Mr. Hugh Creegan:

I think one of the things the Deputy started off with was the issue of timelines. It is important to say at the outset that, in terms of our legislation, we have two related documents that get produced. One is a transport strategy that takes a look at what needs to be done over the next 20 years. As soon as that is adopted, we are required within nine months of that to have completed what is called an implementation plan, which takes the first slice of six years and provides more detail in that time period about how we are going to deliver the strategy over that period. That is the place to put in the type of details the Deputy was referring to, in order to give greater detail on what is happening in the first six years. At the end of that six years we have to do a new implementation plan covering the next six years, and so on.

We have shaped the strategy in the way we have done knowing that we need to do this separate implementation plan immediately once it is adopted. It must focus on delivery.

We have put in a commitment that decide and provide is much better than predict and provide. Transport must be policy-led as opposed to purely demand-led - certainly in terms of cars. We think we have used that tool correctly. By predict and provide, we do not mean that we look at what the State is like 30 years from now and decide we need to provide it but that we make sure we are providing something that will last for a reasonable design life, for example at least 15 or 20 years. In the case of all the BusConnects corridors, we are comfortable they can cater for the next 15 or 20 years. Members will have seen in the strategy that we believe we need to transition to light rail lines or something else at a point in time. That is part of the decide and provide scenario.

Emissions reductions are set out in the transport strategy. In 2018, the geotechnical design report calculation had about 3.2 million megatonnes equivalent of CO2. We did a calculation to find out what it would be if it was business as usual by 2030 taking account of various other things and we got 3.4 megatonnes. The strategy infrastructure and services measures, the planned electrification under the Government's plan and the biofuels transition only reduce it to 2 megatonnes. I am overcomplicating that. The target we should have by 2030 is 1.6 megatonnes. Everything in the strategy only gets us to 2 megatonnes so there is a shortfall of 0.4 of a megatonne. It does not look like a lot when you put a decimal point in front of it but it is actually quite hard to achieve it. We set out three scenarios in the strategy about how it could be achieved. Some of them are outside our ambit like fuel pricing. In theory, we could electrify further if that was possible and that would deal with it. The third approach was to do more demand management measures, be they parking restrictions, tolling, low-emissions zoning or congestion charging. In the strategy, we committed to using one of the tools in our legislation, which is the tool to do a demand management scheme. Within two years of adopting the strategy we will produce a demand scheme, the objective of which is to set out clearly how we will bridge that gap to get down to the 2030 target.

I will finish off by saying that we think we have done all the positive things we can do to deliver the change that is required. The cycling infrastructure is the right infrastructure and the bus infrastructure is the right infrastructure along with rail and Luas. All that can be done by 2030 will be done. After that, it is more on the minus side where we are going to have to put in more parking restraint, some additional charging in some places and so on. The strategy does all the infrastructure and services sides that are needed. The demand management scheme will have to set out what additional measures are required to meet that target but that is the objective.

The N3 to N4 road link was mentioned by several members. We included it because we think it is the right thing to do. That is why we put it in the strategy. We think there is a case for requiring that road link for the resilience of the M50. If the old West Link Bridge collapsed on the M50, there would be no good alternative and it is the only segment of the M50 where you do not have a reasonable alternative so it is a significant issue from a resilience point of view. We also think there is orbital movement that needs to be catered for in the growing areas of Kildare that is not currently catered for. We are not saying the road needs to go through St. Catherine's Park. At least 11 options have been identified so far. It will be a matter for whoever is taking the project forward to tease their way through those options and come up with the best option. Nowhere in our strategy are we proposing to go through St. Catherine's Park. Of the 11 options, from memory, I think only two involve going through the park. There were a number going east and west of that.

Regarding home zone change, we got feedback on the strategy and took on board what we felt was appropriate. We got some feedback in that area. The main change involves the word "meet". I think we used the word "balance" and instead of changing the word "car dominance", we just said "motor vehicles". I do not have it in front of me but it is something like that. I take the point. The original wording might look better. I do not think there is much difference between the two. I would be happy with either of them.

We got feedback on school site selection. I thought we ended up with quite strong language saying that in selecting the site for a school, you must take account of the sustainable transport needs to serve that school. That is in there as a measure. That is something that has troubled us for a long time. Schools are being built in places where we are finding it very difficult to put in the type of connections that are needed to make it sustainable.

We recognise and committed in several places that rail freight will have to increase. It is definitely going to be part of the tools to meet the climate change target. I am not familiar with the issue in Dublin Port so there are probably details that are beyond what should be in the strategy.