Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1960

Vol. 185 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - Waterford-Tramore Railway: Road Maintenance Costs.

Mr. T. Lynch

I raise this matter because in the reply today to a Question put down by Deputy Kyne and myself the Minister said:

So far as the City section of the Waterford-Tramore road is concerned, I understand that the City Engineer considers that there is a possibility that the road may deteriorate under heavy traffic but that he was unable to give a quantitative estimate of expected damage. The additional Coras Iompair Éireann traffic will be considerably lighter than that envisaged by the City Engineer, and the technical information available to me does not indicate that it will cause appreciable damage. If extra maintenance does become necessary, the Corporation may charge the usual proportion of the expenditure to the Main Road Upkeep Grant....

It is evident that the technical information to the Minister is not sufficient. The portion of the road I mention—and I am speaking for the Waterford City Council—is from the junction of the Tramore and Cork roads out to what is called the Blackrock and is about two miles long. That road crosses a swamp and it was with great alarm that the people of Waterford read in the Irish Press of 8th November that portion of the Dublin-Limerick road which was a mile and one-eighth long would cost £54,000. It says here: “Built on the bog it cracked and slanted according to the conditions of the bog.” It also says: “The scheme was undertaken by North Tipperary County Council, who received a 100 per cent. Government grant of £54,000.”

To say that this road crosses a bog is an understatement. It crosses a swamp and I am grateful to the Irish Independent for their timely photograph in today's issue showing the road, which crosses the swamp, completely flooded. A train is also crossing the swamp but it is on a higher bank than the road. That is the portion of the road with which I am concerned. The part of the road from the Blackrock to Sheeps Bridge and leading into the county will be dealt with by my colleague Deputy Kyne. It is a matter for the county council of which he is a member as well as being a Deputy.

The Minister said today that the additional C.I.E. traffic would be considerably lighter than that envisaged by the City Engineer. The City Engineer's envisaging of this traffic was due to his being a member of a deputation that was led by the Mayor of Waterford to meet Mr. Frank Lemass, General manager of C.I.E. I happened to be on that deputation. He told us that at the peak period there would be 20 buses on this road. There would have to be twenty and there might have to be thirty buses on this road.

When the new road is flooded the traffic must go up the old road as they call it. That is a secondary road, portion of which is also in the city, and that road will take some punishment from the buses. When there was a bus service on it away back in the thirties it cut the old road to pieces. These two roads, the old road as far as Cows Bridge, and the new road as far as the Blackrock and Sheeps Bridge are in the bailiwick of the Waterford Corporation. Seeing that the mile and one-eighth of road crossing the bog will cost £54,000, it will cost nearly £100,000 to put this new road in order and goodness knows what it will cost to make the old road fit to carry this traffic.

The Minister should take immediate steps to deal with this situation. It is reasonable to suggest that he should send some of the officers of his engineering section to Waterford at the earliest possible moment to consult with the city manager and the local officials. He will discover that I have not exaggerated in the least about this. There are the facts in the Irish Press and the photograph in the Irish Independent.

The Minister says that if this extra maintenance becomes necessary, and it will become necessary, he will put up the usual proportion of the expenditure. That is imposing a burden on the taxpayers in respect of a service that C.I.E. should be doing. The Waterford city ratepayers will also have to pay their portion and that is one of the principal reasons why they are alarmed about it. The memorandum we received from C.I.E. told us that the railway is losing £3,000 a year.

An Ceann Comhairle

I cannot allow the Deputy to discuss that. This is purely road maintenance.

General MacEoin

The road could be maintained if we had the railway.

Mr. T. Lynch

The railway should be kept there and for the loss of that £3,000 a year the Minister for Local Government and the Waterford ratepayers could be saved £100,000 on the Blackrock part of the road.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Minister for Local Government has no responsibility for the maintenance of the railway.

Mr. T. Lynch

But he has for the maintenance of the road.

An Ceann Comhairle

I want to keep the Deputy on the road.

Mr. T. Lynch

I cannot keep on the road now because it is flooded.

An Ceann Comhairle

I hope the Deputy will keep on the road.

Mr. Kyne

He is going off the rails.

Mr. T. Lynch

It may be said that in the summer time during the peak period this road would not be flooded. I would remind the Minister that during August which is the peak period for tourists going to Tramore the tides run very high. I have seen big tides coming up on to that new road. If we had some August showers, and it may have been noticed that in recent years we have had some showers in August, the situation would be aggravated. Recently there were some gala Sundays in Tramore and with the ordinary motor traffic it was almost impossible to get into Tramore. I do not know what would happen if 20 buses were put on the road and only for the train service that was there to relieve that situation I do not know what the people would have done.

There is no doubt that this two-and-half-miles of road—a good part of which is shown in the Irish Independent—would cost a great deal of money to maintain. The moneys will have to come out of the Road Fund and from the ratepayers in Waterford. I appeal to the Minister, therefore, to send his engineering experts to Waterford to consult with the City Manager and the Waterford Borough Surveyor.

Mr. Kyne

The main reason why I join with my colleague, Deputy Lynch, on this adjournment debate is because of that portion of the reply given today which stated that "the additional Coras Iompair Éireann traffic will be considerably lighter than that envisaged by the City Manager and, the technical information available to me does not indicate that it will cause appreciable damage." That was stated on behalf of the Minister today. I should like to join issue with the Minister on that. I realise that his colleague today had to reply from a brief prepared by the Department. The fact is that the Minister must accept responsibility for what his Department says.

I should like to ask a few simple questions. Have any of the Minister's officials examined this road? Have they evaluated the consequences if the proposed increased traffic goes on the road to replace the rail service, with particular reference to the traffic over the summer months? It was stated that "the traffic will be considerably lighter". That means that the Waterford Borough Surveyor is wrong in envisaging heavy traffic. Last Thursday week a deputation waited on the General Manager of C.I.E. Speaking about replacing the traffic carried by the railroad, he said that buses would give as good a service and "To accomplish this up to 20 buses will run simultaneously at times of peak demand". He expressed the view that buses would provide a greater facility for commuters to the extent that they would carry them beyond the present rail terminus to stopping places more conveniently situated to their places of employment.

I want to stress the point now that 20 double-deck buses will use this road simultaneously. This is a seven and a half mile stretch of main road, a good proportion of which runs through a bog. Of that seven and a half miles two and a half miles are in the corporation area. I am speaking now mainly for the county council area. The borough engineer, Mr. O'Carroll, has estimated the cost of the increased maintenance to the corporation. He is quite unprejudiced. He is a qualified engineer of long standing. He has no axe to grind. He says that, as far as he can judge, the cost of increased maintenance will amount to £5,000 per year. From my previous experience as an Alderman of Waterford Corporation one penny in the £ brings in something in the neighbourhood of £140. It is easy to calculate from that what the increase in the rates will have to be in order to meet the increased cost of maintenance of this road. Our county engineer has made no report but, assuming Mr. O'Carroll is right, our proportion will be in the neighbourhood of £10,000 because we will be responsible for twice as much. The total cost of maintenance will be £15,000. Contrasting that figure with the estimated loss of £3,000 to C.I.E. in the operation of the railroad there certainly seems to be some false economy somewhere. I mentioned that at Question Time today. I think it is not irrelevant to stress the fact that this attempted saving on the part of C.I.E. is foisting an additional burden on the city and county ratepayers of Waterford. I do not think that is reasonable, and I believe the Minister should indemnify us in some way.

I have referred so far only to maintenance. To put this road into proper condition to carry double-deck bus traffic it will be necessary, I am informed by the City Engineer and the City Manager, to expend a very large sum indeed. I quote from the statements made at the deputation: "We believe it will cost £100,000. We must remove Sheep's Bridge, build a new bridge, take out various turns, and widen the road at various parts." Perhaps the Minister will give a grant. I sincerely hope he will because the employment content would be very welcome in such a scheme as this. It is mainly on the question of maintenance charges that objection is taken by the people of Waterford. They do not want to lose the railway, but I do not propose to argue the pros and cons of that. I shall confine myself to the cost of maintenance, estimated by the Borough Surveyor at £5,000 per year. The most the corporation will get is 40 per cent. In the county area it will be £10,000, and the most we will get is 40 per cent. Even if it were 50 per cent. there would still be £7,500 to be found each year by way of rates.

That road is subject to flooding. Luckily for us, a photograph appeared today in the paper produced by Deputy Lynch showing the flooding on that road. What happens when the road is flooded? An alternative road is used. This road has not the Minister's sanction to carry bus traffic, except in an emergency. The result of all this is that the Waterford ratepayers will have to foot the bill in order to subsidise C.I.E. Does anyone think that is either fair or reasonable? Will anyone believe C.I.E. cannot pay dividends when they transfer their burdens to the shoulders of the Waterford ratepayers?

In conjunction with Deputy Lynch, and on behalf of the people of Waterford, I join in protest against this imposition on the people of Waterford. I was present at the county council meeting when a motion was passed and I was present at the meeting of the Waterford Corporation when a motion was passed. In justice to the Waterford Corporation and the county council the Minister should state what he intends to do. We do not propose to shoulder the burden if we can possibly avoid it. C.I.E. have the same rights as every other road user in the country. Provided they pay their tax they have every right to use the roads. Is it fair or reasonable, however, to throw a burden on the city and county of Waterford? All the Waterford Corporation gets out of the Road Fund is a miserable £5,000. Will the Minister indicate that he regards this as a serious motion, an attempt to draw his attention to something to which attention needs to be drawn? Will he have the matter investigated and give it the sympathetic consideration I believe it deserves?

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

In so far as the seriousness of the motion is concerned, I have no doubt whatever that the Deputies interested in this matter are quite serious in bringing it to the notice of the House, to my notice and to the notice of my Department. This falls into two parts. There is the question of flooding on a particular stretch of that road. In regard to that flooding, before ever the question of the closing of the railway arose, there was an application in my Department for some financial assistance to remedy or abate the flooding.

That proposal is, at the moment, under consideration in the Department. We will leave that for the moment and deal with the direct matter which has been brought under notice to-night and that is the question of the impact of additional traffic that it is alleged will be thrown on the road from Waterford to Tramore in place of the railway line. In so far as that matter is concerned, let me say straightaway that some of the facts and figures emerging from the two Deputies who spoke here to-night have not been made available by their engineer's report to my Department. They have quoted figures of £5,000 for the Corporation's stretch of road and £10,000 for the county council's stretch of road. None of these figures has been given to my Department in the only engineer's report we have got.

The next thing is that in so far as the matter has been raised by the manager writing to my Department and enclosing his engineer's report, no real case has been made in regard to this matter at all. The partial case made is based on figures which, from our information, are not the only figures which have emerged in regard to the amount of additional traffic expected. The figures we have got so far, and which I understand are C.I.E.'s estimate in this matter, would give us to understand that the alternative service to substitute for the rail service would involve 17 services in each direction in the winter and 25 in summer. In addition, might I say that it is understood that an additional five ton lorry will be required to meet C.I.E.'s additional freight traffic on the road.

Those figures are subject to correction, as are any other figures quoted in this matter, but from them it would appear that there must be a heavy lorry traffic using that road and the addition of a single five ton lorry, which would be necessitated, is not going to be regarded as an additional major stress on the road. The point is that I have available to me those figures which Deputies do not seem to have got.

Mr. Kyne

The Taoiseach told us——

Mr. Blaney

I am not disputing what the Taoiseach told the Deputy or what the Deputy understood. What I am quoting here is what we have got so far officially from the Corporation by way of a report from the engineer and his manager. That report speaks for itself. It is far from complete and could not be regarded as a firm application for anything under any head. The figures which we have available to us are not figures submitted by your engineer or your manager. They are figures that we ourselves have got together along with the fact that our own road inspectors are fairly familiar with this road. As a result of the report sent by the manager and with the intimate knowledge they have of the road we have gone into the matter.

The report has been inconclusive because of the lack of any really fundamental case and because of the lack of information as to how the road is constructed, what is its subsoil and what is beneath it. That information has not yet been given to us.

Mr. Kyne

There are 20 feet of bog beneath it.

Mr. Blaney

That may be right. There may be 30 feet of bog beneath it but so far as the facts given to us by your engineer are concerned that has not been elicited from his report. That is a fundamental matter with regard to what daily stress the road will stand in the future. It is a fundamental matter and it is elementary that it should be known. We have not got that information.

Again, and I say this in no manner of discredit to the Deputy or the other people concerned, it is not a matter for my Department to go down there and prepare your case for you. The demands on my Department are great and it is a matter for them to bring those demands down to realistic proportions rather than to have to go out and ascertain what your case is. It is because of that lack of information that my reply to the Question and the supplementary information given to you to-day may appear to conflict with what the Deputy believes to be the facts.

Those facts, as the Deputy knows them, have not been made available to us. If your case is all you say it is and all that you believe it to be the first thing that must be done is to submit every bit of information to the Department. That is the first thing to do and it has not, up to the moment, been done. Over and above that are the figures I have given for the Deputy's information about the proposed services which will be necessary to substitute on the road for the rail passenger and freight services. I have mentioned those figures, without tying myself to them, to show that without the additional information which I have mentioned there could not be said to be that great impact on the road that the Deputies would have us believe. They may prove to be right and it may be proved that those figures are wrong. I do not know but the only figures I have are figures which do not indicate a massive increase of traffic on the road.

Mr. Kyne

Does the Minister accept the statement I gave to him as having been made by the Taoiseach?

Mr. Blaney

I want to point out that it is not a question of accepting or not accepting. This matter was raised to-night in the usual way because of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply to the Question. The reply is based on the known figures as we got them and on the case presented by the manager. The point is that the most has not been made of your case, whether it be good, bad or indifferent. It is rather in the nature of a preparatory case: it is in the form of an inquiry rather than an established case. It will be for all of us to consider the case when we have all the facts and figures fully documented with the elementary information as to when and how the road was originally constructed and what is beneath it. When we have that information we can sit down and decide what to do.

The Dáil adjourned at 11 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 1st December, 1960.