Steven Matthews (Wicklow, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

The point of this meeting is that the committee has assessed the draft strategy and from this meeting we can make our recommendations or observations to the Minister before he approves the final plan. That is my understanding, and my questions will all relate to the document provided to us. I thank Ms Graham and Mr. Creegan for attending the meeting. They have always been very generous with their time to members and we appreciate that.

I will move to the document that was presented to us. The first item I wish to raise is the timelines for projects. Depending on the answer we could make a recommendation to the Minister. We need very clear and consistent timelines for transport projects. When the draft strategy was produced there was some confusion and I believe a press release was issued by the NTA clarifying the greater Dublin area, GDA, strategy proposals. The public and public representatives expect to have clear and realistic timelines for projects. We have fallen foul of unrealistic timelines in the past. As well as realistic and clear timelines, there are the different stages within the timelines for the delivery of a project. For example, where there is a project to be completed by 2040 or 2030, what has to be set out is what the different stages would likely be, such as design, planning, compulsory purchase order, CPO, processes and so forth, so we have a clear breakdown of the different stages within a timeline, the reasons those timelines exist and the rationale behind apportioning two years for planning or two years for design or whatever it may be. Also, I suggest that a document such as this should suggest ways in which those timelines may be reduced, for example, parallel processes within a project.

There is a section which commits to decide and provide. It is an improvement on the predict and provide model. We often look at these projects and say that when we have reached saturation point, for example, on buses, then we will update the rail system, knowing full well that people prefer to travel by rail. If we went with the decide and provide method, we would probably decide that we are going to put in rail before we wait to exhaust the current transport proposals that are in place. It is a build-it-and-they-will-come scenario. I realise the NTA has to support its decisions with evidence and research and that it is public money and must go through a public spending process, but we know from many projects that when it gets built, it gets used and that the use might not be completely apparent or obvious when one builds it. The Phoenix Park tunnel link, for example, reached very high capacity, much higher than we expected. Even on the western rail corridor the numbers just shot up. I would like Ms Graham to comment on the decide and provide aspect because the NTA seems to commit to that, but then it seems to rely on the predict and provide methodology.

The climate emissions target in it is set for 2042. We raised this previously when the draft strategy was in place. I am sorry, Chairman, these may not necessarily be questions, but they are points that I would like to have recorded that we could pass to the Minister. This target is set for 2042. It sets out the emissions from transport in the GDA to be below one 1 megatonne equivalent of CO2 by 2042. However, we do not have information on what emissions reductions would be achieved by 2030, which is a Government marker in time when we want a 51% reduction in emissions. That is not clear to me in this. In addition, it does not set out clear scenarios. We will have to cut emissions by 51% across all sectors. There are a number of ways of doing that, whatever way one is going to slice the sectoral pie or within those sectors themselves. What would be helpful would be the scenarios that we could suggest or choose to give a 51% reduction in emissions by 2030, and to design a range of options. Those who decide what options to go with can choose from those options. Regardless of what suite of measures they may choose in terms of public transport, active transport, demand management or whatever it might be, they could rely on the fact that they can choose the right range of options. It is much like what one does in energy retrofit of a home. One is given a range of options which will give the energy cut. That is what we need to do in terms of emissions.

Regarding how the DTA assesses a project, that is, the way the DTA calculates a project, assesses whether it is going to be successful or deliverable or whether it should invest in it, it appears to focus a lot on time-based savings. In other words, somebody takes a car journey and the journey takes the person 30 or 40 minutes whereas the alternative might be a ten-minute walk and a 30-minute, 35-minute or 40-minute bus service. Then, through BusConnects or other improvements, that bus service becomes more reliable with a faster journey time, and measures we might put in place, such as with BusConnects in Dublin, where we might restrict or reduce car accessibility through an area, the car journey time becomes less favourable and the bus and walking time remains consistent. Does the NTA assess projects on the basis of the cumulative impact of measures that we take?

There is a section on page 172 on roads. It suggests a link road, the M3 to the M4, parallel to the M50 - I think it is the M50 over-bridge at Liffey Valley - as a parallel or alternative route to cater for accidents or blockages on the M50.

It is my understanding that the link road was removed from the county development plans of both local authorities but the NTA has still included it in this draft strategy. Why is that the case? I know the reasoning for it but I believe it was removed from both county development plans, although I may be corrected on that point. The proposed road goes through some sensitive areas, which is concerning. Would that road only be used in the event the M50 was blocked? What stops us from inducing demand onto that road if we provide it? In taking traffic from the M50, that road could become just as full and busy as other roads.

Part of the text of the strategy relates to home zones. I cannot find the relevant notes but from memory, the draft strategy refers to the vulnerability of users, including children walking to school, cyclists and pedestrians. The text of the 2021 draft states, "A Home Zone is [a] street or group of streets designed to meet the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, children and residents and where the dominance of the car is reduced." It is stated on page 181 of the final draft that a home zone is a street or group of streets designed to balance the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and children with those of motorists. That is a retrograde definition. I prefer the text in the 2021 draft and suggest we keep that definition of home zones.

The section on school site selection was also amended. The 2021 draft included stronger wording. It stated, "In the site selection process for new schools sustainable transport shall be a critical consideration." I do not need to read it out; our guests are familiar with the text. What was produced in the later document is weaker. I suggest we keep the original drafting of the school site selection definition for school placement.

On the freight section, is there mention of how we would support rail freight connection in Dublin and the conflict that arose in Dublin Port last year when rail freight seemed to be sidelined? Has that been analysed sufficiently? What is required in Dublin Port to maintain rail freight connectivity? I will return to the issue of freight. Will I have a chance to come back in?