existing Luas system facilitates those people well because it primarily operates at street level. The segregated solution will require lifts at all stations and experience to date with the Luas illustrates the constant technical problems with lifts and also the fact that they become a hub for antisocial activity.

The segregated line will partition both the Beechwood Catholic and Sandford Anglican parishes, which has implications for their parishioners and also place an additional burden on social services including, for example, the local meals on wheels distribution.

The construction of the MetroLink will have a significant impact not only on our local community but also on today's existing users of the green line. Given that it is proposed to shut down the green line while constructing the metro, it is concerning that the economic, environmental and social impacts have not been considered and clearly communicated. How are the 50,000 commuters who currently move in and out of the city every day going to get to work for that nine-month period? In addition, the management, logistical and health and safety aspects of hundreds of schoolchildren who currently cross the Luas line each day have not been adequately considered.

I will turn briefly from our community concerns to the subject of transport policy. We do not accept that there is a convincing case in favour of the emerging preferred route for MetroLink, especially on the southside of the city. The value of concentrating unprecedented amounts of transport capital investment in an area that is currently well served with a relatively recently completed light rail system is unproven and questionable. Under the current proposals, there are large geographical areas in south Dublin where major public transport deficiencies will remain unsolved in the long term.

Serious questions arise about the waste of public money in dismantling the existing Luas line, which has only recently been expensively constructed, as well as the waste and environmental irresponsibility associated with destruction of recently constructed public transport infrastructure. We have yet to see a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the impact of the closure of the line during the upgrade. It is possibly the case that the economic and social cost to the city could amount to a multiple of the cost of the upgrade. In addition, from a risk perspective it is not evident that any professional risk assessment has been carried out, as demonstrated by the fact that the current proposal for capital investment in transport on the southside of the city is concentrated on one line, which also means that all of the flows of people are concentrated on one line. Accordingly, there is a single point of failure, which in business is considered to be a high-risk approach.

We believe that the current consultation process is inadequate. The community is concerned about the absence of real, interactive engagement and the absence of any commitment on the part of the NTA or Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, to meet local communities to directly address their concerns. We have been appreciative of the rapid and enthusiastic engagement of all our local politicians who have moved quickly to listen to our concerns. However, the implications of the proposed major investment requires a much more interactive and intensive consultation.

Since we submitted our documents for this meeting, the most recent proposal from the NTA and TII has been made available to us. Sadly, the latest partial proposal focuses exclusively on only one of the many issues we have highlighted, namely, the Dunville Avenue crossing.

The emerging MetroLink proposal has been compared to the imposition of a Berlin Wall on the southern part of the city. The latest proposal from MetroLink is akin to the opening of a Checkpoint Charlie on that wall. Even when Checkpoint Charlie was opened in Berlin, the wall remained intact and the community remained divided.

Members of the Rethink MetroLink group thank members of the committee for the opportunity to meet them today. We look forward to listening to their observations and my colleagues will address questions as they arise.