English: Thanks very much for your statement. You refer to your establishment of a transport steering group to develop a work programme for the north-east Wales metro, referring to a range of partners in north Wales, Merseyside and Cheshire. Now, of course, there already is a working group, created via the Mersey Dee Alliance, the North Wales Economic Ambition Board and their partners. To what extent does this correlate with that and their proposals in their own vision, and of course 360, primarily in the context of rail? The four hubs you describe in terms of north-east Wales miss out that huge area between Deeside and Wrexham, and particularly the areas where connectivity is poorest, in some of the smaller towns and villages. I would therefore welcome a comment from you on how that will be joined up, and those communities will not be left without access, particularly for young people to work, or older people to key services. In terms of your other hubs - Bangor, presumably you're talking primarily about the bridge, or third crossing, or whatever that might be, and Abergele-Rhyl - to what extent do those fit into the north-east Wales metro? Because you're talking about four hubs and the north-east, so what is the relationship between the two? Are we talking about something different, or is it one single project with four different strands within it? You refer to the Deeside plan published by Flintshire County Council. You may be aware, as I certainly am, that again, as I mentioned before, many of the smaller towns and villages that aren't on Deeside are concerned not to miss out on this connectivity, and I hope you would comment on that. Now, it's nine years since the public inquiry recommended to a predecessor Minister during the third Assembly that the previous proposal on Aston Hill should not go ahead, and we are where we are. I'm sure the residents of Aston Hill and the thousands living in the surrounding areas will welcome your decision to adopt the red option as opposed to the alternative. Clearly, the A55/A494/A548 corridor is below modern standards, with some of the slip roads being too short, too close, and generating poor visibility. We understand the red route would be an 8-mile road between the A55 and A548 with two lanes in each direction, leading to an increase in capacity and an improvement in journey times between the River Dee and Northop interchange. However, clearly your decision will not be so warmly received by the people living on that route. In your consultation, you said the red route would be likely to affect about 56 hectares of agricultural land and farm businesses and that mitigation would be by financial compensation and by accommodation works. Could you tell me what proposals you have to engage with those businesses and individuals who will be affected in relation to that mitigation and financial compensation? There's also, as I know from correspondence you've received that I've been copied on from local residents, a belief or a call for the need for a crawler lane, and good signage at the start of the red route, and I wonder whether you can confirm whether those will be accommodated or will be considered. There's also a call in certain quarters that, even with the red route, the A494/A55 interchange has still been listed by the Automobile Association as one of the worst in the UK, and that some action will be required there - not to increase the lanes, but to have better egress from the main highway. You refer to the A494 Dee bridge. In the consultation you describe that as a separate scheme, but can you confirm, as I know to be the case, that the red route is dependent on that, and confirm how the two will work concurrently to ensure that the whole can deliver as intended? You refer to developments of bus interchanges and bus infrastructure. How do you respond to concern expressed by community transport providers in Flintshire that they resisted or rejected the offer from the council to take on some of the commercial routes, and that the pilot minibus schemes put into Kinnerton and Buckley being run by licensed taxi companies may not be viable after the initial additional funding runs out for commercial companies to continue, and also their concern that the north Wales transport for health group, set up by the Welsh Government, has not met since May 2016, and that the Welsh Government has not reconvened the meetings? Again, for many people, this transport connectivity is critical, but those who perhaps need it most are the most affected by its absence. Finally, you referred to Deeside Parkway as an exciting opportunity to improve rail access to the business park. As you know, the Wrexham Bidston Rail Users' Association have highlighted that rail travel to work in Flintshire is only 1 per cent, less than half the overall Welsh average, that many employees have to use their car to access employment and those who can't may not realise their employment potential, and that 20 per cent of interviews and job offers at the Deeside industrial park are declined because of transport difficulties - and that happened, in fact, to my own oldest son. Thankfully, he found alternative employment elsewhere. Do you propose that the location for the parkway should be adjacent or within Deeside industrial park, and if so, how will you mitigate the impact on Hawarden Bridge?
Welsh: Diolch yn fawr am eich datganiad. Rydych yn cyfeirio at sefydlu grŵp llywio trafnidiaeth i ddatblygu rhaglen waith ar gyfer metro gogledd-ddwyrain Cymru, gan gyfeirio at amryw o bartneriaid yng ngogledd Cymru, Glannau Mersi a Swydd Gaer. Wrth gwrs, mae gweithgor eisoes yn bodoli, a grëwyd trwy Gynghrair Mersi a'r Ddyfrdwy, Bwrdd Uchelgais Economaidd Gogledd Cymru a'u partneriaid. I ba raddau mae hyn yn cyd-fynd â hynny ac â'u cynigion yn eu gweledigaeth eu hunain, ac wrth gwrs â chynllun Growth Track 360, yn bennaf yng nghyd-destun rheilffyrdd? Mae'r pedair canolfan yr ydych chi'n eu disgrifio o ran y gogledd-ddwyrain yn hepgor yr ardal fawr honno rhwng Glannau Dyfrdwy a Wrecsam, ac yn enwedig yr ardaloedd hynny lle mae cysylltedd ar ei waethaf, mewn rhai o'r trefi a'r pentrefi llai. Felly, byddwn yn croesawu sylw gennych chi ynglŷn â sut y bydd hynny'n cydgysylltu, ac na chaiff y cymunedau hynny eu gadael yn ynysig, yn enwedig fel mannau gwaith i bobl ifanc, neu i bobl hŷn allu defnyddio gwasanaethau allweddol. O ran eich canolfannau eraill - Bangor, mae'n debyg eich bod chi'n sôn yn bennaf am y bont, neu'r drydedd groesfan, neu beth bynnag a allai hynny fod, ac Abergele-Y Rhyl - i ba raddau y mae'r rheini'n cyd-fynd â gweledigaeth metro gogledd-ddwyrain Cymru? Rydych chi'n sôn am bedair canolfan a'r gogledd-ddwyrain, felly beth yw'r berthynas rhwng y ddau? A ydym ni'n sôn am rywbeth gwahanol, neu ai un prosiect gyda phedair elfen wahanol iddo yw hyn? Rydych chi'n cyfeirio at y cynllun Glannau Dyfrdwy a gyhoeddwyd gan Gyngor Sir y Fflint. Efallai eich bod yn ymwybodol, fel yr wyf innau'n bendant unwaith eto, fel y soniais o'r blaen, bod llawer o'r trefi a'r pentrefi llai nad ydynt ar lannau Dyfrdwy yn awyddus i fanteisio ar y cysylltedd hwn, a gobeithio y gallwch chi wneud sylwadau ynghylch hynny. Nawr, aeth naw mlynedd heibio ers i'r ymchwiliad cyhoeddus argymell i gyn-Weinidog yn ystod y trydydd Cynulliad na ddylai'r cynnig blaenorol ar Aston Hill fynd rhagddo, a dyma'r sefyllfa yr ydym ni ynddi. Rwy'n siŵr y bydd trigolion Aston Hill a'r miloedd sy'n byw yn y cyffiniau yn croesawu eich penderfyniad i fabwysiadu'r dewis coch yn hytrach na'r dewis arall. Yn amlwg, nid yw coridor yr A55 / A494 / A548 yn bodloni safonau modern, gyda rhai o'r ffyrdd ymuno yn rhy fyr, yn rhy agos, ac yn golygu na allwch chi weld yn iawn. Rydym ni'n deall y byddai'r llwybr coch yn ffordd 8 milltir rhwng yr A55 a'r A548 gyda dwy lôn ym mhob cyfeiriad, gan arwain at gynnydd mewn capasiti a gwelliant mewn amserau teithio rhwng cyfnewidfa Afon Dyfrdwy a Llaneurgain. Fodd bynnag, yn amlwg ni fydd y bobl sy'n byw ar y llwybr hwnnw mor groesawgar o'ch penderfyniad. Yn eich ymgynghoriad, fe ddywedasoch chi y byddai'r llwybr coch yn debygol o effeithio ar oddeutu 56 hectar o dir amaethyddol a busnesau fferm ac y byddai mesurau lliniaru drwy gynnig iawndal ariannol a thrwy wneud gwaith hwyluso. A allwch chi ddweud wrthyf pa gynigion y mae'n rhaid i chi eu trafod â'r busnesau a'r unigolion hynny a fydd yn cael eu heffeithio mewn perthynas â'r gwaith lliniaru a'r iawndal ariannol hwnnw? Hefyd, fel y gwn i o ohebiaeth yr ydych chi wedi'i chael ac yr wyf wedi cael copi ohoni gan drigolion lleol, mae cred neu alw am lôn araf, ac am arwyddion da ar ddechrau'r llwybr coch, ac rwy'n meddwl tybed a allwch chi gadarnhau pa un a gaiff y pethau hynny eu cynnwys neu eu hystyried. Mae rhai pobl hefyd yn galw, hyd yn oed gyda'r llwybr coch, bod cyfnewidfa yr A494 / A55 yn dal wedi ei rhestru gan y Gymdeithas Foduron fel un o'r gwaethaf yn y DU, ac y bydd angen rhywfaint o weithredu yno͏ - nid i gynyddu'r lonydd, ond i gael gwell allanfeydd o'r briffordd. Rydych chi'n cyfeirio at bont y Ddyfrdwy ar yr A494. Yn yr ymgynghoriad, rydych chi'n disgrifio hwnnw fel cynllun ar wahân, ond a allwch chi gadarnhau, fel y gwn i sy'n wir, bod y llwybr coch yn dibynnu ar hynny, a chadarnhau sut y bydd y ddau yn gweithio ar yr un pryd i sicrhau y gall y cynllun cyfan gyflawni fel y'i bwriadwyd? Rydych chi'n cyfeirio at ddatblygiadau cyfnewidfeydd bysiau a seilwaith bysiau. Sut ydych chi'n ymateb i bryder a fynegwyd gan ddarparwyr cludiant cymunedol yn Sir y Fflint eu bod wedi gwrthwynebu neu wrthod y cynnig gan y cyngor i ymgymryd â rhai o'r llwybrau masnachol, ac na fydd modd o bosib parhau â'r cynlluniau bws mini arbrofol fydd yn cael eu gweithredu yn Kinnerton a Bwcle sy'n cael eu rhedeg gan gwmnïau tacsi trwyddedig ar ôl i'r cyllid cychwynnol ychwanegol a gynigir i gwmnïau masnachol ddod i ben, a hefyd eu pryder nad yw grŵp cludiant gogledd Cymru ar gyfer iechyd, a sefydlwyd gan Lywodraeth Cymru, wedi cyfarfod ers mis Mai 2016, ac nad yw Llywodraeth Cymru wedi ailgynnull y cyfarfodydd? Unwaith eto, i lawer o bobl, mae'r cysylltedd trafnidiaeth hwn yn hollbwysig, ond efallai mai'r rhai sydd fwyaf ei angen sy'n cael eu heffeithio fwyaf gan ei absenoldeb. Yn olaf, fe gyfeiriasoch at Barcffordd Glannau Dyfrdwy fel cyfle cyffrous i wella mynediad rheilffyrdd i'r parc busnes. Fel y gwyddoch, mae Cymdeithas Defnyddwyr Rheilffyrdd Wrecsam Bidston wedi tynnu sylw at y ffaith mai dim ond 1 y cant o bobl sy'n teithio i'r gwaith ar y rheilffyrdd yn Sir y Fflint, sy'n llai na hanner cyfartaledd Cymru gyfan, fel bod yn rhaid i lawer o weithwyr ddefnyddio eu car er mwyn cyrraedd eu gwaith, ac nid yw'r rheini na all wneud hynny o bosib yn gwireddu eu potensial ar gyfer cyflogaeth, a bod 20 y cant o gyfweliadau a chynigion swydd ym mharc diwydiannol Glannau Dyfrdwy yn cael eu gwrthod oherwydd anawsterau cludiant - ac fe ddigwyddodd hynny, yn wir, i fy mab hynaf i. Diolch i'r drefn, daeth o hyd i waith arall yn rhywle arall. A ydych chi'n cynnig y dylai'r lleoliad ar gyfer y parcffordd fod ger neu o fewn parc diwydiannol Glannau Dyfrdwy, ac os felly, sut byddwch chi'n lliniaru effaith hyn ar Bont Penarlâg?