asked the Minister for Local Government if he is aware that at peak hours, much traffic dislocation and delay is caused by the failure of his Department to make a Bridge Order in respect of the existing Parnell Bridge in Cork City; if having regard to the urgency of the matter he will make an Order providing for the erection of a new bridge; and if he will state the date upon which the Cork Corporation's request for a Bridge Order was received in his Department and the reasons for the failure to make an Order.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cork Bridge Order.
44.
The Corporation's request for a bridge order, referred to by the Deputy, was received in my Department on 6th December, 1961. The statutory report preliminary to a public inquiry was submitted in June, 1962. Subsequently a number of questions, involving postponement of a decision on the application, were the subject of correspondence between the Corporation and my Department. When these questions were disposed of, my Department requested last March a detailed report on the traffic aspects of the application. This was required because it was not evident that the traffic congestion at and in the vicinity of this bridge would be eliminated merely by replacing it with a larger structure and because, the present bridge being structurally sound, any public inquiry into the application for a bridge order must be mainly concerned with its merits in the context of traffic movement. The Corporation have not accepted that such a report is necessary. Since July last the Corporation have had available the services of an expert Traffic Consultant, and it has, therefore, been now suggested to them that the report already requested should be prepared as a matter of urgency by this consultant in order that the proposals for meeting present and future traffic requirements in the area may be based on the best planning and traffic advice available.