Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for their presentations. Deputy O'Keeffe is correct that there is an urgency in terms of taking speed off our roads and making a transition. The Joint Committee on Climate Action, of which I am a member, has discussed this issue. The 10% target rightly outlined by our guests as required was reiterated.

It is very notable. Perhaps the witnesses will comment on it. I know that officials from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport will be coming in later. I understand the transport budget has increased by €300 million this year. How is the Department doing with its efforts to achieve the 10% target? The question of balance has been discussed. The balance is probably poor if the target is just 10%. It seems to be a minimum that there would be 10%. As Deputy Catherine Murphy said, in the Dublin area there are more people cycling than using the Luas. It is an infrastructural need. I am particularly interested in how we can make progress in those areas where a cycling plan has been set out. A proposal involving 2,800 km of cycle paths has been set out for the greater Dublin area.

I would like to speak about the question of planning and cycling. Some projects do not seem to refer to the design manual, despite its flaws. Is that about the national cycling office? How important is the national cycling office in ensuring a few greenway projects that are about bikes are not put in as an afterthought when plans are being drawn up for many other transport projects that are about cars? We must ensure all our planning is planned for all users and is planned to be usable. Anything new that is being built should be planned with the idea that it will at least intersect with cycling. I ask the witnesses to comment on the particular role of the national cycling office. In what way will this structure differ from having some officials within the NTA driving the big picture?

I was very struck by the discussion on cycling infrastructure in rural areas. The conversation often seems to be solely about greenways. It seems to be approached from a tourist perspective, rather than from the perspective of someone who is living 2 km or 3 km outside a town and should be able to cycle safely into that town. I know there have been great initiatives in places like Ennis. Efforts have been made to make it possible to cycle again. The conversation can sometimes end up being about cyclists versus drivers. Many people are both cyclists and drivers. The real issue is not simply representing the interests of cyclists. The real issue is that it is in the public interest for there to be more cyclists. It is about those who are not cycling. Perhaps the witnesses could comment on those who do not cycle. I was really struck by the idea that there has been a 90% reduction in the number of girls cycling to school. At a time when everything globally is telling us we need to move towards cycling, it is not simply a matter of measuring the loss of life. That is the one thing I would suggest. It is one thing to measure the loss of life, but the greater loss that is harder to measure is what is lost when people decide not to cycle because of safety concerns.

The health and other benefits of cycling have been mentioned. Reference has been made to the Netherlands in that context. I ask the witnesses to elaborate on the benefits of cycling we can measure and on what is lost when people decide not to cycle. I would like them to focus on two cohorts within that. First, it seems to me that if women are not cycling here at the same rate as in other countries, this must be an equality issue. We can assume that an extra 15%, 20% or 30% of women would cycle, as they do in other countries, if the conditions here permitted it. If they lived in the Netherlands, they would probably be cycling. The same people would cycle in a different environment. Second, I ask the witnesses to comment specifically on the issue of making it safe for people of all abilities to cycle. I say this in the context of the need for the next generation to start cycling while they are in school. Do the witnesses believe a specific cycling strategy for the next generation needs to be rolled out in our schools? What role might be played by safe zones or calm zones in this context? I know there is an issue for many people. They are worried not about the cycle, but about cars pulling in when they are dropping their children off. I ask the witnesses to comment on the idea of creating a safe space where children can cycle and safely disembark when they get to school.

I am asking about specific measures on equality and about specific measures on the next generation. I am also asking about the benefits of cycling and the loss when we do not encourage cycling. I am also asking the witnesses to comment on the national cycling office. How do we accelerate the achievement of the 10% target? Should there be annual measures? I hope this committee will be in a position to hold to account the achievement of the 10% target.