Noel Rock (Dublin North West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It is good to see both of the witnesses again. I was pleased to be at the launch of the revised MetroLink proposals yesterday. Speaking on my behalf and of the other Deputies in my constituency, we all share a sense of satisfaction with the revision of the plans. I view it as public consultation at its best. The NTA took the views of the community on board, listened to those views, considered them and provided a revised document. From my perspective, that revised document is very welcome. I thank the witnesses from the NTA very much for their work on it to date.

There is reference in the publication in terms of site No. 31 to the fact that the Northwood station will share with residential and business facilities. I understand that Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, the NTA and Dublin City Council are in discussion with the local club, Ballymun Kickhams, with regard to this site. Will the witnesses elaborate a little more about those deliberations?

In terms of the ventilation shaft in Albert College Park, what sort of disruption is envisaged there? The documentation is not entirely clear about the timescale and scope. I assume it is slightly less disruptive than the construction of a station. I would like a bit more detail on that, in particular whether any clubs or playing facilities will be affected.

The biggest change in the revised proposal is that the southside element of it has been dropped. Would both witnesses say they are disappointed to lose that aspect of it? Do they agree that, unfortunately, it was a necessity given the lack of viable alternatives on the table?

The previous position was set out by Mr. Creegan to the committee, which is that when design works conclude on the MetroLink project, the design team would be assigned to the Finglas Luas project. Is that still the case?

Is it strictly necessary to have a bus corridor on St. Mobhi Road given the revised MetroLink plans announced yesterday? Quite a lot of change and disruption will take place along that stretch of road. Is it strictly necessary to restrict vehicular traffic in one direction to facilitate a bus corridor, given that it will have, in effect, the best transport link in the country running underneath the road?

Corridors 1, 4 and 6 appear to have a lower impact, given that there is no one way required or relatively little by way of garden acquisition. Is there a case for proceeding with those first or does the NTA have a sequential order in mind with regard to rolling out the corridors?

How is the redesign going with regard to the routes? When will the NTA reveal the second iteration of the draft with regard to the routes? Do the witnesses agree that it was unhelpful to assert that changing 10% of the routes would undo the project? Do they agree that branding both the core bus corridor aspect of BusConnects and the route redesign aspect of BusConnects proved to be somewhat confusing given they are both under the brand umbrella of BusConnects? For regular members of the public the constant sequential cascade of consultations, dates and deadlines is proving confusing.

That is the case for some elected representatives, let alone members of the public.