Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport debate -
Wednesday, 27 Mar 2019

BusConnects: National Transport Authority (Resumed)

We move on now to the purposes of this meeting, which is BusConnects and MetroLink. The purpose of today’s meeting is to continue our committee’s consideration of BusConnects and MetroLink. From the NTA I welcome Ms Anne Graham, chief executive officer, and Mr. Hugh Creegan, deputy chief executive officer. They are both very welcome.

Before we commence, and for the purpose of the witnesses attending, in accordance with procedure, I am required to read the following. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009 witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Ms Anne Graham

I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for the invitation to attend. I understand that the committee wishes to focus on the current situation pertaining to BusConnects and MetroLink. To assist me in dealing with members’ subsequent questions, I am joined by Hugh Creegan, deputy CEO of the authority. The BusConnects programme of works consists of many strands, all combining to provide a more efficient and more attractive bus service in our cities and towns. Last year, we started the work on BusConnects Dublin and carried out a major public consultation on a revised network for Dublin’s bus services. We received over 30,000 submissions and are continuing to work on the revisions to the proposed network. This work will be completed this summer. However, in deference to the requests received from public representatives, we will commence the consultation on the revised network in September of this year. The aim of BusConnects is to transform Dublin’s bus system, with the BusConnects core bus corridor project providing 230 km of dedicated bus lanes and 200 km of cycle lanes on 16 of the busiest bus corridors in and out of the city centre. This project is fundamental to addressing the congestion issues in the Dublin region, with the population due to grow by 25% by 2040, bringing it to almost 1.55 million. Bus services provide the main form of public transport across Dublin, with 67% of public transport journeys each day made by bus. The level of commuting to work by bicycle has increased by 43% since 2011, and the need for better and safer cycling facilities will be provided through the roll-out of the core bus corridor project. The first phase of the public consultations commenced in November 2018, with the second phase starting in January 2019 and the third phase commencing on 26 February 2019. The closing dates for the consultation have been extended by one month on all phases as follows: phase 1 on 29 March; phase 2 on 30 April; and phase 3 on 31 May. Since the launch of phase 1 of the BusConnects core bus corridors, the BusConnects customer service team has responded to approximately 1,000 calls, a total of 2,400 emails and web forms have been received to date, which are a combination of queries, information requests and submissions, and over 3,500 hard copies of brochures have been issued. Since November 2018, representatives from the NTA have met nearly 230 property owners regarding the current proposals. This equates to about 15% of all affected property owners seeking a one-to-one meeting. More than 1,200 people have attended the 12 public information events that have been held for phase 1 and phase 2 corridors since November to date. Phase 3 public information events on the routes from Bray to the city centre and UCD to Ballsbridge are commencing this week, on Tuesday and Wednesday, respectively. A total of 11 community forum meetings have also been held for phase 1 and phase 2 corridors, with approximately 750 attendees in total, representing community groups, residents’ associations and other organisations. The phase 3 community fora will commence in two weeks. Regarding MetroLink, last year the National Transport Authority and Transport Infrastructure Ireland published the emerging preferred route for a north-south high-frequency metro line linking Swords and Dublin Airport, through the city centre to Sandyford, connecting with heavy rail, DART, bus and Luas services, thereby creating a more integrated public transport system in the greater Dublin area. The proposal was the merger of two projects, metro north and metro south, which had been proposed for over two decades and which were included in the Transport Strategy for the Greater Dublin Area 2016-2035, developed by the authority and approved by the then Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport.

MetroLink, BusConnects and DART expansion are three major transport infrastructure projects included in Project Ireland 2040. Together, they will enable the development of reliable, sustainable, affordable and integrated public transport that will support the economy, help Ireland to meet its climate change targets and make Dublin a better place in which to live, work and shop and to visit.

The public consultation process on the emerging preferred route was held between March and May in 2018. Both TII and the NTA have reflected on the views expressed and responded in the design of the preferred route which was published yesterday. We believe the preferred route proposed addresses many of the concerns expressed and will deliver a better project. Among the most significant changes is the proposal that the construction of MetroLink in the St. Mobhi Road area will no longer require the acquisition of the playing fields of the Na Fianna GAA Club. In consultation with Home Farm Football Club, we now propose to construct a more compact station under its pitch. The pitch will be unavailable during the estimated three-year construction process but will be fully restored afterwards. A second significant change is the arrangement at Charlemont. The route we published last year included a proposal to upgrade the Luas green line to metro standard in line with the transport strategy for the greater Dublin area. It is projected that the number of people who will seek to travel on the green line in future years will exceed the carrying capacity of the Luas system and require an upgrade. However, this upgrade is not expected to be needed for some time, perhaps 20 years or so. During and following the consultation process on the emerging preferred route, a concern arose about the need to close the green line for a prolonged period during its upgrade to metro service and the tie-in of the tunnel section of MetroLink. In acknowledging these concerns, an alternative approach has been developed that will allow a new section of the metro line to be built, with the green line conversion to metro standard to occur at an appropriate point in the future. The plan we published yesterday is to develop the section from Swords to Charlemont with an interchange from the metro to the Luas at Charlemont. The required tunnel boring works to allow the future connection to the existing Luas line will be completed as part of the current phase. In the city centre changes have been made to the plan that will reduce the level of disruption and make it easier for other public transport services to continue to operate during construction. On O’Connell Street an opportunity has arisen to create an integrated station under what was the old Carlton development site. The location and construction of the station included in the original proposal would have presented a significant challenge to Luas and bus services and vehicular traffic on O’Connell Street. We are working with the owners of the property, with a view to integrating the O’Connell station into the proposed site development. Disruption in the St. Stephen’s Green area will also be reduced under the new plans. The station will be located, as previously proposed, at St. Stephen’s Green east, but we are moving it slightly south in order that Hume Street can remain open during construction and slightly west to avoid closing the road during construction. This also means that we can avoid a major sewer, which would otherwise require a diversion. St. Stephen’s Green - the park - will be impacted on to a small extent as a result. In Ballymun the station is to be moved a short distance. It will lie adjacent to the R108, partly under the site of the old shopping centre, where plans are in place for a new mixed use quarter following its demolition. This will cause far less disruption during construction and is, we believe, a much better all-round solution for Ballymun. The number of homes that will need to be acquired for the project has been reduced on the preferred route we published yesterday. For example, an apartment building near Glasnevin station which is currently home to about 40 people will no longer need to be acquired. However, despite a significant effort on behalf of TII and the NTA, it has not been possible to relocate the MetroLink station at Tara to avoid the acquisition of the College Gate apartments and the Markievicz sports and fitness centre. Both the NTA and TII will take whatever measures they can to mitigate the impact on residents and leisure centre users. We propose to assist residential tenants to secure alternative accommodation and pay the cost of their new accommodation for up to one year. For owner-occupied apartments, we will provide assistance in locating and securing alternative properties, in addition to paying appropriate compensation. As for the sports and fitness centre, we are consulting Dublin City Council on a plan to build a replacement facility. Public consultation on the preferred route for MetroLink has commenced and will continue until 21 May. There will be a number of public information events at various venues in the coming weeks. It is expected that a railway order application will be made in 2020, with a decision from An Bord Pleanála anticipated in the following year. Construction is likely to take six to seven years. I remind the committee that there will be many benefits to the MetroLink project which will support the future development and growth of Ireland’s capital city. It will greatly enhance public transport capacity and accessibility to the city centre and the surrounding corridor for commuters, businesses, the retail sector, education services, tourism and the overall sustainability of the city.

There will be an improvement for domestic and international travel connections provided by access to and from Dublin Airport and through the national rail and road network. There will be decreased road traffic congestion on journeys to and from the airport and crossing the city from north to south. MetroLink will include a park and ride for more than 3,000 vehicles at Estuary Swords. There will be faster journey times with high frequency and high reliability by MetroLink between Swords, the airport and the city centre. There will be more integrated and improved quality of interchanges with Luas, DART, rail and bus transport hubs across the city, with more direct journey opportunities.

MetroLink can enhance social inclusion by providing new links from urban areas of Dublin to jobs and services in the city and across the suburbs. The project will support both the regeneration of existing areas and the development of new areas. It will generate employment during construction and operation and will support economic growth once operational. The metro system will support the environment by promoting a modal shift from car to public transport. That will help reduce emissions and energy consumption in addition to improving air quality and reducing road congestion.

I thank Ms Graham very much. We will use the normal process and take questions from members from Fine Gael, Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin and then party leaders and Independents.

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.

I thank Ms Graham very much for her opening statement. I will follow the same sequence as Deputy Rock and start with MetroLink, another version of which was announced yesterday. We have seen many versions of it. If one adds the timelines set out in the opening statement, it would take in or around ten years to deliver the project. It is a long way down the road before it becomes operational and that has an impact on the questions I will pose in relation to BusConnects. The MetroLink proposal, as published yesterday, has shrunk by about 7 km, so instead of the original 26 km, it is 19 km. Previously, the indicative cost of the longer MetroLink was €3 billion. What are the costings for the revised plan the NTA presented yesterday? What is the basis on which passenger traffic was calculated? What number of passengers was the original 26 km version of the MetroLink expected to carry and what number is expected to be carried on the shorter one? I am not opposed to MetroLink but it is a substantial change. The overall metro has been reduced by approximately 30%. The project that is currently proposed is now different. Was that accompanied by a cost-benefit analysis?

To be parochial, Ms Graham referred to discussion of metro north and metro south more than two decades ago. There was also a metro west.

It is very unusual for me to get agreement. Metro west was also part of the jigsaw because it was to link to metro north. The western part of Dublin is where the population growth is. We have two strategic development zones, SDZs, under physical construction as we speak, brand new towns with approximately 10,000 new housing units. The witnesses are sick and tired of hearing me say that the section of the M50 between the N4 and N7 is probably the busiest section of road anywhere in the country. Metro west was to have been an orbital route. At the time, local authorities were making reserves of some lands. While it is not included in the 2016 to 2035 plan, that does not mean that the original concept is not as valid today. In light of the fact that the MetroLink is being shortened by 7 km, should the NTA not consider an extension to the western part of the city, especially linking the orbital route connecting Tallaght, Clondalkin, Lucan and Blanchardstown? The area accommodates two hospitals, two third level colleges and two major shopping centres. There is major activity on that orbital route. I would welcome a comment in that regard.

I acknowledge that the next stage of the public consultation on the BusConnects network will not take place until after the summer. Thanks be to God for that, because people do want to engage with it and the summer time is not appropriate. It might delay it a month or two but it is better that we have full and meaningful engagement. The whole idea of the network change was to shorten journey time and to provide more efficiencies. As I stated to the NTA witnesses previously, the problem I have is that the network changes are going to happen before the corridor changes are put in place. I am concerned that the journey times and efficiencies the NTA hopes to achieve will not be achieved.

I have looked at the corridors and one of them stands out as not having very many houses affected, possibly no more than 15 houses, which is the Lucan corridor, mainly along an existing motorway. Should consideration be given to trying to fast-track that to demonstrate that the corridor and network solutions being proposed are effective and that they would be additionally accommodated with park-and-ride facilities? I have real concerns that the NTA will change the network in advance of the corridors and that it will not achieve the travel time. As Ms Graham correctly pointed out in her opening statement, the increased population and traffic in and out of the city continues to grow but the proposed solutions are significantly down the road. Until corridors and efficiencies are put in place, is there a programme to increase substantially the fleet of buses operating in the Dublin area in parallel with the BusConnects project?

I will start off with BusConnects. From the initial publication of the plan, there have been 30,000 submissions. The public engagement and the opportunity for people to raise their concerns in such volumes are very welcome. However, sometimes would it not be better to engage with the public and the communities first on what they feel they need regarding work, travel and everything involved in their community, including hospitals and so on, before putting forward any plan to them? Given the volume of submissions that were made, engaging with the public on their needs before drawing up a plan might be something to look at in the future. If one listens to people living in Dublin and its outskirts, the frequency of services and the need for increased bus numbers are the daily priorities. Route changes appear to be way down their list. One hears people say they stand at the bus stop every morning and three buses pass them before they can actually get onto a bus. How will BusConnects solve this issue?

People have also been wondering why the NTA wrote to property owners whose properties or gardens will be directly affected while there appears to have been no contact with other property owners living in areas where, say, trees are to be completely cut down, alterations to footpaths made and so on. Has the NTA any plans in this regard?

Regarding MetroLink, another Deputy raised the issue of the metro west. The NTA’s report here talks about assisting people who face losing their homes. Could Ms Graham provide more details on the plans the NTA has to assist these people? The authority says owner-occupiers and tenants are to be given a year’s compensation. In Ms Graham’s statement she said "up to one year". Is it a year or not? Given the spiralling costs of rents, how will the rate and the compensation for property owners be calculated? Does Ms Graham have an idea of the overall cost of this part of the project?

I call Deputy Catherine Murphy, who will be followed by Deputy Coppinger.

I will pick up on a point that several of us will probably make. Some of the changes to MetroLink have shown that the organisation has listened to some of the concerns, and it is very welcome that there has been a response to those concerns. I refer in particular to the solutions for the north side of the city. However, in looking at what the transport needs are, the census of population for the past three or four censuses, perhaps, would be a pretty useful way of predicting what will happen into the future. The city centre and Dún Laoghaire, for example, both grew by 13% over those 20 years, South Dublin by 22%, Fingal by well over 40%, Meath and Kildare by over 40% each and Wicklow by just under 30%. We can therefore see where the population shifts are happening. One would only have to take a flight over Dublin to see where the space is and where it will continue to grow, irrespective of the amount of land zoned. As well as looking at what is in a plan, what is not in it is a key component. In the west side of the city, we must look at where the traffic is generated, which is not just in the neighbouring counties, but also in counties adjacent to them in turn. That is really where the commutes are happening and where this needs to impact.

Ms Graham might address how this will be dealt with from the point of view of rail. At the moment there are capacity constraints in respect of heavy rail. Ms Graham will be well aware of those constraints and the length of time it takes to get new rolling stock, so she might address that issue. I will not even go into the issue of DART underground. I will give this meeting a skip on that because it is totally the missing piece in all this.

Ms Graham said in her opening statement:

The plan we published yesterday is to develop the section from Swords to Charlemont with an interchange from Metro to Luas at Charlemont. The required tunnel boring works to allow the future connection to the existing Luas line will be completed as part of this current phase.

This means that it is a predetermined route once the bore is completed. Is there the prospect of any flexibility on this route if this plan is to be proceeded with?

What kind of timeline would be involved with the people in College Gate and the Markievicz sports centre who have to move? I refer to being able to put alternatives in place. How does the NTA go about that?

Predicting where lines will go is one thing. What kind of advance purchase is required for the trams? Regarding the capacity constraints that exist at the moment, is there any issue as to which comes first? I assume the plan is not likely to push out the purchase of much-needed heavy rail, for example, to make sure that the orders go in for the new metro trains.

There is public consultation on this phase of BusConnects. When will the next phases be? I refer to the outer BusConnects routes that were parked. When are we likely to see that coming back and to see consultation on it?

I am glad to hear Deputies raising issues in west Dublin. It is a bit mystifying that when transport is planned, the areas that have grown in population, as has been outlined, are left completely bereft. I am delighted, by the way, about the MetroLink to Swords because Swords is a hugely growing area as well. I feel, however, that this is being done more to make it easier for people to get to and from the airport rather than for the people who live in Fingal. That is fine and that is important, but if we want to take cars off the road daily, we have to plan transport for the suburbs.

The southside element has been dropped, but perhaps the NTA will consider thinking of west Dublin. There was a plan for metro west when I was on Fingal County Council. I will mention this briefly. The councillors agreed to rezone Kellystown, Barnhill and huge tracts of land for development on the basis of metro west. Hansfield strategic development zone, SDZ, has been mentioned. It has been thrown up apace. We absolutely want housing, but there is no point in planning to build in the outer parts of Dublin - we are talking about areas that are basically on the border with Meath - without providing transport. I was talking to Mr. Creegan at the BusConnects meeting in Blanchardstown and I made this point, that we need a Luas to Blanchardstown. This is not rocket science. If one lives more than eight miles out from the city, one cannot be purely reliant on buses. Light rail is needed to get people to and from places very quickly.

Mr. Creegan has argued that we have a rail line, but it does not go to where the population has increased. People living in Mulhuddart, Tyrellstown and parts of Ongar cannot gain access to the rail line. In any case, the rail service is not frequent enough. I accept that the rail line will be electrified at some point, which I welcome, but the service will still not cater for the existing need. We designed a proposal to extend the Luas to Dublin 15 from Broombridge. It is a low-density route and would be relatively cheap to do. One would travel from Broombridge to Connolly Hospital, IT Blanchardstown and the Blanchardstown Centre. Based on other light rail designs, the cost of such a phase 1 development would be approximately €45 million a kilometre or €315 million.

An additional factor in increasing traffic levels in Blanchardstown which is a problem if one lives there is the fact that there are large industrial parks. We all welcome the fact that there are more jobs and multinational companies setting up, but the 20,000 to 30,000 people working in Ballycoolin and other industrial parks have no other way to get there other than by driving. There is complete gridlock following the recovery in the economy. It does not seem that there is any onus on the companies setting up to make an additional contribution. For example, could there be a rates increase for the major companies based there to pay for a light rail system? If a rail system was extended from the shopping centre to Ballycoolin, for example, it would provide significant relief for thousands of people. One could then look at a third phase to Littlepace and Ongar. It might sound like a lot of money, but a significant amount is paid in rates and taxes in the area. That is what we need if we want to get people out of their cars to mitigate the effects of climate change. Reference is made in the submission to the fact that 67% of public transport journeys are made by bus. We need more light rail services to increase capacity.

We have spoken a lot about BusConnects. One of the major problems with it is that it is cutting some local bus services and making some people make two journeys rather than one. I do not have a problem with the town centre being turned into a hub for a rail link because a lot of people would get off a little bus onto a light rail service to travel directly into town, but the problem with BusConnects is that people would get off one bus and then fight to get on another one because it is not clear whether there would be sufficient capacity to take up the slack.

I urge the NTA to strongly consider this serious proposal. We need a Luas system for the 110,000 people who live in the greater Blanchardstown area. The same applies to other areas in west Dublin that were developed in the past 20 years. It is very sad for people to see what is proposed for Ranelagh just outside the city centre. Why would one need a metro to Ranelagh? There is no urgent need for it in the way there is for people who are living eight or ten miles out of the city where tens of thousands of people live. This is necessary and we must campaign for it and make it a big issue.

I have a few words of wisdom. I commend the delegates on their professionalism, dedication, commitment to meeting the big challenge we all face as a society. The interaction with the public is impressive. The NTA is always listening and ready to engage. Significant changes have been made and resulted from a consultation process. Democracy is well served by interaction between communities and State bodies. The NTA conducts its business in a very professional manner.

I live in Drogheda. A park and ride facility has been proposed on the Malahide Estuary and is ultimately intended to cater for 2,000 vehicles a day. That would take a significant number of vehicles off the streets of Dublin. What is the status of the plan?

Yesterday I spoke to Deputy Farrell who hopes to make it to the meeting. We discussed connectivity between the metro and the Northern rail line links. As I understand it, one has to travel to Tara Street before one can reconnect to the rail network. Deputy Farrell thought there might be an opportunity to have another connection point on the Northern line. Has the NTA considered that possibility? Millions of people come through Dublin Airport every year and many of them could continue their journey on the DART or the rail line to Belfast. I would welcome a response from the delegates, as best they can, but they should make sure they respond to everybody.

Ms Anne Graham

If you do not mind, I will ask Mr. Creegan to kick off first. I might then pick up on some of the other issues raised.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

I will start with Deputy Rock who raised a number of queries. TII has had a number of discussions with Dublin City Council about Northwood Station and Ballymun Kickhams. We are pretty certain we have a solution that will prove satisfactory to Ballymun Kickhams. I do not know how directly it has been involved in the discussions, but we are pretty confident its concerns will be adequately addressed and do not envisage a problem in that regard.

The intervention shaft in Albert College Park is a considerable construction but much smaller than a station. I cannot say whether we will interfere with any pitch on a temporary basis. If we do, I am pretty confident we can sort the matter out with Dublin City Council to find a temporary replacement for a short period. It is much smaller than a full station.

On whether we are disappointed to lose the southern section of the green line, we have taken the right approach. The green line will need to be upgraded in the future. That matter came up in a later question from another member. We are not upgrading the green line just to Ranelagh. It is to extemd to places south of Ranelagh. Cherrywood is a town. Sandyford is growing and there is an extension to Bray. The line will have to be upgraded to metro standard to cater for future transport demand, but it does not need to be done now and we can definitely eke more out of the green line in the meantime. We think it is the appropriate solution at this stage as it will allow us to proceed with the project.

Between the NTA and TII, we have limited resources. Therefore, as soon as we are able to free some of the resources in working on the other projects to which we have committed, we will assign the design team to the Finglas Luas project and start the design work. That is part of the strategy. It will take some time to do it, but work will start later this year.

On whether it is necessary for St. Mobhi Road to be used as a bus corridor, given MetroLink, it is still a busy bus corridor. MetroLink serves a lot of key destinations, but as members know from looking at the maps, there is a quite a distance between stations and there are many side roads and other locations that need to be served. The bus system will still be really important in the area. For that reason, we believe we need to proceed with the BusConnects project.

Does it still need to be a continuous core bus corridor? I am not saying there should not be a bus service along the road, but given the resource that will run beneath it, does Mr. Creegan still believe it is necessary? I presume his answer is yes.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

The answer is yes. We could do a longer one, but the short answer is yes.

We genuinely have not worked out a sequence to construct the various bus corridors. I accept Deputy Curran's point that the Lucan bus corridor has a lower number of properties and would be much simpler in many respects. When we come to work through a sequence, that will be a significant consideration. What we do know, as we have said here before, is that we cannot do all of the bus corridors at the one time. They do have to be sequenced and we need to get a little further on in the design process before working out the sequence.

On how the network redesign is progressing, we are still going through the 30,000 submissions received. In parallel, we are working to pick up on the issues from the submissions and looking at what the intervention might be. We will have it done in a number of months.

As we stated earlier, we will kick off a second round of consultation at the start of September.

While we understand that it causes confusion when we speak about BusConnects and when we speak about bus lanes one day and bus services the other day, it will be confusing no matter what we call it. If we call it something completely different, there will still be a level of confusion. We have tried to simplify our language by referring to bus services and bus lanes when we speak to people, but we accept that there is so much going on that it will inevitably cause confusion.

MetroLink is the scheme that will extend from Swords to south of Charlemont, although the overall metro scheme will eventually reach Sandyford, as per the original intention. On the costing of the plan, as we stated yesterday at the launch and in our brochure, to obtain an accurate and fully developed cost estimate one needs to have settled on the design and have the design further developed. We are still in the process of consultation and the level of change can be seen from the first phase to now. It is our intention that when the design is moved on further, we will start preparing a business case, and later this year we will develop a robust cost estimate. We have brought on board an international person, Professor Bent Flyvbjerg, who is involved in mega-projects around the world and deals with cost and estimation issues. He was brought in six months ago to provide assistance and advice on how to put the project together. Later this year, we will have developed our position much further and will prepare a full business case, which will be made publicly available.

The NTA has made a substantial change from the larger metro project to MetroLink. Will there be value for money versus the full scheme? It has cut 7 km but what is the cost benefit, how many potential passengers have been affected and so forth? It is not transparent or obvious.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

We have not yet carried out a cost-benefit analysis but we will. We have done enough work to be satisfied that there will be a high level of passenger flow, with people interchanging at Charlemont. The same journey will be possible but people will just have to make a change at Charlemont station where they will alight from the Luas and board the metro. When we move on with the design work, we will finish the analysis but we are fully confident it will provide value for money. The metro is being sized for the same size and, therefore, it will handle up to 20,000 passengers per hour in one direction and we remain confident about all the work we have done. The project will provide value for money but we are conscious we will need to provide a robust cost estimate in the future.

On metro west, the question of how we are serving the west of the city has been raised several times. We have a transport strategy in place which sets the framework for the overall development of transport throughout Dublin. Much work went into preparing that, there is ministerial approval behind it, and it is a statutory plan. Within that plan, the west of the city has not been ignored and two important lines are proposed to be built in the first ten years, with a third to follow. The first is the DART to Maynooth, as the national development plan, NDP, provides for DART services as far as Maynooth on the Maynooth train line, while the second is the DART on the Kildare train line as far as Celbridge at least. We are proceeding to progress that project, and in the next month, we hope to kick off a tender process to acquire a fleet to put in place those DART services in the coming years. The NDP provides for those two DART lines to be developed before 2027.

The NDP and our transport strategy also provide for a Luas line to Lucan in the future. While it is not included within the first ten years of the NDP, it is included in our transport strategy. As well as the existing red line, there will be DART services on the Maynooth line and the Kildare line and there will be a Luas to Lucan. It is important to remember there is also a bus system, which we sometimes overlook, and there is much being invested to provide an improved bus system for the west of the city, through the Greenhills corridor to Tallaght, the Clondalkin to Drimnagh corridor, the Liffey Valley corridor and the Lucan corridor. Much is being invested, therefore, in the west of Dublin to put in place good transport links in the future.

Ms Anne Graham

We recognise the importance of orbital movements in particular. There are strong orbital movements throughout the ,city but when we considered it in respect of strategy, we believed that in 20 years those orbital travel demands could be met by the bus system rather than a light rail system. We will improve the level of service and the connections among the towns and urban villages on the west side of the city. We introduced the 175 service last year, which has been successful in connecting Citywest to University College Dublin and beyond, and we will see those services increase over the next few years.

Ms Graham has referred to available bus services, but to travel from Ongar to the city centre takes one hour and 20 minutes at peak time. It is not acceptable for people to be shoved out to areas and told there is a bus service. Anywhere beyond a certain mileage, the NTA should consider light rail. The industrial parks do not have proper bus services, people are driving in from all over and the roads are clogged up. Will the NTA remain open to the idea of a light rail system for Blanchardstown rather than citing the rail line to Maynooth? People cannot get to it.

Ms Anne Graham

We must also consider our transport strategy, which, as Mr. Creegan noted, much work went into developing. We examined where the development areas would be and responded in respect of what transport infrastructure needs to be put in place for a developing city region, but a Luas to Blanchardstown was not considered necessary as part of our transport strategy for 20 years.

How could it not be necessary when the population has doubled since the 1990s?

Ms Anne Graham

That is what has emerged from our modelling and consideration of the projected increases in travel demand throughout the city region. In the round, taking into account all the transport systems in place, that is, rail, Luas and bus, and the combination of them in respect of what we are proposing in our statutory transport strategy, we will meet the travel demand for 20 years if we put that infrastructure in place.

I might take Ms Graham on a few journeys to Blanchardstown and show her that the bus service is not sufficient.

Ms Anne Graham

That is also what BusConnects is about. It is about improving the bus corridors in order that we can reduce the journey times. That is part of what we are putting forward for public consultation because we understand that people do not want to travel for long times on the bus, and we are trying to put in place infrastructure to reduce those journey times through the bus corridor proposals.

Mr. Creegan made a point about Cherrywood and its requirement for a Luas because it is a town. A town is already in place in Blanchardstown, however, and I do not see how the argument can be made for one if the argument is not made similarly for the other. Does the NTA have the figures for the scenario testing that was carried out? It would be useful for the committee to examine.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

I think the information is still available on our website. We undertook analysis of each of the sectors to identify the transport demand with all the information from the census and other sources. We decided on what we believed was the appropriate transport framework for the overall city. There is a rail line in Blanchardstown which will become a DART line, and bus services will be improved. We fully agree that the journey time from Blanchardstown to the city centre is too long and needs to be a whole lot shorter.

The core of the bus corridor project from Blanchardstown to the city centre is to do exactly that; therefore, we do not disagree with the Deputy.

I do not want to take up the whole meeting, but the NTA knows that will not solve the problem because traffic gets clogged up in places such as Stoneybatter. It would not be the quickest route. Through the Phoenix Park would be the best route if the NTA wanted to plonk a Luas line through it. We would then be in and out of town quickly. Private transport uses it constantly, but there is no public transport. People cannot actually get to it without driving, but if the NTA wanted to extend the Luas line from Broombridge, it would be another option. It is very disheartening for people to be told that there is a bus service when it takes an hour and 20 minutes to travel from parts of Ongar, etc.

Ms Anne Graham

We still have quite a number of questions to respond to. I refer to Deputy Curran's questions about the next stage and concerns about changes to the network in advance of the bus corridors being put in place. There is still a benefit to be gained in making changes to services because they would still make for better connections across the city. We do not yet know what the connections will be and will be bringing them to the committee's attention in September when we have revised the network on the basis of the submissions received. We still think there is a benefit to be gained in providing an improved service, even in advance of the bus corridors being improved. There will then be an additional benefit in improved journey times when we have improved the bus corridors, but the benefits of having better connections and a much more integrated bus system should not be held back until the bus corridor improvements have been made.

Is Ms Graham suggesting there will be more options or that there will be shorter journey times?

Ms Anne Graham

In making good connections, someone should be able to make his or her journey in a shorter time by not having to come into the city centre all of the time because we will be hoping to introduce a lot more orbital routes. The additional benefis on the main core bus corridors will also help to radically reduce journey times. There will be a combination of benefits.

That is where the real fear is. The fear is that in advance of having the bus corridors, the NTA will make all of these changes and people will not see the benefits. They buy them in the case of the bus corridors, but it should not be suggested to them that they go halfway into town, get off and get on the bus that coming from the other direction when they have probably already queued for half an hour to get on the first bus and seen several go by. They are terrified because at rush hour in the suburbs heading into town it is difficult to get on a bus and when they are on it, they want to keep that seat.

Ms Anne Graham

This has come from the submissions made and we are obviously taking it into account in the redesign of the network.

On whether there is a programme in place to increase the size of the fleet, yes, there is. As we want to increase the frequency of services, we will put a programme in place to increase the size of the fleet in line with the increased services provided.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

The fleet has increased from about 980 just two years ago to 1,125. That is a considerable increase within that period and we know that more buses are needed.

To respond to Deputy Munster's queries, the key question she asked at the beginning was whether we should have consulted communities before we ever drew up any plan. We found from myriad consultations that the best way to start was with something which had been developed and to have something which people could review, comment on and give feedback on. Going out with just a blank sheet of paper often does not help as it usually ends up causing far more annoyance than going out with an unfinished draft proposal to look for people's views. That is where we are. We went out with a proposal with which there were still issues that had to be sorted out to look for feedback. I hope that when we revise it later this summer, we will have addressed a lot of the concerns raised.

On that point, the aim was not to go out with a blank piece of paper but to have a consultation process to ask people about their needs and requirements in getting to work and living in the community in terms of access. From this the NTA could develop an idea of what their needs were before formulating a plan.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

We have a lot of that information already. For instance, the census provides information on where people live, to where they are travelling, the times at which they leave and the mode of transport used. We have that information and numerous other sources. Therefore, we have an enormous database which that type of information, although I am not saying we have everything complete in terms of the knowledge we need. We did not, but we certainly had enough to prepare a draft plan, which is what we did.

On BusConnects and writing to property owners but not to others, we are very conscious that property owners are the people who will be affected most because we will be interfering with their property. They are the ones on whom we focused in writing individually. We went as far as offering all of them a one to one meeting to discuss the project as it would affect them, the issues that were particular to them and other matters that needed to be taken into account. That was the reason we focused on them, as opposed to writing to every single person across the city.

On how we will deal with affected residential tenants and property owners, in the document that was published yesterday we have put forward that, if we take College Gate apartments as an example, we will assist the tenants who will receive plenty of advance notice when the building is to be acquired because we will have to go through a process with An Bord Pleanála and the scheme will have to be approved or otherwise. If it is, they will be given plenty of advance notice. We will work with them to find alternative accommodation. We have committed to paying a year's rent for those tenants who will have to relocate. We have also committed to providing assistance for property owners and owner-occupiers to assist them in finding alternative property. The compensation system of the State will kick in to compensate them appropriately for the property that will be acquired. We have the right approach in place and hope to continue with it.

On the increase in the number of buses and the frequency of services, I know that the delegates touched on the issue, but they will know that, as matters stand, it is totally insufficient. As I said, three buses pass by at rush hour before people can get onto a bus. The delegates have said they have already increased the number, but I am not comfortable with it. If BusConnects is to work along orbital routes and more people are to come onto these routes, what concrete plans does the NTA have to increase the number of buses and the frequency of services in order that will not become an even bigger issue?

Ms Anne Graham

We constantly review existing bus services with our operators and look at where there is a requirement for additional services or new services. Obviously, there is always an issue at peak times, which is we try to have as much capacity at those times as possible, but there will be occasions on which demand will exceeds capacity, particularly at peak times. There has been a considerable increase in the frequency of services in the Dublin region. This also applies to Bus Éireann in the services it operates from the regions around Dublin and in the regional cities. In the case of Dublin Bus, we have just introduced a new route - 155 - which runs from Bray across the city to IKEA. It has added significant capacity to the system. Over one to two years we are adding approximately 10% to the capacity of the fleet and the network in Dublin. A similar quantity of buses will be added to the Bus Éireann fleet to meet demand. We will continue to review the position where demand is being exceeded on a constant basis to see whether we can provide additional services, subject to the funding we have available.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

To respond to Deputy Munster's queries, we are conscious that there has been a lot of the growth away from the centre, a large chunk of which has been on the western side of the city. I have to repeat what I said earlier.

We are putting a DART service on the Kildare line, which will be a phenomenal addition to all locations along that line, and I mentioned the Maynooth line, which is further north. Beyond that, we want to make improvements to the bus system and add capacity to it.

To move on to the green line connection, because we have recognised that the green line will need to be upgraded to metro in the future, the tunnel boring works we are doing now are being brought as far as is needed to make that connection at a point in the future without having to do more tunnel boring, and the connection in the future will be from the surface downwards. That is what the MetroLink scheme is lined up to achieve. Consideration of the flexibility to divert it to another location was the essence of the Deputy's question but the issue is what then happens to the green line. The green line will be over capacity at a point in the future so we need to upgrade it. The issue is what we would do if we were not going elsewhere. I will leave aside the fact that this is our transport strategy and we would be undermining it to point it in a different direction.

The timeline for residents moving out of College Gate will have to wait until An Bord Pleanála approves the scheme, if it approves it. There will certainly be a period of time after that, so I would guess we are talking of a period over three years and it could be five years, so the timeline is somewhere in that range.

The Deputy asked about the timeline for purchasing trams for the metro system. The orders will probably be placed about halfway through the construction period. They will need about four years advance ordering at least, so I imagine it will be 2022 or 2023 when the orders are placed for that. It would not affect the placement of orders for the heavy rail fleet. As I said, the tender process to procure DART fleet that will go onto the northern line, the Kildare line and the Maynooth line will kick off next month, so the metro trams will not interfere with that process.

On that point, there is obviously a current capacity constraint, particularly at peak times. There is a real issue in that once the train gets to Leixlip Confey, it is standing room only at all stations at peak time all the way to the city centre. Therefore, the lead-in time is very important because there is already an issue. Will the existing trains or the trains that are to be purchased be compatible with the electrified service?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

Absolutely, yes. Some of them will be bi-mode and will be able to run on the line in advance of electrification.

They will have to be.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

That is the intention.

Is there information on how that capacity constraint can be dealt with in the shorter term? People have been talking about buying in previously owned carriages. If that happens, would that compatibility still be the case? Is it a short-term fix for a long-term problem?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

We know there is a problem during peak hours on rail. To repeat, at the moment there is no spare rail fleet to put into service during peak hours as all available fleet is in service. Unfortunately, there is no quick answer. It will be 2023 before the new DART fleet starts to arrive. There are two other options that are still being worked through. One is whether we could acquire second-hand fleet, although there are questions as to where it would come from and how much modification would be needed. The Irish gauge - the distance between the two tracks - is different from virtually every other European country and any fleet that comes in would have to be modified. We are still working through what that would mean and whether it is worth doing it or not. The second option is to acquire some more of the non-DART-type fleet that were purchased a number of years ago, which are known as intercity rail cars. A large number were purchased six or seven years ago and there could be an option to purchase more of those carriages to extend existing train sets. We will be making decisions on one or other, or both, of those solutions in the next couple of months.

Sorry to harp on about this, but we did have word from Irish Rail that when it went out to purchase, the cost was prohibitive. Is there any change on that?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

That was in regard to a refurbishment contract to refurbish 28 carriages that had been in storage for a long number of years. The problem was that only one tender was received, the cost of refurbishment was almost three quarters the price of new fleet and it was going to take a considerable period of time. They would be a year or two away from-----

That is off the table.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

Unfortunately, we had to conclude it is not value for money and we could not stand over it.

The Deputy asked if there would be consultation on the latter part of BusConnects. I think she meant the bus services consultation.

Yes. There was some public consultation and there were modifications, but we have not seen those modifications on the periphery of the city.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

We are going out with those in September.

I acknowledge I have seen an increase in bus services, with Sunday services and new routes. Most definitely, there is progress. It is important to be balanced and to acknowledge that.

Ms Anne Graham

Deputy Coppinger spoke about areas to the west being bereft. We have covered that in our responses in terms of the strategy and we have responded in regard to Metro West, the Luas to Blanchardstown and the extension from Broombridge to Blanchardstown. Again, it is just that it is not in our strategy. We believe that what is proposed and what we are working on is delivering the strategy, and we will continue to work on that.

Is there any additional information Ms Graham could give Deputy Coppinger after the meeting?

Ms Anne Graham

If it is not available on our website, we will make sure it is available to all committee members.

Ms Graham might make sure Deputy Coppinger gets it, if possible, because it is a fair point.

Ms Anne Graham

I certainly will. We also responded to the Chairman's questions.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

The Chairman made a point about the proposed estuary park and ride. The proposal is a long-term park and ride at estuary metro station which is 3,000-plus spaces and could even turn out to be bigger. We said to Fingal County Council we will bring forward a proposal for a bus-based park and ride in the interim, funded by ourselves. I do not have an up-to-date position on it.

I welcome that. Does Mr. Creegan know how many car parking spaces will be there?

Mr. Hugh Creegan

I do not know.

I welcome the fact the NTA is working on it and that it will be fast-tracked. Obviously, the quicker it is done, the better. The average speed on the M1 at almost any hour of the day is below 80 km/h. I travel by day and by night and it is always packed, always slow and always very frustrating. The more of those cars that can be got off it, the better.

I call Deputy Eamon Ryan.

Senator Kevin Humphreys took the Chair.

It is very welcome to get this opportunity to discuss both the metro and BusConnects projects. I will start with the metro. I very much appreciated the briefing we got yesterday following the NTA's announcement of its latest preferred route alignment. I want to focus on the southside, as a southside Deputy.

I am aware that the preferred alignment from the NTA in regard to bringing the metro onto the green line goes back quite some time - 20 years - to the original decision to build the bigger bridge to cater for it and to widen the tracks. The difficulty we ran into on the section from Dundrum to Ranelagh - it is not just a Ranelagh issue - is that I understand the NTA wants to use a driverless segregated system which would affect the accessibility of the line. This is a real issue. Some people depict people in certain areas as being just NIMBYs but there is a fundamental transport principle around trying to promote pedestrian and cycling accessibility as best we can, as I am sure the NTA would agree. This presented real difficulties. From the NTA's own research, it is clear there is a difficulty in that the potential closure of the line for two years would have huge knock-on consequences for the rest of the network.

I was very glad the Taoiseach, in response to Dáil questions yesterday, indicated the Government's position that, given that circumstances, rather than just delaying 20 years before we carry out the possible works to connect the metro to the green line, we should and could consider alternative route alignments.

I have advocated from the outset that we look to the south west, while other Deputies have acknowledged that areas such as Blanchardstown are a nightmare. The south-west quadrant is a nightmare too, in transport terms, and there is potential for keeping the tunnelling machine going to the south west to serve it.

The Taoiseach favoured running to the south east instead, to UCD, and I hope we will come back with some ideas on this during the consultation period. It has the advantage that UCD and other areas such as Stillorgan, where a big development is planned, could connect to Sandyford. This would solve the long-term capacity concerns on the green line because we would be able to divert traffic coming from Cherrywood on to the direct metro route. It would be a good engineering solution because the entire line would be designed with a driverless segregated system in mind. It would pick up on very busy transport destination points where significant growth is projected.

I have seen the plans for UCD and they include massive development with an increase in student population. The president of UCD was quoted in newspapers this morning as stating that it also brings the prize of connecting the north side and south side and connecting three of our universities, namely, DCU, Trinity College and UCD, with an immense strategic benefit to the city. The president was right to refer to the precedent of Boston where they connected Harvard, MIT and the city centre and it took off as an innovation hub as a result. We should think of creating an enterprising, connected city and this would do that.

I wish to encourage the NTA in this regard. We are in a consultation phase and it is fully appropriate in such a consultation to consider alternatives. We cannot hold a public consultation on a fait accompli or to consider small technical changes. We should be able to look at a realignment, which is a significant change but would deal with the technical problems we have run up against and would bring huge benefits for connectivity within the city. We will have a tunnelling machine coming south of the Liffey in six, seven or eight years' time and we have to work out what we are going to do with it. Alternative alignments make sense in this context. I would like to get the witnesses' response. I acknowledge there will be all sorts of legal and planning difficulties. The transport plan is to upgrade the green line but we can change plans and our system has to be flexible enough to adapt, rather than waiting five years for another plan and starting again. We cannot stop and wait 20 years either, because there would still be difficult engineering problems that would require us to restrict pedestrian access in a way we do not want or close a line for a period.

I support the approach which has been referred to, which might be difficult because it comes from a political system, while the witnesses have to adhere to legislation etc. and ensure the authority is not caught up in the courts over planning challenges. I want to flag the point that the political system may have to give very clear direction in the coming year or six months. That was a lengthy cry for consideration of that alternative.

As for BusConnects, I have been to many public consultation events and have seen Mr. Creegan at a large number of them. I appreciate the calm, reasoned and open approach which I have seen from the NTA. The consultation process has been a good exercise and it has not been not easy as there is a lot of anger and concern out there, which is valid. I am very supportive of the BusConnects project as we have a critical transport crisis in our city, which is not being helped by widening every approach road to Dublin. That does not make any sense to me. Every motorway is being widened and to exaggerate a little, thought was given to chopping down every tree and cutting down all front gardens. We must stop widening the approach roads to Dublin and stop the traffic coming in. What are we doing?

In respect of the bus network, the public consultation meetings have been very detailed and useful in terms of a couple of corridors in my constituency, namely, those in Rathfarnham and Kimmage. We have a problem with the continuation of the four-carriageway design, which is a six-carriageway design if one includes cycle lanes. Real difficulties are being presented on the Kimmage Road Lower, from Sundrive Road to the KCR, and on Terenure Road East, Rathgar Road and Rathfarnham Road. A very extensive removal of front gardens and trees is proposed, as is the creation of a streetscape that I fear means it will not remain a street at all, but become a major distributor road. Living on a distributor road in urban villages and residential communities is a totally different experience from living on a street.

At the same time, we need to protect the bus fleets and improve bus times and services and I am 100% committed to that. There may be a technical solution. I welcome the plans to reduce the amount of through traffic on the two corridors to which I referred, without blocking access. We need to take an approach along the lines of the proposal for the main street in Rathmines, which will be a one-way system for cars, the plan to restrict traffic from Bride Street onto Heytesbury Street and the plans for a bus gate in Harold's Cross, though there are local difficulties around this last plan. These proposals recognise that we are at peak car and cannot cope. We have to restrict traffic while trying to maintain access. Instead of a four-lane approach on the roads I mentioned, we could look at a staggered three-lane approach. We could make sure a bus gets through the light every time and make other reductions in traffic. It should be possible to run the bus at the correct speed and to the correct timetable without having to provide a bus lane for the first 500 m of the road. The buses would always be ahead of the traffic and it would be a general shared lane. With a staggered approach, we may be able to reduce the amount of curtilage that must be taken, as well as diminishing the road's character as a major distributor route, thereby retaining some of the urban and residential character of the areas in question. Do the witnesses see this as an option? It would also have an effect on Nutley Lane and loads of other areas where there are similar difficulties but the effects would be particularly significant in the corridors to which I refer.

I will follow up on Mr. Creegan's answers on College Gate. I still hope College Gate is under consideration for a slight realignment relating to property around there. I know one of the sites creates a difficulty with the main sewer line but if that can be resolved, can the station be moved while maintaining integrated transport? I suggest that a proper costing be carried out on the sewer line during the further public consultation, with a view to opening up alternative options. The normal compulsory purchase order, CPO, mechanism will not work for College Gate. It is a community that has been in the city for several years and there is a mixture of tenants and owner occupiers. In the case of the latter, the current CPO system will not allow them to stay within their own community if it is carried out. I ask for that to be examined.

College Gate is very different from anywhere else because of its location. People who purchased their two-bedroom home in College Gate during the recession got it at a what people would call a good price nice now. If they want to stay within their community, there will be a huge gap between what is a compulsory purchase price and a compensation price than what they can purchase in the immediate area. That reality must be taken into consideration. These people cannot be banished from their communities in which they have lived for decades. Similarly for tenants, I do not believe the proposed one-year system will work.

In terms of bus corridors, Deputy Eamon Ryan has outlined that we do not want the streetscape change. To be fair, Mr. Creegan has worked with me when I made proposals and suggestions in an effort to resolve some of these issues, and I accept that not all of the issues can be resolved. Let me outline one of my concerns. In an effort to make constructive suggestions about how this matter can be resolved, as the witnesses are probably aware, the real-time data for buses are open data, so they are freely and easily accessible. There seems to be a difference of up to 40% between the times stated in the consultation documents and the open real-time data sources that we have accessed. I ask the witnesses to check their data sources. We have 28 or 29 days of data. There are large differences in the times that have been put forward and what is actually shown in the real-time data. We now need local consultation, thus allowing people to bring forward constructive solutions and I am a big supporter of public transport.

As far back as when the metro system was proposed, I always said that no decision would be a worse decision for local communities. We have hit a worse solution for the Charlemont Street line. By building a bus park under Ranelagh, the NTA has sent a clear indication that it will extend the Luas green line. I would like a better technical term than "perhaps" 20 years. I am sure we have real modelling that will tell us within what timeframe it is proposed to extend. I have not encountered the technical terms of "perhaps" before. Anybody living along the line now who wishes to rightsize or downsize will experience a financial depreciation on their properties and probably will not be able to move to suitable accommodation because it will be an automatic discount. This scenario has happened numerous times in terms of plans and certainly within Dublin city. I refer, for example, to the Merrion Gates flyover that was proposed by the NTA. One will see from a property search in the area that it is next to impossible to sell a property there if one wants to move one because potential buyers will see that there is a road reservation in the front garden yet there is no negotiation on a future compulsory purchase. Similar things have happened in other locations, such as the sterilisation of a tract of land in terms of the eastern bypass. Therefore, the NTA must give a little bit more certainty rather than the word "perhaps" so people can understand the future plans and proper timescales. I certainly believe that there are two options, which have been clearly outlined by Deputy Eamon Ryan. One option is to connect UCD or take the line further westward and connect Harold's Cross, Kimmage and up as far as the Rathfarnham bus corridor, which takes over 70,000 passengers and shows there is a demand. I also believe that we should start to plan public transport for this city on a 100-year basis and not on a very short-term basis.

I respect what has happened in Swords. I mean a decision has already been taken about height and density on the expectation that the metro system will go to Swords. As for furnishing data on the viability of taking the MetroLink westward, one could consider, while working with local authorities, that changing the density and height at the locations along the metro line could make the line much more financially sustainable. I believe public transport must be subsidised because cities and communities make other positive gains.

Lastly, the NTA must take on board the fact that this city is made up of villages and, therefore, we must ensure they are not destroyed by the proposals. I urge the NTA that the streetscape is not changed so much that the villages are no longer viable. I lived through the development of the Luas line on Harcourt Street so I know that many of the businesses on Harcourt Street never re-opened after they closed during the construction period. Therefore, the construction proposals must be accompanied by supports for small businesses to ensure that they can exist during construction. We must work imaginatively with the local authorities and take into consideration the loss of business during the construction of BusConnects. At present small businesses and small shops are only hanging in there so one cannot say this project is going to be great, more people will go to the village thus generating more business if one cannot stay open during the construction period. If a small business or shop closes then, more than likely, it will never re-open.

Ms Anne Graham

I will respond first to the point made by Deputy Eamon Ryan about the strategy and changing the metro line to UCD and connecting it with Sandyford. As the Deputy will know, we do need to provide the infrastructure and do it on the basis of our existing transport strategy, which is a statutory plan. Any changes to any alignment would require a change to our statutory document plus there is a time period involved in delivering a change to the transport strategy. We do and we are required, and of course our strategy has to be adaptable to changing circumstances, but there is an allowance in our legislation to review our transport strategy every six years. We will be proposing to do that and to start that work towards the end of next year. We believe it is at that time that any changes or potential changes to alignment would be considered. It is then that one would consider the proposal to go to UCD instead of upgrading the green line to metro level service. If we make changes to our plans now, it means that our transport strategy would have to change. There is a two to three-year period involved in developing a transport strategy, getting it statutorily approved and then delaying the process for the whole MetroLink. We do not think that is something we should bring forward at this stage.

There is absolute agreement that there can be no delay in the broader project. Clearly, we must do things within legislative and other mechanisms but we have a real transport crisis in our city. We face a congestion charge of €2 billion a year because Dublin is such a car dominated city. I recall from our separate work at the Joint Committee on Climate Action that Ms Graham replied to a question that I asked about the estimate. Even with the metro and BusConnects, we are looking at a 30% increase in transport emissions in Dublin by 2030 when we need a 30% reduction at least. So, we have an absolute crisis. I know from the work done by the Joint Committee on Climate Action and other committees that a whole range of measures will have to be taken in other sectors of society, and that we will have to be quick and resolute in our approach. We will not resolve the matter here today, and I hear what the witnesses have said on that aspect. I think the political system is going to come back to the NTA to ask it to come up with ways to speed up the process.

Even if, for some reason, it is ruled out or not agreed, a general approach of delaying transport infrastructure is the last one that we should be adopting. As we have that tunnelling machine coming south of the Liffey, it would be a tragedy to fail to use it in a productive way. Other parts of the city are going to have a similar dramatic increase in the scale of public transport investment we are going to make. That strategy will probably be challenged and changed in other ways. For example, we will have to ramp things up because the climate agreement we will have to conclude with the European Union will say our plans are not sufficient. The national development plan included no climate assessment and there is a legal challenge against that, rightly. We are facing the European Union which is not going to give us an out on our climate emissions targets. We will have to so much more on transport that any plan cannot be regarded as fixed. In particular, where we have a project where this is a variation, any court or planning system will see that, during the consultation process, people came forward with alternative suggestions. If we do not have a public consultation that allows for such variation, that process would say it was not a proper public consultation. While I think it is a proper public consultation, we should not get caught in the weeds of timelines for statutory plans that see us missing an opportunity. That is the one point I would make. If that requires political action by way of legislative or other measures, it will be possible for us to do it. However, we must work fast now to do the modelling quickly and to assess as best we can the alternatives. The political system will be coming looking for that because we have this challenge.

Ms Anne Graham

It is a matter for the political system if it wants to bring that forward. The danger is that it would have an impact on delivery of MetroLink as proposed with regard to the preferred route. There is a risk associated with that and we will be pointing out what it is. Certainly, the political system can come to us and request us to do that work. While we will carry out the work as requested, there is a danger to the delivery of the MetroLink project as it is set out with regard to the preferred route.

We will have to avoid that outcome.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

The Deputy asked about the four lanes, including the bus lane and the traffic lane in each direction, and whether we can go for a three-lane staggered arrangement. The short answer is that while that may be possible in places, we have to be conscious that we are building this for the future. If the queuing extends back beyond the bus lane area into the combined lane, which the Deputy proposes we avoid, we will end up with problems. There may be places where it is the appropriate solution so we will look at it. There is also another way to get to a three-lane arrangement and reduce the land take in one or two places. A one-way piece of street may be appropriate there. We have already had discussions with one or two groups about whether that is appropriate in their particular localities. Both options are available and we will explore them.

We are going to develop Dublin as a city similar to Copenhagen, Amsterdam or Utrecht. Senator Humphreys is right that we have to think long-term. In the long term, the city will not be dominated by cars. It will be dominated by bikes, buses and a rail system. The bike capacity will reduce the number of cars on the road. We must think long-term. It is not that we will continue to provide the existing car system. It will be a completely different city and one that is much better. That is where we are going. In that context, we can start to think not about always providing for the car but providing for those alternatives.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

Deputy Ryan was at some of those meetings and he saw the temperature of the room. Very few people were jumping up and saying let us provide cycle lanes on some of these routes.

There is a huge population in Dublin who think that way now. There is an enormous pent-up demand. No one will go on the roads because it is dangerous.

I do not disagree with anything the Deputy is saying and I support fully the principle, but while I am happy to hear him talk any time, I want to hear from others now. Perhaps I will go to his party conference. I am only joking. I want to move to responses to Senator Humphreys.

Mr. Hugh Creegan

A good few things were mentioned regarding College Gate. We did a great deal of work on College Gate to see if we could avoid having to proceed with the proposal with which we went forward. The honest position is that the proposal with which we went forward previously is still the right one. None of the alternatives is satisfactory. They all have issues. We will put on the MetroLink website within a number of days a comprehensive report setting out all the options that were looked at and the issues with each. People will have the opportunity to review that. They will see that a lot of effort was made to determine how to avoid having to remove those apartments. Unfortunately, we have not been able to do that in this case. On the compulsory purchase order, CPO, system, it was stated that the normal process will not work correctly. We are sort of acknowledging that in what we have put forward. The idea of compensating tenants with up to one year's rent in another location is outside the CPO process and beyond what it normally requires. Rental tenants by their nature only have a fixed tenancy usually. We are going to go above and beyond that. For owner-occupiers, we will try to help them find alternative accommodation in a suitable location. As the Senator said, they are part of a community at this stage and, it is presumed, will be looking to be accommodated somewhere else in that community. We will do all we can to assist them. I agree completely that the normal compensation rules are not enough and we are going above and beyond that.

I will pick up some of the other things, including the streetscape issues. We are very conscious of that and have consulted people. Taking gardens is a significant issue which encompasses what a road will look like afterwards. We are appointing design teams for the project over the next month or so and all of them will include urban realm architects. We will make it a key focus of the project that we end up not only with the transport but a project that respects the character of the areas through which it runs.

I was asked about bus data and open source access. That is understood. When one looks at the open source data, the issue is the variability in the buses. We have not put out a single number and said that every bus journey takes a certain number of minutes. We have had to put out a notice to say journeys take up to a certain amount of time and we have not even gone to the extremes in that regard. The data we have used in our documentation come from the automatic vehicle location data from the buses themselves and we have access to all of that. The calculations that were done came from that system. It demonstrates, if nothing else, the vast variability in bus times. One day a journey takes a certain amount of time and the next day it takes a different amount of time. People find it hard to plan their journeys with confidence on that basis.

I was asked about the sterilisation of properties along the green line and the timescale for its upgrade. The proposals to upgrade the green line to metro will largely mirror the proposals we published last year. People will have seen what the impacts and changes will be. It might vary slightly, but that is the broad outline. As to timescale, we said in our documentation yesterday that we believe we can get the green line to function for up to 20 years, approximately. Close to that time period it will have to change, but we do not have any more detailed information on that yet. I was asked about the metro deviating in another direction towards the Rathfarnham area. Ms Graham has covered the impact on the strategy of making changes at this stage. As the Senator acknowledged, it would require significant development changes to make it slightly higher density.

May I have a point of clarity? In answer to Deputy Ryan, the NTA gave a timeline for the review. We are looking at a review at the end of 2020 which will then take two or three years. In fact, there would be no change if we were to stick to that timeline because it will be four years along and contracts will have been entered into. If it is to go further to the west or down to UCD, we have to take action now.

I am open to this. I would like to see the modelling to see whether it would be best to go west or out to UCD. I would respond to what the Taoiseach said yesterday by emphasising that we need to see the modelling. A political decision should be made to ask the NTA to do the modelling now.

Could the committee make such a request?

We are under significant time pressure.

I understand that. The Chair has been very good.

One of the witnesses needs to leave as well. There is no issue which cannot be brought before the committee by members. I am quite sure-----

I would be interested to hear what Ms Graham has to say on the matter. It might save a little time.

Ms Anne Graham

Significant modelling would have been done for the development of the transport strategy. We would have looked at what mode should serve that quadrant of the city, particularly along the Stillorgan corridor, which serves UCD. It was designed and considered on the basis that the green Luas line would be upgraded to metro and that there would be an expanded and improved DART service on the DART corridor as well. The Stillorgan corridor, which serves UCD at the moment, is in the middle of that. The development of the strategy showed that if both were put in place, the bus system would be able to cater for the demand along the Stillorgan corridor. We can certainly go back and look at the modelling that was done in the lead-up to the strategy and the optioneering that would be done. If we were now to do some modelling on a different proposal, that would involve a significant amount of work.

The point is that the NTA might share what has already been done.

Ms Anne Graham

We will certainly look at sharing what we have done up to now.

The other option is the Rathfarnham corridor. According to the NTA's figures - they are not mine - there has been a 17% increase in bus journeys along that corridor. As a result of higher than expected movements of public transportation and buses, the level of passenger movement on the Rathfarnham corridor is now coming very close to what the Luas is serving on the green and red lines.

Ms Anne Graham

No, it is not. Our estimate, which is based on modelling that was done previously, is that travel demand along the Rathfarnham corridor would not support a Luas or metro service. We can certainly share that information with the committee as well.

That is fair enough. At next Thursday's meeting, we will meet representatives of Sport Ireland. I thank the witnesses who attended today's meeting and provided full replies in every respect.

The joint committee adjourned at 12.55 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 3 April 2019.
Top
Share