The purpose of today's meeting is to engage with Transport Infrastructure Ireland on all areas within its remit. On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to welcome from TII Mr. Lorcan O'Connor, chief executive; Ms Geraldine Fitzpatrick, head of roads and greenways capital programme; Mr. Pat Maher, director of network management; and Dr. Suzanne Meade, senior engineer on roads and tunnel safety. You are all very welcome.

The format of the meeting is that we will hear TII's opening statement followed by a question-and-answer session with members of the committee. I ask members to be concise in their questions to allow the witnesses the opportunity to participate.

I will read out some notes on privilege for our witnesses. You are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that you 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 or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of that person or entity. Therefore, if your statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, you will be directed to discontinue your remarks. It is imperative that you comply with any such direction.

For the members, I remind you of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that you should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I now ask Mr. O'Connor to make his opening statement on behalf of Transport Infrastructure Ireland.

I thank the Chair, Deputies and Senators for the opportunity to appear before the committee. As you mentioned, Chair, I am joined by my colleagues Ms Geraldine Fitzpatrick, head of roads and greenways capital programme; Mr. Pat Maher, director of network management; and Dr. Suzanne Meade, senior engineer, roads and tunnel safety. Given that we were before the committee relatively recently, I know members are familiar with TII and, therefore, I propose to provide only a brief update on some of our activities. We have also provided an appendix with some project-specific updates as part of our submission of the opening statement.

First, I will speak to capital delivery and new projects, which are a key area of TII's responsibilities.

Turning to roads first, we have three major national road projects under construction: the N5 Ballaghaderreen to Scramoge, the N21 Adare bypass and the M28 Cork to Ringaskiddy, all on time and on schedule. The Adare bypass is due for completion by July 2027, which demonstrates what can be achieved through innovation and inter-agency collaboration.

The N2 Slane bypass was granted planning approval by An Coimisiún Pleanála in July 2025 but is currently in a judicial review process. Members will be aware that the Galway city ring road was approved by An Coimisiún Pleanála in April 2026. There is currently a standstill period until mid-June in relation to that project. The Donegal TEN-T planning application was submitted to An Coimisiún Pleanála and published on 14 May, which is a significant milestone for the delivery of national road improvements in County Donegal and the north west.

Other projects in the pipeline which will proceed to gate 1 approval this year include the N4 Carrick-on-Shannon bypass, the N21 Newcastle West bypass and the Mallow relief road. In 2026 TII reactivated a significant number of projects following the NDP review in 2025.

Turning to light rail, the Luas Finglas railway order has been granted, and the Luas Cork preferred route has been published and is out for public consultation until mid-June. We are working on the emerging preferred routes for Luas Lucan and Luas Poolbeg and expect to bring Lucan to an initial public consultation later this year and Poolbeg early next year. We look forward to commencing planning on further Luas lines as prioritised by the NTA and fulfilling the vision of the NTA's greater Dublin area transport strategy.

Turning to MetroLink, the programme achieved a landmark milestone in January of this year with the receipt of the operational railway order, granting full planning approval for the entire scheme. Following this, MetroLink commenced into full procurement for all major infrastructure packages, starting with the launch of the contract notices for the M400 heavy civil engineering packages in February. This was quickly followed by the launch of the M500 contract notice for the design, build, finance, operate, and maintain package covering station fit-out and railway systems, the depot for the fleet, the rolling stock itself and tunnel and station fit-outs. That happened in April. TII recently completed and submitted the revised business case for the project to the NTA as part of the approval gate 2 process.

I will now touch on accelerating infrastructure, which is a key feature of the current Government's priorities but also, in light of the overall infrastructure deficit, so important across the board. TII acknowledges improvements in several areas, supported by the accelerating infrastructure task force and the Department of public expenditure's infrastructure division. We welcome the Government's Critical Infrastructure Bill, which we consider an important step in supporting the delivery of strategically significant infrastructure.

We acknowledge from recent experience that An Coimisiún Pleanála is achieving its target timelines, and the courts system has reduced the delays associated with the judicial review process. The measures proposed have the potential to enhance certainty and efficiency in the planning and approval process, which is critical to meeting the State's transport, climate, housing and economic objectives, while improving the effectiveness and efficiency of public participation and judicial supervision. TII is committed to working in collaboration with Government Departments, State agencies and stakeholders to assist in delivering on the Government's strategic investment objectives.

Turning to day-to-day operations, traffic volumes increased across the national road network in 2025. Taking the M50 as an example, we have seen an increase of an average of 2%. Cumulatively, since the end of the Covid pandemic, M50 traffic volumes have increased by approximately 10%. Some 65% of TII's annual roads budget is allocated to the operation, improvement and maintenance of the national roads network. This funding is targeted at maintaining the asset value, improving efficiency and safety, and supporting connectivity. The level of funding available is challenging. The various programmes are therefore prioritised based on safety surveys and a condition assessment across the network. Currently, as we approach the 20th anniversary of the completion of the major inter-urban motorway network, funding levels are insufficient to undertake essential life-cycle asset renewals for ageing infrastructure and to maintain the asset value of that network, conservatively estimated at €31 billion. Additional funding is required to continue to effectively maintain the network and address the challenges of resilience and climate change.

On the light rail side, Luas patronage has grown by almost 60% over the past decade and it continues to grow. TII expects the Luas will carry approximately 60 million passengers this year, making it the busiest railway in the country. A new timetable was introduced last year, providing much-needed extra capacity on both lines, and further enhancements are planned for next year. In terms of the asset base, TII has been actively strengthening our capability and capacity to deliver a step change in asset investment, which is necessary to protect the performance and reliability of the network, which is now over 20 years old.

TII is working with the NTA to agree increased multi-annual funding and to streamline approval processes for the asset renewal works. There are many benefits, including reduced costs and improved value for money, consequent on evolving to a multi-annual planning and delivery approach for asset management, much like what is in place at the moment for the heavy rail side.

The light rail asset base is valued at approximately €2 billion. TII is currently spending about €115 million per annum to provide services and maintain the network. Ticketing revenue in 2026 will be in the region of €60 million. TII also invests a further €20 million of capital funding on asset investment and asset renewal works. Longer term projections undertaken in 2025 highlight the need for approximately €1.8 billion over the next 20 years in asset life-cycle investment, which equates to about €90 million per annum over the next number of years.

I will touch briefly on the national development plan, NDP, and investment in infrastructure. TII looks forward to the future mid-term review of the NDP because it will provide an important opportunity to align infrastructure investment with evolving national priorities, including population growth, regional development, climate objectives and economic competitiveness. TII looks forward to engaging constructively in that process to help ensure that future investment is targeted, sustainable and delivers maximum value for the State. A combination of factors, including ageing infrastructure, increasing congestion, the need for more transport-orientated development, climate adaptation and inflation, point to the mid-term review of the NDP requiring important investment decisions to be made for transport infrastructure to meet the above-mentioned national priorities. A key consideration for investment is the need to put operations, maintenance and asset renewal of transport infrastructure on a sustainable funding basis. The motorway network, the light rail network and other national primary and secondary roads need steady and reasonable investment to be kept in a safe and useable condition.

TII acknowledges the level of concern around the delivery of the greenway programme and is actively engaging to address these concerns in conjunction with the Department of Transport. The Department is progressing a review of the greenway strategy which will include consultation with stakeholders, including local authorities and interest groups. Separately, TII will review the code of practice for greenways. Through this process key areas such as route selection, safety standards, accessibility, environmental stewardship and user experience will be considered. The objective is to ensure high-quality, consistent delivery across the network, while also facilitating efficient project development and public confidence in greenway projects.

The road safety programme remains a central priority for TII, aligned with the Government’s Road Safety Strategy 2021–2030. We have continued to scale up delivery of low-cost remedial safety schemes which are a highly effective means of addressing collision risks on the national road network. Over 210 road safety schemes have been delivered and we will continue to deliver more schemes as funding is made available as part of the ongoing road safety programme. These schemes include measures such as improved road markings, enhanced signage, speed management interventions, junction visibility improvements and traffic calming features. Importantly, these interventions are data led, with investment targeted at locations with identified collision histories or risk profiles. Delivery is undertaken in close collaboration with local authorities, and the programme is benefiting from streamlined design and approval processes, enabling more rapid rollout. While small in scale individually, collectively these measures are delivering meaningful reductions in collision risks and supporting safer outcomes for all road users.

The national safety camera strategy was published by the Department of Transport in April. The strategy confirms TII's role through participation in the camera enforcement oversight group and in advancing key elements of the strategy. In the short term, TII will lead the update of the safety camera handbook and will develop a TII roadmap for delivering its expanded role in the delivery and management of speed cameras.

Finally, I will turn to Zero Emission Vehicles Ireland, ZEVI. I am conscious that only this morning the EPA issued an analysis of the country's emissions reductions targets and the challenges in the transport sector in particular. In that context, the work of the ZEVI team is all the more important. The Department of Transport has recently published a draft electric vehicle charging infrastructure strategy, running to 2028, for consultation. The draft strategy reaffirms the Government’s commitment to expanding and modernising Ireland’s EV charging network. This strategy is a key enabler of our transition to zero-emission transport and supports our national target of having 30% of the private car fleet switched to electric vehicles by 2030. As Ireland continues to decarbonise its transport sector, demand for EVs is growing steadily. There are approximately a quarter of a million EVs in Ireland. In the last year alone, EVs grew by over 63,000 and there is a notable uptick in EV penetration in parallel with recent global events and the impact on the fuels industry. With the recent transition of ZEVI into TII, we are continuing to expand the infrastructure delivery phase of the strategy with plans across the national road network and at regional and local destinations and neighbourhoods. The transition reflects confidence in TII’s ability to delivery complex national programmes and strengthens TII’s role in supporting Ireland’s climate transition.

TII’s priority is around accelerating delivery of new infrastructure and the protection of our existing assets, which are so important to both the economy and society. TII remains committed to working collaboratively with this committee, the Department of Transport, the NTA, local authorities and all key stakeholders to ensure effective and timely delivery across all our programmes. We are happy to take any questions members may have.

I thank Mr. O'Connor for his opening statement which reflects the scale of TII's remit. I will move immediately to members for questions. They have seven minutes each initially. We may have an opportunity for a follow-up three-minute question and answer session.

I thank all the witnesses for their time today. I will start with road safety. One issue I have raised repeatedly with TII is the stop-go system on the N65 at Heathlawn. We had a meeting back in March in relation to that. It is almost two years since that system was put in place and there is still no sign of repair works starting on the road. When we met back in March, the timeline given was that the design process would be finished around the end of May, it would go to tender afterwards and that tender process would take one to two months, with construction beginning in late summer. I ask for an update on that. Are we still on track to meet that timeline?

That is a specific question that I will pass to my colleague, Ms Fitzpatrick.

There are two aspects to this. The consultants are in place and are doing the design. It is quite a complex situation in that it is a sensitive river and a culvert has collapsed. In parallel, in order to try to relieve the position, we have been engaging with the county council, which will put temporary measures in place while the procurement is ongoing to allow for the removal of the traffic lights. That is to happen next month. The local authority will put a temporary measure in place so that the stop-go system can be removed. Meanwhile, the full procurement is ongoing. The design should be completed and the procurement will happen in September, with a view to the construction of the ultimate solution later in the year.

What are those temporary measures that are going to be put in place?

It is some kind of temporary culvert, providing support for the culvert, so that the protection that is there can be removed to allow two-way movement. I do not have the ins and outs of the actual construction, but we have been engaging with the county council because we acknowledge that this is taking a long time. There is pressure to open up the road better for the people out there. The council, as late as yesterday, said that it has something it can put in place that will relieve the pressure there.

Will those lights be gone from next month and not be coming back?

I do not know exactly how long the temporary measures will take but they are temporary. Ultimately, it will have to come back with a contract to the end of the year in order to put in the final solution and make sure it is actually robust and the right solution. In the meantime, a temporary solution is being designed.

That is perfect. I will move on to greenways and TII's role, on which the committee has had hearings previously. It is my understanding that the review of the code of practice has not started yet. Is that correct? If so, why has it not started yet and what is the timeline for it?

There are a couple of issues at play here. We have an existing code of practice that we work to in progressing various greenway projects currently. Within that code there is an annual review. The most recent review was undertaken in the springtime of this year but it was done in a broader context whereby in June, the Department of Transport will undertake a broader strategic review of the overall greenway programme. It is envisaged that there will be further enhancements around the approach to greenways over the next number of months as a result of that Department's strategic review. We, together with various other stakeholders, will take an active part in that. However, regarding the code we operate currently, which we spoke about a good deal at our last meeting, its annual review was undertaken in the springtime, in the knowledge that there was to be a broader review undertaken this summer.

Is that review starting next month? How long is that process expected to take?

I think it will be in the next two or three months.

It is a matter of months. The engagement has already commenced. A number of people have already been notified that this is going to take place.

Who has been notified specifically? I have had complaints from landowners in my constituency that they have not been involved in this review process at all. I would argue that the landowners are probably the most important stakeholder in all of this. It is very important that they are brought on board. How is that managed?

It has only commenced. The technical advisers or consultants had to be taken on board to carry out the review because there needs to be an external review by another party. They have commenced and, as of yesterday, a number of people were notified by email of potential contact from the consultants to engage in the process. It will be phased and it will take a period of time. There are a number of different sectors being targeted, such as delivery partners, policymakers, the representatives of the landowners and action groups. There will be an invitation to everybody during the next number of months.

When Ms Fitzpatrick says "everybody", does she mean every affected landowner will have an opportunity to take part?

No, it will be representative bodies. That happens first. Then the strategy will be looked at. A draft strategy will be published and then there will be another opportunity to feed into that. There are going to be two opportunities in the process. It does not mean contacting individual landowners.

Will there be no public consultation?

There will be public consultation on the draft strategy following all of the engagement initially.

I have only a short time left. The Galway city ring road was mentioned in the capital programme update. Will the witnesses outline TII's role in that project and, all going well, the timeline for it?

Ultimately, it is a Galway council project. We will obviously be working closely with it but we need to observe the current standstill period through to the middle of June and then look, in terms of funding thereafter, at what can be done with that project.

I will go to Senator Cosgrove and then come back to Deputy O'Gorman.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. They are very welcome. I have only a few points I want to raise, so I will ask some quick questions. Who has the responsibility for the allocation of bus stops? Is it TII or is it local authorities?

It is not TII, other than in terms of assessing particular locations from a road safety perspective.

How does that work? This comes up a lot. It seems to go back to TII or it goes back to the local authorities. If there is a request for a bus stop in an area, who makes the final decision on that? Is it the local authority or is it TII?

It would be the local authority.

I live in the north west. The route of the Sligo, Leitrim and Northern Counties Railway, SLNCR, is one of the potential greenways being looked at. I have met lots of different people, both individual and groups, on this and there is a lot of concern. Even when people meet the project liaison officers, the PLOs seem to fob them off. The landowners feel as if they are not being listened to, despite engaging with the local PLOs. They want to engage and want to have some negotiation on this. If the old railway is not working, they are very willing to have other parcels of their land used. They feel frustrated that they are not being listened to. A lot of the landowners I have met said they have become disconnected and fed up with it. In the review could there be a full, structured, budget-led approach? There is an awful lot of stress being caused and an awful lot of worry. They are looking at the estimates for the whole 60 greenways and they do not seem to be syncing. Are the budgets realistic for what is being planned for the greenways overall?

What is TII's opinion of its level of engagement? Is its level of flexibility with landowners adequate? Everyone wants to see greenways in the west, particularly in our area where we could badly do with the tourism and also for cross-Border relationships. It seems there is an unnecessary lack of flexibility. I do not know whether that is from Arup. It also seems the PLOs are not engaging as they should be.

That flexibility the Senator is talking about is exactly what the overall review will, hopefully, identify over the next while. Ultimately, these projects are local authority-led and I would like to think there is open engagement with landowners and there is a fair assessment of various sections.

Landowners are saying this goes back to Arup. They say the PLOs are engaging with them but they do not seem to take responsibility because they say it goes back to Arup. Is it realistic to believe these greenways will be delivered within the budgets?

We have about €60 million a year for greenways. If we look at every potential greenway project in the country, €60 million a year is going to take a long time to-----

It is a drop in the ocean.

-----eat into that. Having said that, there are a number of projects that merit progressing through to construction. We have to manage the budget as we would under any other area of activity across TII, in terms of prioritising those projects that present-----

I apologise for cutting across Mr. O'Connor. Are there landowners going through unnecessary stress given that these greenways may not be delivered at all?

When we are talking about individual land parcels that is very personal, and I could not deny that it would cause some stress. However, where we are coming up with a potential preferred route and narrowing down further, there is a greater clarity around what sort of land take might be required. The precise timing of that can be difficult to estimate early on in the process but we certainly try to be as open and transparent as we can be in progressing those projects. When I say "we" that means the local authority.

Are the budgets that have been allocated for greenways unrealistic given the scale of the ambition?

That will be considered as part of the strategy review as well. We believe there are lessons to come out of all of this. The strategy is looking at those and at the whole programme. There is an opportunity, through the strategy review, to look at the way things are delivered.

To get the structural budget.

Yes. That is happening at the moment.

When is the review due to be published?

The initial publication is towards the end of the year. It takes time to have that engagement-----

Of course, yes.

-----and to give people the opportunity to feed into the process.

There is other very positive engagement. I am just focusing on some of the concerns that have been brought up with me.

It will take time. There are a lot of things to look at.

Does Ms Fitzpatrick expect the review to be finished by the end of the year?

It will include looking at the overall programme, among other things.

It should also look at realistic budgets.

It may be necessary to break down schemes and things like that. There are a number of issues to examine. It is going to happen and we will look at all of that.

I thank Ms Fitzpatrick. I have only one minute left. The witnesses probably saw the "Prime Time" programme last night about road safety, which showed that even with the ambitious plan for camera provision set out in the strategy, it will go nowhere near meeting what is needed. I am interested in the witnesses' views on that report. Did they see it?

I did not see the programme. As we mentioned in our introductory statement, a new national camera road safety strategy was published in April. We are part of an implementation group with the National Transport Authority that is looking at advancing that strategy as best as possible. As the Senator noted, we need roll-out of a critical mass of cameras to drive a change in motorist behaviour.

Is the strategy ambitious enough?

In terms of where it wants to get to, yes, but we need to start moving quickly to make it visible.

I thank Mr. O'Connor.

The national camera safety strategy is something I have been calling for. Its publication, which happened earlier this month, was delayed for quite a long time. I understand TII was very involved in its drafting. What happens next with that strategy? There is good stuff in it but I was alarmed to see no clarity as to timelines. There are a lot of recommendations as to decisions that will have to be taken by the Government and State agencies, but there is no clear setting out of what will happen next. Mr. O'Connor said he is on the implementation body. How often has that body met so far? Does he have a timeline for the delivery of the critical mass of safety cameras at junctions and speeding points around the country?

That group has just been established, with Ms Anne Shaw, CEO of the NTA-----

Has it met yet?

No. The strategy has just been published. Ms Shaw, who will chair the group, has a lot of experience of road safety measures from her prior role. Other bodies represented on the group include An Garda Síochána and the Courts Service. We will meet in the next couple of weeks with a view to putting in place an implementation plan over the next number of months and years. I agree with the Deputy that we need to start rolling out the strategy.

Will Departments be represented on the body?

They will not be represented but we expect to report back regularly to the two main Departments, which are Transport and justice.

One of the recommendations in the strategy is the creation of a new public body to run the new network of cameras. That will require quite a significant decision by the Government. It is hard to see how it can be carried forward by the group on which Mr. O'Connor sits if Government representatives are not present.

As I see it, there are two main areas within the strategy. One is the road safety speeding camera initiative, with TII responsible for the deployment and maintenance of those cameras and An Garda Síochána responsible for enforcement. The other is the NTA side, whereby it will manage the process throughout in terms of the urban environment, including enforcement of bus lanes and other factors. They are the two main areas envisaged and they are the main areas in which we can make progress in the shortest time, which would serve everybody well.

Is the recommendation to establish a new public body not being carried forward?

Unless I am mistaken, I am not aware of that recommendation being within the latest strategy. Certainly, the two main elements are, as I have said.

Chapter 5.7 of the strategy, which sets out the working group's assessment conclusion, recommends such a body as a measure for addressing the long-term operation of cameras.

Perhaps that will be done in the long term but what we are really focused on is trying to make as much progress as we can on the road safety elements of camera enforcement. I have described the two areas in which we can make the greatest impact in the shortest time.

Will Mr. O'Connor's group be setting out a timetable for the achievement of the various elements, and if so, will that be a publicly available document?

I do not think the group would have any issue with making it public.

This relates to accountability. I am sure everyone in the group is committed to the delivery of the strategy but if it does not include a timetable, concerns arise. If the group starts meeting with its members but no one else knows the timetable, does Mr. O'Connor agree it will be hard to achieve that element of accountability?

For sure we need to have a timetable with actions and target deadlines.

Is that something Mr. O'Connor expects to come out of the initial meeting?

I do not know whether it will come out of the initial meeting but it would be one of the first deliverables we would expect to come out of the group.

The Department of Transport's sectoral plan, which was published late last year, refers to the Luas extension to Finglas commencing construction in 2029. I find that hard to understand given the planning permission has been granted and the judicial review resolved. Why must we wait another two and a half years for construction to commence?

It is fantastic that we now have an operational railway order and no more judicial reviews. I thank the parties involved that helped us to get to this point. We are now working, together with the National Transport Authority, on progressing the business case in terms of approval gate 2. Should funding become available, we believe we will be able to accelerate the overall timeline for the project.

To clarify, TII is preparing the business case to the Government seeking the funding to deliver the Finglas Luas.

That is correct.

If the Government were to bring forward an early decision on funding, does Mr. O'Connor believe TII could go earlier?

Correct.

When will that business case be submitted to the Government?

It is currently with the National Transport Authority.

Does the NTA need to complete the business case?

We are the sponsoring authority for the project. The NTA is the approving authority. Following its approval, the business case will go to the Department.

Does Mr. O'Connor have any sense from the NTA as to when the business case will go forward?

I expect to be in a position towards the end of the year where that process or assessment will be completed.

How long will the procurement take?

We are looking at the best part of a year between the two-phase procurement process and, ultimately, contractual negotiations with the preferred bidder. What we could be saying is that 2027 has the potential to be the year of procurement, with construction potentially starting the following year.

Construction could start in 2028. The date could come forward but it is dependent on a Government decision on the provision of funding.

I understand a pre-feasibility study was done on the Luas extension to Poolbeg. How is that impacting on the further development of that Luas project?

I ask Mr. O'Connor to be very brief in his response.

Sure. We are working on preferred routes for both Lucan and Poolbeg. We hope to publish a potential route for Lucan before the end of this year and for Poolbeg by early next year.

I thank Mr. O'Connor.

Senator Duffy is down for the next slot. He has communicated to me that he wants to switch with Deputy Boland. I will allow it because he is in the room.

This committee is stricter on speaking rights than the Committee of Public Accounts. I have a question about the M1. Balbriggan, which I represent, is very strategically located on that very important economic corridor. I expect the witnesses will agree with me that junctions 5 and 6 are not fit for purpose in serving the current number of residents and in the context of the planned residential and commercial growth. I would like to gain an understanding from Mr. O'Connor of what we can do to move things forward, including what needs to happen with the local authority. Will he commit to working with me and the local authority to make sure those junctions are upgraded such that they are fit for purpose and will serve the economic and residential needs of this significantly growing area?

Certainly our commitment is to work with all stakeholders, including Fingal County Council, on the requirements in that area. Overall, the National Transport Authority is responsible for the transport strategy in the greater Dublin area and as you would expect that is focused on public transport and active travel. It does not envisage any significant roads infrastructure within the GDA at this stage. As for any specific projects or enhancements to the existing network, we are open to considering those. I ask my colleagues to speak to what we are currently dealing with in terms of Fingal County Council.

We have a regional management structure, so there is a senior engineering inspector who deals specifically with the country council. I understand there has been engagement on changes to junctions 5 and 6. That kind of interface is ongoing. We are happy at any point to engage in that process, but it will come first from the local authority to us and then we engage from there. That is happening.

I appreciate that. What I would like to see is a very constructive engagement. The town of Balbriggan has grown by over 200% in 30 years. I appreciate what Mr. O'Connor is saying but we cannot leave hugely growing residential and commercial areas behind by having them relying on what are outdated, essentially rural, layouts that are not fit for purpose as the main arteries into a growing town and its surrounding area. There is also the commercial imperative to deliver the appropriate infrastructure to market Balbriggan as a very attractive entity, not just in Ireland but compared with its European peers. I would like to see TII work with Fingal County Council very constructively.

I always wonder about the value of State agencies putting in planning objections to other State entities' planning permissions. I would prefer if things were resolved before we got to that stage. Even from a funding perspective, funding litigation is expensive. As a lawyer, I can tell the witnesses the only ones who make money out of these things are lawyers. It is better if we do it constructively. I really appreciate TII's commitment to work constructively and to work with Fingal County Council. I thank the officials for pointing out the NTA. I will also follow up with it on ensuring we are all aligned in delivering the infrastructure that is very badly needed for Balbriggan.

Turning to the metro, what is the status of the dedicated operating company?

That would probably be what we are calling the M500. What we did at the end of April was issue a contract notice, which is the first stage of the procurement process, looking for consortia to express an interest in operating the metro for the first 25 years of its life. It is not just the operation of the metro but also the fit-out of the stations, the supply of the rolling stock and all the other bits and pieces that would go with that. That contract notice issued at the end of April. We hope that will result in a shortlist of consortia that would then be invited to bid for the full-on tender, which would commence in the autumn.

That company will not only do the fit-out, etc. but will also be the operating entity.

Correct.

Will that be the company that is working on delivering the metro until we get to the operation of the metro?

Correct.

On the procurement process, which State entity will be entering into the agreement with the consortium?

That will be Transport Infrastructure Ireland. The Government has stated there is an intention in due course to set up a special delivery body reflective of the scale of MetroLink. If and when that is established, various contracts are likely to be novated across to that entity but for now the contracting entity is Transport Infrastructure Ireland.

I noted Mr. O'Connor said funding is "challenging". How is that worked out with the Department? Is it the Department that allocates funding to TII? Does TII essentially go in and plead its case on a yearly basis? Is that how it works?

Yes. That reflects, I suspect, the way it operates all across government. We identify on an annual basis what our requirements are. Obviously, there is a finite amount of money available but equally we are looking at our longer term requirements. Hence in my opening statement I talked about the need for asset renewal and maintenance. Climate adaptation is another area where we have done a lot of work and Mr. Maher's team has recently published a paper setting out the requirements for climate adaptation over the next number of years. What we are calling out is that while there are various new projects we are very proud to be progressing, with the rest of the business there is a need to maintain the asset and ensure we protect it for the taxpayer and users.

It is also the upgrades. If I want the upgrades of junctions 5 and 6 I need to be advocating for the funding.

Yes, those too.

I thank Mr. O'Connor.

I have a couple of questions about the proposed Limerick to Cork motorway. I was on the call in 2025 where the layout of the road was outlined, as well as the route that had been picked. There was also mention of the tolls and how a toll at every junction was being considered. Is that still the case or will it be just one toll on the route?

I ask Ms Fitzpatrick to give the Senator a more specific update on the project overall, but demand management would be an essential element of the overall project.

On the tolling, what is proposed is called multipoint tolling. It is not necessarily a tollbooth on each junction. It is a number of payments depending on the amount you travel. There would be multiple points where there would be a payment associated with it. The reason we are looking at tolling is we have to look at demand management in terms of other priorities. It may not necessarily be tollbooths at junctions. It will relate to the distance you travel on the road itself.

I was just thinking about how I can go all the way from Limerick to Dublin and just hit one toll of €3.20 for the car. If you were to go the entire way from Limerick to Cork on the proposed M20 would the different tolls be equivalent to that or multiples of it?

It will have to be proportional. It will not be excessive because if it is people will not use the road. We want people to use the facility and we want them to travel on it because it will be a much safer road. We have not got to the point of determining the actual amount but the objective is to get people to use the road as a better facility.

Yes. I am just conscious that if it was going to be multiples of a toll cost-----

That is not the intention.

-----we are going to end up putting people back on the N20, which has some of the most dangerous junctions in the country. It is really important. People have been waiting over 20 years to get this road done. It will be fantastic when it is. Do we have an ETA? I am being very ambitious today.

It is complex. We are hoping the business case will be submitted next year rather than this year. Then it will have to go for Government approval for the funding to submit it to An Coimisiún Pleanála.

Okay. It will be another while.

Yes, but a lot of work has been done, as the Senator can appreciate. A full business case has been prepared for next year for that approval.

Perfect. I am going to stick to that road. TII has a project at O'Rourke’s Cross. Is that the roundabout people were hoping would be put in there?

I will have to just check the notes.

I have thrown a spanner in the works now. It is on the N20. O'Rourke's Cross is probably the most dangerous junction on that road. It was proposed to have a roundabout and then it went-----

I am sorry. There are issues. There has been a judicial review in relation to it-----

Yes.

-----so it is held up until we can come out of that process.

Is that still in process? It is not finished.

That is still in a process, yes. It is ongoing.

Okay.

Again, I am just looking for an update on the new Newcastle West and Abbeyfeale bypasses. I know routes have been chosen.

Preferred routes for both of those are in place. Both will have to go for approval to publish them. One is slightly ahead of the other. I think Abbeyfeale will go for business case approval this year, while the other one, Newcastle West, will go next year. They are going well and are on track. I am not aware of any immediate issues with them so, hopefully, we will see progress towards the end of the year.

That is great.

I have a lot of questions about greenways, walkways and roads. The witnesses spoke about light rail, which is fantastic if you are lucky to have it. Where I live, Mizen Head, is 126 km from light rail and there is nothing between that and light rail but the road. It is 131 km to Ardgroom and 118 km to Sheep's Head. That is fine if there is a proper road structure. There is no point in saying we will get light rail. Light rail came within 3 km of me 100 years ago. That tells us how far we had progressed at that time but that is not the case now. There is no point in TII saying it is going to bring light rail to Schull, Skibbereen or Bandon. It is not going to happen. What is TII's vision for people in that situation, not me personally but the tens of thousands of others? Where is its vision of providing funding for bypasses in Innishannon, in Bandon, both north and south, and in Bantry, along with passing bays because drivers can be stuck behind a tractor for half an hour sometimes, especially during silage season? What is TII's vision for west Cork. I am being very parochial about it.

I will answer that in two or three different ways. In terms of our short- to medium-term vision, it involves the various projects listed in the sectoral plan. Beyond that, we will be certainly working very closely with Cork County Council to understand medium to longer term requirements. The third element of that is around public transport provision to encourage modal shift. That talks to the Connecting Ireland programme from the NTA and trying to ensure there are viable options for people, whether that is to complete their entire journey by bus or to shift to rail at an appropriate opportunity. Those are the three elements to the overall assessment.

I am not being in any way rude but none of those are happening. I realise that Local Link might be an opportunity to bus people to a train station, which would be a fantastic place to start. It is now putting out tenders for routes. I spoke on that in the Dáil yesterday. I cannot understand why TII has not yet spoken to Cork County Council. West Cork is part of Ireland. I am pleading with TII to look at the N71 and have passing bays there. Why should somebody spend half an hour behind a vehicle? It is the height of danger to spend half an hour behind a tractor or lorry when there are simple open bays to the left and right like there are in every other country. I am pleading with TII to look at that.

I assure the Deputy that we have regular engagement with Cork County Council. In Mr. Maher's area of roads maintenance, there has been a significant increase in funding to the entire county this year. I am conscious that County Cork has a huge share of the overall regional and national road network in the country, so it is particularly important. There has been a significant increase.

Yes, but to me it is pothole repair. I am looking for a vision of a road on which people can travel in safety and can travel 80, 100 or 120 km without going 20 km/h behind a tractor for half and hour or 45 minutes. That is the real story. I know it. I have lived through. It is hair-pulling stuff. I would appreciate it if TII would consider roads in west Cork for a special study. I cannot understand how Cork County Council is not communicating with TII already. I am astounded that this has not been delivered on or that there has not been at least some movement on it.

Regarding greenways, TII is saying that it is starting to engage with people, that the review of the code of practice is under way and that it is communicating that with people. The National Greenway Action Association did not get any communication from TII.

It is only starting. It is going to happen over the next number of months. The technical advisers are only just in place.

Will the National Greenway Action Association be included?

It will be contacted to feed into the process.

I appreciate that. Regarding the greenway projects TII has in mind, how much will they cost and will TII be able to complete all those projects?

As I mentioned to a member earlier, we have approximately €60 million a year for greenways. That is part of a much wider active travel budget the Government has that the NTA would largely deliver upon. That is €60 million a year. It will take a long time to work through the various projects we are looking at. Obviously, there are certain projects that were not being accelerated ahead of others. That is the budget we have in any given year.

Is TII going to get through 20%, 50% or 80% of its projects?

At the moment, we have a number of live projects ahead. In our annual report, we talked about the number of kilometres already provided. There are certain opportunities for certain routes that can try to source grant funding from other sources, which will obviously help. We have a number of projects in construction.

There are about five that are priority and under construction. We accept that it is quite a big programme and we are looking at that in terms of the amount of money we have.

As an option, compulsory purchase orders, CPOs, still stand.

As a last resort.

CPOs have been pushed ahead as the main resort from what many people have told me. That is causing serious stress to a lot of landowners. Did TII ever walk the Sheep's Head Way, look at it and see how that was done? A CPO was not used there and it is a fantastic walk up into the Beara Way. There were no CPOs used. I completely oppose CPOs given the stress they cause. I am getting emails from landowners who may have their farms split in two, with massive roadways of tar going through them. It is not acceptable. It can never be acceptable to use a CPO for recreational purposes. Maybe they can be used for serious infrastructure such as roads.

I welcome the witnesses. I raise the chronic traffic issues in Ballina, which I have raised in the committee previously. Unfortunately, the problem has got worse since I last raised it. Ballina relies on two bridges built in the mid-1850s. Since then, no other road bridge has been built over the River Moy in north Mayo. It is an area that serves over 30,000 people, from west Sligo all the way into north Mayo, and congestion in the town is at a chronic level. What will amplify that pressure in the coming months is the fact that works are being carried out on one of the relief roads, which was a back road called Bunnafinglas Road. The works are being carried out by EirGrid to lay a new 110 kVA cable from Ballaghaderreen into Ballina. This is going to amplify traffic issues and choke the town. The local council has made some minor attempts to improve safety at junctions on Kevin Barry Street, which have caused huge tailbacks beyond the train station.

I cannot reiterate enough how much we need TII's intervention to move forward with phase 2 of the Ballina bypass, which involves an eastern bypass over the River Moy. I am conscious of and welcome the progress on phase 1, from Foxford Road on to Crossmolina Road, which will allow some partial relief. The last time TII attended the committee, I asked for intervention specifically on the eastern bypass. I would like an update on that.

I will ask my colleague to go into some of the detail for the Senator in a moment, but I understood clearly the issues he raised the last time around, and he set them out there again. There is some progress on phase 1 but ultimately it is a funding issue and it does come to-----

Has TII requested funding from the Department for phase 2?

We would be equally reliant on the county council to come to us with a proposal or assessment, as such, that could then go into the system to deal with that. Perhaps Ms Fitzpatrick could add to that.

As Senator Duffy acknowledged, the first phase of the Ballina bypass is going for planning approval this year. That project is delivered under what we call a "minors" programme. We have about €60 million a year for that programme. The bypass is competing against a multitude of other projects around the country.

We are competing against generations of lack of investment in that area. I understand that there are competing projects across the country. I am specifically talking about phase 2, which is the River Moy crossing. First, the town is choked on a daily basis and, second, if we want to have any prosperity or economic future, especially when we are trying to develop industrial and commercial lands on the Sligo Road side of town, that cannot be realised properly and effectively without the eastern bypass. This is a generational investment that should have been done long ago. I do not know why it has not been on the table. I am in the Oireachtas 18 months. Obviously, I have raised the matter at this committee previously and in my time as a councillor, along with all councillors locally. What I am asking for is urgent intervention from TII to assess it. This is not something that should be a gradual process. I know there are protocols but this has gone beyond a joke at this stage.

I committed the last time to engage with the regional design office, RDO. I have been on to the RDO, but at the moment it is getting the first phase through. Once that goes to planning, it will be in a position to look at the other side of the town – the eastern bypass element. It is a matter of trying to build it into a programme where there are competing demands. We must also look at the resources and the ability of the county council to deliver it.

We have to do things in steps. The first step is to go to planning, and once that happens, we will look at the other side of the bypass. It is a matter of planning, funding and resources. The council has committed to do what it can once the other application goes in.

Going back to the chronic traffic issues in the town, we had a local transport plan when I was a councillor and I had great hopes for it but it was poorly executed. Hundreds of thousands of euro were spent on a consultant who engaged very poorly and not so constructively. Some interventions and recommendations were made but none of them has been funded. One of them was a cantilever on the lower bridge, which would change the two-way flow on the lower bridge. That would have given some relief. It is something that is being sought by residents in the town to help commuters coming from the Sligo Road. Is someone in TII actively looking at Ballina and thinking about what tweaks and changes could be made even in the short term? It just feels like no one is listening to us.

We do the work through the local authorities, so we are relying on their input.

In Ms Fitzpatrick's opinion, are the local authorities failing to address or intervene?

No, I am not saying that. I am saying-----

The local authority would say it is not being funded by TII. Where is the gap?

There is definitely a funding issue, in that we have a certain amount of money for all of the roads projects around the country. We have enough to move forward with one element of the project.

Is it the Minister who is refusing to fund the project in Ballina?

It is not specifically for Ballina; it is for work-----

I want to focus specifically on Ballina because it is a chronic issue that is getting worse. It will get worse in the coming months. No one is paying too much attention to it. It has been generationally pushed down the line and ignored. It is not even a feeling - that is the reality. What hope can we give to people in Ballina and north Mayo? Ballina relies on two 19th century bridges, so even though it is a small rural town, if you want to get from one side of town to the other, it could take half an hour at times. Some people have to go up to Foxford and come in the Church Road-Bunnafinglas Road just to get to the other side of town. Access to the Bunnafinglas Road is now going to be restricted because of works by EirGrid.

As we said, it ultimately comes down to resources and capacity, that is, money and experts within the county council and so on. It is a pragmatic approach to look at phase 1 first and try to get it going and then to look at phase 2. The reality is that there are limited resources.

Could an external contractor or consultants do the work? There are examples of where there was engagement with an external contractor to carry out work where there was not capacity within the authority.

It would still have to be managed internally by the local authority to do that because a local presence and oversight are needed.

I will take my own slot and then go to Deputy Moynihan, and thereafter to other members.

I want to focus on the policy that was issued last year by TII on roadside memorials. I am not too sure when it was issued as there is no date on it. Will the witnesses clarify that? It was a policy that generated significant media attention at national level after it was issued. Roadside memorials are deeply emotional markers for bereaved families. They are not just roadside features; they are expressions of grief and remembrance by families who have lost loved ones on our public roads.

I have quite a number of questions, so I ask the witnesses to be brief in their answers. What level of consultation took place in advance of this policy being issued? To what extent did TII engage with bereaved families, other stakeholders and elected members? The first time I became aware of the policy was when I saw it on the front page of a national newspaper. I imagine it was the same for elected Members at national level and those at a local level. What level of consultation took place in advance of this policy? I accept that there may be a road safety issue. The question for me is whether the policy strikes the right balance between safety, local discretion and compassion. There were existing policies in place in my local authority in Tipperary. Families had to engage with and meet the district engineer.

I will ask my colleague, Dr. Meade, to comment in a moment. As the Chair says, it is a particularly sensitive subject because, as we were just talking about, we have had to respond to very tragic situations. Our motive is purely road safety. The Department of Transport policy is reflective of the fact that there is a risk associated with roadside memorials.

Is it Department of Transport policy or TII policy?

It is a Department of Transport policy. Unfortunately, we have had examples where roadside memorials in and of themselves have generated accidents and fatalities. It is a very difficult-----

On this policy document, there is a Department of Transport heading and a TII heading. Did the Department draft the policy and was it then issued as a joint policy? I want to get clarity on that.

It is a Department of Transport circular. I do not know the exact date it was published in 2025 but we can get back to the Chair on the exact month.

Did the Department draft the policy or did TII draft it?

It is a Department of Transport policy and TII, as a stakeholder, fed into that policy, in particular because the policy dealt with high-speed roads.

It is the case that the vast majority - 90% to 95% - of our public road network is composed of roads with speeds greater than 60 km/h.

Exactly. The policy recommends that local authorities have their own policy for roadside memorials. The Chair mentioned his own county of Tipperary. That policy paper acknowledges that there are existing policies. It is part of the policy that TII or local authorities would not remove them, out of respect. It recommends that local authorities would develop their own policies to take into account local needs and opinions. It recommends that it should be looked at on a local level. That will form part of the road safety plan for each county. As the Chair said, some have done that.

Is the policy statutory, advisory or guidance only?

I think it is guidance, but we will have to get back to the Chair for clarification on that point.

It is guidance only so there is no statutory obligation on local authorities to adopt or transcribe this policy into their existing policies or update their existing ones. I know Tipperary has since updated its existing policy.

Yes.

My time is limited. Does it apply to existing road memorials on roadsides?

No, it does not. It is stated in the policy that it is not a policy that TII would request, want or advise other parties to move those out of respect for those and it does state-----

In terms of proportionality, how is this policy consistent with policy around roadside advertisements?

It is not similar. It comes from a completely different place. I will explain what the safety risk is. The rationale for bringing out this guidance document is that we would advise people of the risks associated with this because it may cause risks for all road users. One risk is, if you are parking across from a roadside memorial you will have to cross a high speed road. That has an inherent risk and we have seen collisions caused by that action. The other risk would be, parking on the side of a high speed road or transient parking creates a hazard on the side of the road. What we are trying to achieve here are safe roads and road use and safe roadsides. A vehicle on the side of an operating high speed road is a hazard in itself and obviously if the occupants exit the vehicle they are vulnerable.

I am sure Dr. Meade is aware of the media attention at the time this policy appeared on the front page. Why was there no consultation with stakeholders like bereaved families and the elected representatives at local or national level?

I am not sure what consultation was done on this but we can come back to the Chair on that.

I just want to be clear as well, can local authorities depart from this policy?

What is recommended in that policy is that local authorities might look to find an appropriate public space that is not on a high speed road, with those risks associated with it, so that memorials could continue to be erected or put into place for bereaved families.

In the event that a bereaved family operates outside of this policy, or policy at the local level, and erects a roadside memorial, who is the decision maker in the removal of that roadside memorial?

The local authority, as far as I understand it. That would be a-----

Is it compulsory that the local authority has to remove it? Is there a statutory obligation on it to remove the memorial?

Not as I understand it.

In the event a bereaved family departs from this policy, or a policy at local level, there is no statutory obligation on the local authority to remove it.

We would have to give the Chair clarification on that because that would fall with the planning authority.

Road safety is a key focus of this committee, but as Chair of this committee I am acutely aware of the distress that was generated when this appeared on the front page of a national newspaper. There was a lack of consultation, and confusion as to whether it applied to existing road memorials. I am glad Dr. Meade has clarified that, categorically, it does not apply to existing roadside memorial and, as I said-----

It is stated in that policy the Chair has there. It is stated in that policy document they would not be touched.

Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh agus go raibh míle maith agaibh ar fad as ucht teacht isteach ar maidin. First ,I pay tribute to TII for its work on the Grand Canal greenway. I met Mr. O'Connor there. It is great scheme and a very effective one. I hope what it will do to unlock access to Shannonbridge will be transformative. The overwhelming feedback I have got from constituents so far is that it is a very well received scheme so I thank TII for its collaboration with South Dublin County Council on that.

I want to move to one immediate safety concern that was raised. We discussed it last November. It is in regard to the closure of the Boot Road junction onto the N7. At that time, the discussion we had centered on the fact it was TII policy to close direct access onto the national roads network and that TII was of a view this exit had to be closed. South Dublin County Council holds a different view. The feedback I am getting from residents in that immediate area is that the closure of that road will force the traffic onto an already stretched and creaking local road network, for example, from Boot Road right back onto the Fonthill Road. There are alternatives that we can put in place here. I want to get any considerations or thoughts TII has had in that intervening period because I know from the correspondence we have had with TII and the county council is there is still consideration ongoing but there does not seem to be any movement since we discussed this last November. I will start with that please.

Colleagues of mine have engaged technical advisers so the issue is being looked at in terms of what the best solution is having regard to the views of the local authority and our own issues and concerns about that. I cannot give the Deputy a definitive position on it at the moment but can come back to him on it. It is actively being considered at the moment.

Will that take into account the views of residents about the impact that closure will have on local traffic volumes as well?

Yes.

Great. What sort of timeframe does Mr. Maher think we are looking at for a decision on that issue?

Possibly by the end of the summer but I will have to come back to the Deputy on that. I have not been briefed on that issue specifically.

It will be good to have clarity on Boot Road by the end of the summer, if we can.

When we were here last we discussed the placing of toll gates on the M50. I know Deputy Currie is well aware of this issue as well, particularly for people in my constituency who live in Lucan where, effectively the village is used as a rat run for people who want to avoid the toll given its location there. We discussed the principle of putting the tolls, and proportionate tolling, at the exits and entrances to the M50 to make it fairer and also to remove that overall impact. Mr. O'Connor said we were coming to the point where contracts were ending and where reflecting on this could be a possibility. What sort of progress has been made in that regard thus far?

The M50 brings with it a whole host of issues. As we know, it is largely operating at capacity and we have at the moment a toll at a specific point, as the Deputy has described. That does give rise to issues around equity or equality in that you could be using a good portion of the M50 and not paying a toll, or a short portion and paying the full toll. What we are looking at there is, the NTA is working on a broader demand management strategy but also a working group is being established to look at tolling more generally, together with the Department of Transport. That is being looked at over the next while, conscious that various PPP tolling contracts, of which the M50 is not one, are coming to the end of their contract lives in the next number of years, or over the next decade.

When will the window for that sort of consideration for the M50 be optimal?

In terms of an overall demand management review and strategy, trying to bring as much clarity to that as possible over the next year to two years would be important.

What we are saying is that, by the end of this decade we would have clarity on that demand strategy and we would be seeing infrastructural modifications where tolls are in place? Would that be fair?

That is certainly an option, yes.

Is it a likely option?

We would have to see where the overall NTA demand management strategy comes down and it will feed into that, certainly.

I should have mentioned at the outset that I thank TII for its work with South Dublin County Council on the Brittas village traffic calming scheme that is in place as well. It is very welcome and long overdue. I know it is out to consultation at the moment. I was struck by something Mr. O'Connor said earlier that it seems to be a policy that no new major road infrastructure is being planned for the greater Dublin area, GDA, over the coming years. That is interesting in the context of the fact that I know South Dublin County Council is looking at a traffic management study for the western part of its county as well. While the council has not explicitly said it, it was always my view, and in the county development plan, that an orbital route on the western side of the county would be explored for areas that are rapidly growing like Rathcoole, Saggart and Newcastle, that need that sort of relief road infrastructure. Am I picking up what Mr. O'Connor said correctly that it would not include that or could it still be an option?

You have to look at that in the round. If that is part of an overall strategy of which modal shift is envisaged then that may well be justified. There are certain roads projects that are being done but they are largely public transport or active travel orientated, or that is the main driver. In terms of the overall GDA transport strategy, that is an opening assumption in what needs to be done over the next number of years, albeit that strategy is to be reviewed in the relatively near future.

Would roads like the Clonburris south link street that has an active travel and public transport lane but also has a private car lane fall under the description Mr. O'Connor just gave there?

No. That type of project may well proceed.

I welcome the fact that the Lucan Luas preferred route will be published later on this year. Will Mr. O'Connor give me a more specific time as to when he thinks we will see that?

Hopefully, before December. I cannot really say more than that, but in the same way we are now at the preferred route status in Cork, that in itself is a very significant milestone because all of a sudden, people can visualise what that might mean - broadly speaking, the journey time into the city centre and the connections it creates. We have found, certainly in that initial emerging route consultation, very helpful feedback to allows us to tweak or make changes to enhance the overall project.

Are we satisfied that it is compatible with the Lucan core bus corridor option B set out under BusConnects?

We are working very closely with the NTA to ensure that all those touch points are met.

I must stick with the members before I go to Deputy Healy-Rae. I call Deputy Currie.

The witnesses are very welcome back. My first question is in relation to the emerging preferred option and the public consultation that was run for the N3-M50. It closed on 18 May. It involved bus priority and enhanced active travel. What communication was provided to the public on that non-statutory consultation? I found a lot of people along the M3 corridor did not actually know about it.

As I understand it, that is largely an NTA project.

It is being funded by TII but in the case of these projects, we rely on the local authority to do the engagement with the public. I understand there is a lot of concern over what I think is a footbridge on that scheme.

Yes.

That will be looked at in regard to the final solution. I cannot say what that will be. At the moment, I understand the consultation consisted of engagement with the elected representatives in the county council and that there was public engagement. I cannot recall the actual ins and outs but I am happy to come back on it. It is delivered. In the case of all of these projects, they are delivered through the local authority and we rely on that interface to do the engagement with the public.

I was quite taken aback by the lack of awareness of the consultation in this instance. It was not helped by the material, which was very top level. We were being asked for opinions on changes to the road structure of our junctions around Blanchardstown, Littlepace and Mulhuddart. It was very difficult to explain to people what those changes actually were because we were following lines on a map rather than having clarity, especially for a project that has been talked about for many years. There seems to have been a policy change in relation to it a couple of years ago. For many people, there was an expectation that there would also be changes to the bridge at Littlepace and that it might become a two-way bridge. At the moment, it is one-way and you have to go via Clonee to cross the M3. There was an expectation that there would be more information on how we had arrived at the proposal that was presented to the public.

I accept there has been confusion out there, including the confusion in the context of there having been a bigger scheme originally that looked at a lot of interventions along the road, whereas this is an element of that project. It is purely looking at bus corridors and active travel. It is a subset of the larger scheme and I think that has caused confusion.

There is a bigger scheme-----

There is a bigger scheme but we do not have the money to progress it. There was also an interface with BusConnects as you approached the M50. Due to that interface, the scheme proposed is only looking at bus corridors and active travel at the moment. Ultimately, though, there is a bigger scheme with more involved in it. I accept that there has been confusion and there is a need to maybe clarify the position. We have gone back to Fingal County Council but I do not know the ins and outs of what is proposed now. I do accept there has been confusion out there.

Yes, because there have been changes.

Yes. I think the original was the big scheme whereas this is simply an element of that, and it has changed.

It is important that the bigger picture be communicated to the public so it knows what it is actually giving its views on. There are two active travel bridges in the proposals. This is not a cheap scheme because I asked TII for the approximate cost. Overall, we are looking at approximately €70 million for the overall scheme and then €5.5 million for the bridge at Bramblefield and €3.3 million for the active bridge at Littlepace. I support the enhanced active travel provisions in general and the active travel bridge at Littlepace but at Bramblefield there are severe concerns coming from the community about the positioning of the bridge in what is a quiet residential area. I wonder where it came from and what the basis or rationale was for that bridge. I spotted it on the greater Dublin area cycle network plan. Was there consultation on that previously?

Unfortunately, I do not know the ins and outs. I would have to come back to the Deputy on that. My understanding is that it was related to the provision of a bus stop. However, I can look into it further and come back to the Deputy on it. I accept that there is a need to look at that and there are alternatives that can be looked at, which is going to happen as well. That is all I can say at the moment but I accept that the consultation should have been clearer, and also that there is a need to revisit that bridge position.

This feeds into another local issue, namely, the potential loss of the 70 bus route, which currently services what we call the Littlepace loop. That service under BusConnects is due to become a peak-only route, which would give direct access to town. The positioning of this bridge feels like a confirmation that that route would be deprioritised in favour of a link onto the N3. What the community wants is to retain the 70 route along the Littlepace loop as a full-day service. I think it is really important that TII and Fingal County Council engage with the community and communicate clearly about what their intentions are.

Apologies; I have missed some of the meeting. I am trying to juggle this committee and the health committee this morning.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. There are a few points I want to raise. We had the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, down in the mid-west recently. He cut the ribbon on the new Coonagh-Knockalisheen-Moyross dual carriageway system, the northern distributor road in Limerick. Of course, phase 2 of that cannot proceed because, outrageously, the former Minister in the previous Dáil and Government, Eamon Ryan, put a memo on the front of that file saying it was not to proceed. I have never seen the likes of it before, where a Minister would unilaterally guillotine a project and stop it from progressing in any fashion - not design, environmental impact assessment, nothing. I have had problems with that road in the past with regard to the route line but we have won and lost some battles, and now there is an overwhelming desire in that area that this road should happen.

It is incessantly congested. It is needed in Clare, Limerick and the mid-west region. Given that the current Government has no desire to block this project any further or to follow the wishes of the previous Minister, what has TII been doing to ensure that the next phase can happen?

First of all, it is not a national road so it does not fall under our remit. It is a matter for the Department of Transport, which is the funder of the non-national roads network. We are not in a position to comment on that because we solely look after the national roads.

The second phase or the docking point has a national designation.

We have contributed funding for the junction where it hits the national road. We gave money this year for a study of the operation of the junction but, beyond that, we do not really have a role in relation to the delivery-----

TII is going to proceed with its own studies. Is that correct?

We are contributing. We are giving a capped allocation as part of an overall study of the junction on the N7.

That is good to hear.

Under the Roads Act 2004, local authority members have a reserved function for setting speed limits. Many of us here were councillors in the past and know that it can be a source of major frustration when national roads are going through a county and when councillors pass resolutions at meetings but TII effectively has a veto. It is not called that in legislation but the decision has to have the consent of TII. I am aware of a total chicken and egg situation in the west Clare area at the moment. There have been four fatalities on a very small stretch of the N68 leaving Ennis. It is in the locality of Darragh. Councillors are continuously trying to deal with this. A delegation came to Dublin to meet with the Minister of State, Deputy Canney. It has been raised at various council meetings. A submission was put forward by the council. We recognise that it takes time to design a safety scheme and it takes money to build one. It could take a year and a half to two years to complete the scheme and the community understands that. However, in the interim, there is an onus on those in elected office to use their reserved powers to lower the speed limit. That is the minimum they could do but every time they try to do it, they are told TII is blocking it. I ask the witnesses to provide a justification for that.

I thank the Deputy. I am not familiar with the particular circumstances at Darragh. As the Deputy said, it is a reserved function of the elected members. In my experience such applications come through from the local authority to us in TII and in the vast majority of cases, there is never an issue. Usually, there is prior consultation between the officials in the local authority and my colleagues in TII. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the specific circumstances at that location on the N68 but I am very happy to take the question away and come back to the Deputy on it.

That would be really appreciated.

The scheme that the Deputy is talking about falls under the road safety improvement programme. The local authority would be seeking funding to do something at that location. There are some issues with the location related to roadside activity exacerbating or interacting with the national road. TII has engaged with the local authority a lot on this. TII is waiting for the local authority to submit a proposal for road safety changes or mitigation that could be implemented there. We have not received that proposal yet. A proposal has to be made by the local authority in the first instance. The authority needs to cost that and to provide a business case showing that whatever it is doing equals a safety improvement for the particular problem. The local authority is working on that. We are aware, at the local level, that the authority has been discussing this with our engineers and we await the submission of the proposal. That is where it is at currently and that is the process that is involved.

I appreciate that. It is a very good, comprehensive response. The submission may have been made quite recently so if it can be looked at, that would be appreciated. If TII would engage with me on this after the meeting, I would be very grateful. As public representatives, we have all gone into public meetings where someone at the back of the hall asks whether it will take someone to die to do something with the roads. Unfortunately, that is part of policy. There is an analysis done of accidents and fatalities, and it is part of policy. In this case, there have been four fatalities and councillors have their hands tied, in many ways. One of the powers they do have is to lower speed limits but what they are being told incessantly is that they cannot do so until the infrastructure is in place. I disagree with that. The infrastructure will come but it could take two years. In the meantime, there is an onus on councillors, both morally and from a public health and safety perspective, to follow through on that. I ask that, when the next resolution from the west Clare municipal district is passed, TII accede to it, give its consent and not block it.

In that same west and north Clare area, two major events are due to happen in the next 12 months. The Irish Open is being hosted at Doonbeg and the Walker Cup is being hosted at Lahinch. On top of that, there are 1.5 million visitors to the iconic Cliffs of Moher every year but the national road network in the area is twisted and convoluted. Does TII have any plans, in light of all of the things happening in the area, to do something major to upgrade the road standards? I sense there is good news coming.

We can get back to the Deputy on that. Obviously, we are also conscious of the other golf project in the general region-----

That is the richer project.

-----with the Adare bypass and so on. We will be happy to come back with a status update on that area for the Deputy.

I will be very precise and to the point and I ask the witnesses to keep their answers short and precise so that I can get through all my questions. What is TII's policy when it comes to people seeking to build a one-off dwelling off a national primary or secondary road?

We do not have a direct policy as such, but we would look at those kinds of developments through a road safety lens. That assessment basically is that on any stretch of road the variables are: how many cars are typically using it, what is the speed and what is the number of entrances onto and off that road. It is about trying to get the balance right in that situation. There can be instances where additional entrances onto a busy, high-speed road, for example, present a particular road safety issue.

I will tell Mr. O'Connor about the situation on the ground. We have what I would call standard objections, but which TII would call observations, and they are negatively impacting on many young people's planning applications. How many planning applications for a one-off, single dwelling located on our national road network has TII objected to in the last number of years?

It would be a low number. I do not have it off the top of my head but I am happy to supply it to the Deputy later.

Can I ask Mr. O'Connor to do one thing, with the Chairman's permission? If TII is supplying this data to me, will it also supply it to the Chairman and the other committee members? It is very important for them in the context of their work as well.

I am very happy to do that.

How many applications has TII objected to where it was proposed to use an existing entrance? That would be a separate statistic.

That would be an intensification.

In other words, a farmer's son or daughter decided that he or she was going to live on the farm and connect into the original entrance. TII still objected, even though a new entrance was not being created.

I am happy to respond to that via the Chairman and the committee.

Kerry has 435 km of a national road network, with the Ring of Kerry being one of the longest, continuous national primary roads in the country. The N70 is 179 km long and other national roads, such as the N86, Tralee to Dingle, and the N69, Tralee to Tarbert, are examples of rural areas that have been sterilised when it comes to planning. I speak to planners on a regular basis. I deal with area planners and senior planners and this is a big problem. I cannot speak for anywhere else except County Kerry. I can talk in particular about the Ring of Kerry road, the N86 and the N69. All of these roads are virtually sterilised because of TII. Again, if the witnesses want to study that further and then contradict or agree with me, could they please do so through the Chair, for forwarding to committee members, because that is very important information.

On the N71 Kenmare to Glengarriff road through Bonane, we are trying to stop heavy goods vehicles going up to the tunnel because they continuously get caught and the roads get blocked. We are engaging with TII on putting up a very sensible thing which is like a make-believe tunnel, way back from the actual location of the tunnel. It is a plastic barrier and if one hits it, it will not be the end of the world. It will be located at a place away from the tunnel so that if a bus or a lorry has gone wrong, it will be able to turn around. At the moment, if a vehicle goes so far as to actually meet the tunnel, it has to back up for miles.

The guards are called, the road is blocked, it is chaos, it is all over Radio Kerry and it is a mess. What we want on that road is a plastic make-believe tunnel on both the Cork side and the Kerry side. It is an early warning of the height restriction. Can we get an update on that? I do not expect answers now.

We are happy to do that. I am not aware of the proposal but it seems to make a lot of sense.

It is a very sensible proposal, yes. I made it; it makes sense.

On that road, we have tunnels as well. There were stones falling down off those tunnels and a mesh was put around them. The local community is very active and proactive in seeking all these things. The mesh was put up but because of strikes - in other words, things getting stuck in it - the mesh is falling down and creating a problem. We are anxious to get those repaired.

Then there is the surface underneath the tunnels. Because the heavier paving stuff can work outside but cannot work in the restricted height area, we want to get those jobs tended to. We would be grateful for that.

The next one is very important. The south Kerry greenway was not eligible to receive the greenway sustainability payment A, GSP A, for early sign-on. In 2022, TII sought clarification from the Department of Transport on the eligibility for payments of the greenway. It was advised by the Department that only GSP B is eligible for payment. The current land acquisition budget has been formulated on the basis that the Department of Transport is only agreeable to paying GSP B on the south Kerry greenway. IFA Kerry, led by Jason Fleming, is looking to have the GSP A payment made on the greenway - that is, the early sign-on payment. This would be paid retrospectively on the basis the High Court case prevented the south Kerry greenway having its statutory consent in a timely manner. The south Kerry greenway is exceptional in that it has an approved EIA, AA and CPO predating the code of practice but did not have effective approval until after the code was introduced. I recommend TII and the Department make GSP A payable to all landowners who have signed land agreements with Kerry County Council by the end of this year. This initiative will have positive effects and will build further confidence in the code of practice without setting a precedent. I do not expect the witnesses to be able to answer that right now but I hope they will think about it, reflect on it and help us with it.

Farranfore village is the only place in Ireland I know where buses have to stop and block a lane of traffic to let people on or off. My son, Jackie Healy-Rae, has been highlighting this for a long time. If there is anything that could be done about it, I would appreciate it. It is ridiculous.

I thank the witnesses for attending. Are they aware of the Mallow relief road project? It started before I was born. I recently spoke to a publican in Mallow who owns a bit of land just outside Mallow town. In 1973, he was refused planning permission for six houses because it was on the route of the Mallow relief road. We are now in 2026 and that relief road still is not built. I fully appreciate this is the furthest we have ever been along in the project. The amount of funding over the last number of years has been, in retrospect, positive enough. How confident is TII about having shovels in the ground by the end of the decade?

I want Ms Fitzpatrick to answer specifically but looking at the broader transport strategy for the Cork region and the additional services Irish Rail envisages from Mallow to Cork and so on, there is a lot that can be done in Mallow to make the usage of heavy rail easier, including additional access points to the train station. I know it is all part of that.

We are on track to get a planning application submission this year. We cannot give any guarantees about how it will work out once it goes in for planning approval. Subject to that approval, we have built in a requirement to have funding to go to construction on the project.

The funding is there to go to construction.

Yes, provided we get through the planning process.