I raised this matter recently with the Minister of State. I asked him the cost to the taxpayer of the proposed motorway for the Dublin area. I also asked if the complaints of residents along the proposed route would be taken into account and the consultative machinery which would operate in that connection. Many of the residents along the proposed route wish to make representations. I also asked if in the course of consultations any amendments could be made to present plans for the motorway.
The plans will include the construction of a city by pass linking the Stillorgan Road at Fosters Avenue to the Swords Road at Whitehall and the multi-purpose road will include a bridge over the River Liffey at Macken Street. I asked the Minister whether any comprehensive approach to traffic congestion in Dublin is under consideration. When I asked about costing, the Minister confined his answer to the eastern by-pass, linking Whitehall in the north with Stillorgan in the south. He gave as the cost to the taxpayer a figure in the region of £28 million. I question whether that is a realistic figure. Considering some of the reports of this matter, it seems the figure would be nearer £100 million. Even that figure might prove conservative, taking into account the nature of costs in the construction industry. Perhaps the Minister would give the official estimate of the total cost, if this is available.
I query whether the proposed motorway will provide a solution to the traffic congestion from which Dublin is suffering. I do not deny that there is severe congestion in the city at present, but I would recommend to the Minister a more comprehensive approach to the problems. To depend on the remedy of a motorway or, as the Minister of State said, an all-purpose road is to evade certain features of traffic congestion which need an immediate response. Recently we discussed the need to modernise the Howth-Bray rail line and the desirability of the electrification of that line and this is being studied at present. What we really require is a combination of policies. We should not simply rely on one aspect. That major relief of traffic congestion could be provided by the proposed motorway is a delusion.
I do not deny that the city is coming to a stop, that buses no longer move on time or that business leaders say they are losing £1 million per day and industrial orders are being lost through excessive delays. The traffic congestion is very severe. The city was built for the horse and carriage and cannot cope with modern traffic.
How can we say we are serious in dealing with the problem when the allocation for roadworks in the Dublin region in 1978 amounted to a mere £7.175 million? This is not an adequate amount to keep the existing fabric of our roads in good condition. In Westland Row, not far from this House, the surface is reminiscent of a road in Kinshasa in the Congo rather than a road in a modern European capital. There are many other roads throughout the city which are full of potholes and which constitute a danger to pedestrians and motorists alike. The funds being allocated are not adequate even for the upkeep of existing roads. It is necessary that we improve as rapidly as possible ordinary transport routes in the area where one-third of the population live.
My criticism of the proposed motorway plan is based on my belief that it will not relieve traffic congestion. It represents rather a postponement of dealing with the problem. We should take a series of steps to link rail transport with public road transport and private transport, to work towards a comprehensive reform.
The Minister for the Environment recently clarified the position in relation to traffic congestion when he said that in his opinion responsibility rests with the local authorities concerned, Dublin Corporation, Dublin Country Council and Dún Laoghaire Borough Council. There is a problem in the fact that there is no overall responsibility in the hands of one agency. How could this be said to be the responsibility of these authorities when they have no statutory control of traffic management which is a function of the Garda, have no responsibility for public transport and have no immediate input into the more efficient way of transporting large numbers of people? Traffic management as an objective must include some responsibility for the rail system in this region. How therefore can they be said to have primary responsibility for dealing with traffic congestion in the city. It suggests that there is need in this part of the country, in which one-third of the population reside, for a greater Dublin transport authority which would have overall responsibility for traffic management, for co-ordination of public transport and road transport, which would have an overseeing role in the Dublin region and which would be responsible for both management and planning of Dublin's transport.
That matter should be under consideration at present rather than the remedy that occupies much attention at present, the possibility of a motorway which will involve a huge cost to the taxpayer. There is also a question about its possible utility. A great deal of authoritative opinion suggests that it would not relieve traffic congestion. As well as there is the overall questionable future of the motor car having regard to the present energy supply position. All these factors should be weighed before we come to any decision on such a plan.
One of my reasons for putting down this question was my concern that full consultation should be seen to take place with groups who oppose the building of this motorway, because they believe that their environment and neighbourhood are threatened by such a motorway passing through their areas. This road would certainly interfere with normal community life in centre city areas. I am not satisfied that the procedures for consultation envisaged under this plan are adequate. I am not satisfied that these groups can really make their views known and have them taken into account in a decisive and effective way. One community group is already threatening court action because of their dissatisfaction with the proposed motorway. In objections of this kind such groups could be considered to be Davids fighting Goliaths against an encroachment on their living space. Legal costs must be paid for by these groups of citizens but the local authority is backed by State resources. Citizens who have legitimate objections to plans of this kind should be encouraged rather than financially penalised.
The Minister of State made a curious reference in his reply on 13 March relating to the cost of the eastern by-pass. The Minister explained that the details of the proposed plan had not at that time been notified to the Department of the Environment. That gives a curious insight into the relations between the Department of the Environment and the local authority in this area. One would have thought that a plan likely to cost so much money would have been notified to the Department who would be fully conversant with all the details. Perhaps that is the position now, but from what I can gather from the Minister's reply, the details of the proposed eastern by-pass had not been submitted to the Department on that date. Have they been submitted at this point? After all a very large cost to the taxpayer is involved in this plan. Whether it is proceeded with or not is another day's work. What kind of authority or judgment will lie in the Department's hands as to the go-ahead for the entire plan? There are many strong objections to it. There are criticisms from many important traffic experts in this area who contest the utility of this in terms of the relief of traffic congestion. Will all these be taken into account before any final decision is made?
The Minister of State referred to this as an all-purpose road, not a motorway. Yet in the city manager's report, the point was made, and not contested, that this all-purpose road or motorway can and may be upgraded to a motorway status, if considered desirable in the future. It could in future become a fully fledged motorway with six or eight traffic lanes. Will the Minister clarify the exact physical size of the construction contemplated?
What we really need is a more comprehensive answer to Dublin's traffic problems which presently constitute a very great difficulty for living conditions in the capital at present. We spent too little on the upkeep of our roadways. To illustrate this one only has to go a short distance in the city to see many principal thoroughfares which are rapidly becoming nearer to dirt tracks. Obviously a bigger allocation of money is needed. We could proceed on pretty well researched plans already proposed by CIE in relation to the modernisation of the Bray-Howth line. There are plans to extend that into such growing population areas as Tallaght, Clondalkin and Blanchardstown.
