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

I thank Deputy MacSharry for allowing me to go ahead of him, even though he has been for the whole meeting. I welcome Martin Hoey and his colleague in the Gallery. Mr. Hoey is an advocate of good public transport, much like Mr. Creegan and Ms Graham. I am sure they have been very familiar with his work for many years at this stage.

Has the NTA ever sought automatic number plate recognition, ANPR, from the Minister? Has the NTA ever recommended it to him? It would make the existing bus lanes much more useful. I think Deputy Joan Collins was hitting on this point earlier, or perhaps it was Deputy Coppinger.

The map shows the 262 route and the N2 crossing the bridge at Broombridge hill, effectively on a two-way system. That is currently a one-way street. The witnesses might bring some clarity to bear on how the NTA intends to change that to facilitate the route shown on the map.

Regarding the routes in version 2 of the route proposal, the NTA is getting there. The proposal is to be cautiously welcomed, much like what the unions have said. I have a few questions, however. Regarding the new service in Beaumont going down Lorcan Avenue, where is it proposed to locate the bus stops? It would be useful if a few more details were put on this - a little meat on the bones - because people are coming to me seeking clarity, and if I do not have clarity, I cannot give it. It would be appreciated if the witnesses could put a little more detail on that. I acknowledge again that the NTA has done a great deal of work on the replacement for the existing 11 bus service in iterating from the first version to the second version of the route map. I imagine that the circa 1,000 submissions my office processed for the NTA played some role in this. Nevertheless, it is felt the replacement 11 service is still not quite there, particularly in respect of the termination of the route on Parnell Square.

People have expressed their concerns about that to me. It is a focal point for the NTA to possibly reconsider.

The replacement of the No. 1 route in Santry is a broadly welcome move. It is one of the positive things in this iteration. There are some improvements. What timeline does the NTA expect? Our guests informed Deputy Coppinger about taking some considerations on board in Blanchardstown, for example. I presume they will come back with a third iteration of a draft map for us. Will they provide an indicative breadcrumb trail regarding the intended timeline? There are 22% more routes and services. Any increase in routes and services is welcome. Why could that not be the case with the first version? Was it indicated that more resources would be available, which then allowed our guests to provide a more complete second version and indicate an increase of services? It seems that much heartache, anxiety and angst were caused by the first iteration of the BusConnects network redesign. Why could these resources not have been allocated in the first instance? Did the Minister or Government set a limit?

I presume that a 24-hour airport route will be part of this. As matter stand, our transport network is sorely lacking such a service. That takes me on to a related question on the current network and the mooted 24-hour bus service that would involve expanding the No. 41 route, which serves my constituency, the airport and Swords. Where does that proposal stand? It has been promised throughout this year. It was to start early in the year but it is now November.

I ask the Chairman to indulge me on two related questions that I suspect our guests have the answers to, so I do not think I will be straying too far from the subject matter of the meeting. When will further consultation on the metro begin and end? I know it is a small consultation compared to the others. Now that there is a new iteration of BusConnects, can we say that the bus rapid transit project, BRT, is officially dead? Can we put a lid on it and get rid of that uncertainty? It still technically exists and Dublin City Council still refers to it in some of its planning documents, for example with regard to the Laurence Lands in my constituency. Could we bring clarity to bear on that matter? I presume this supersedes that plan.