The Luas proposal, involving a core light rail network made up of lines to Tallaght and Cabinteely via the Harcourt line and to Ballymun and Finglas via the Broadstone railway line and an extension of the Ballymun line to Dublin Airport and Swords, has been recommended by the DTI. This represents a major infrastructural development for the city and will involve a massive investment of some £200 million in transport with much of the funding coming from European Union sources under the operational programme on transport. The project will have a major impact on the citizens of Dublin and must be welcomed in principle. As the proposal is now before us it would be almost impossible to reject it out of hand. Nevertheless, I am not sure alternative routes were given due consideration or that the finer details of the project were fully examined.
The process of public consultation has been hopelessly inadequate to date. The project will involve major disturbance and disruption to residents and businesses and will cause major traffic disruption, particularly during the construction stage. The Bill gives sweeping powers to CIE in this regard. The provisions on consultation and community involvement are not satisfactory. The contents of the Bill are needlessly legalistic and bureaucratic. The project will succeed only if there is adequate negotiation with a real attempt to achieve consensus on the issues involved.
I am not satisfied the LRT system will be fully integrated into the overall public transport system of the city. That matter should have been examined more carefully. It will not integrate with the DART system. It could be argued that it is being imposed on the city without any consideration of the overall transport requirements. However, the light rail network will be environmentally friendly. It will not cause pollution and will help promote the concept of a living inner city.
Like other Deputies from the northside, I deeply regret the original decision to defer construction of the Ballymun line. Everyone on the northside breathed a sigh of relief when the Minister finally admitted that in November 1995 the EU Commission ordered a socio-economic study, involving independent and in-depth analysis on the prioritisation of the three lines. We were told the Ballymun link was originaly deferred due to the low car ownership statistics for the area and the disruption and congestion which would occur in the Drumcondra area, in particular, with two major projects under way, the Dublin Port tunnel and the Ballymun light rail link.
The so-called north Dublin black are involves the largest cluster of deprivation in the State. According to the president of Dublin City University this belt of deprivation has a population of 106,000 people, more than Galway and Waterford cities combined. There is a serious long-term unemployment problem in the locality. Of course, it makes sense to examine the social dimensions of any infrastructural development. Several studies concluded that the Ballymun link would greatly enhance efforts to develop the area economically. The task force set up by the Minister for Enterprise and Employment to examine job opportunities in and around Dublin Airport strongly recommends the provision of the Ballymun line. It is also supported by Dublin City University, the Ballymun Partnership, the Finglas-Cabra Partnership, the Nortside Partnership and more recently by a combination of residents' associations in the locality known as the North Dublin Transport Alliance.
It is unbelievable there is no rail link to Dublin Airport, a major international airport which grew by more than one-third in the past two years and had eight million passengers in 1995. Dublin Airport may be the only airport in Europe without such a link — other Deputies referred to that matter. It is vital that detailed planning and necessary preparation and design work for the Ballymun line is commenced so that it has a realistic chance of inclusion in the final package to be put to the European Commission. There may be no funding available from the EU after the year 2000 and if the Ballymun line is not included in the first phase the general fear is that it may not see the light of day if is has to be funded solely from domestic sources.
I do not subscribe to the view that two major projects, the Dublin Port tunnel and the Ballymun line, would lead to massive disruption in that locality. Potential disruption could be minimised by adequate phasing and co-ordination between the two projects. The people on the north side of Dublin want fair play in the prioritisation of the three light rail lines.
I wish to refer to a proposal put forward by a group known as the Transport Users' Support Group, an alternative to the Luas proposal or an option which could be taken in association with that proposal. The plans involve a circular rail line from Malahide to Booters-town DART station, linking Malahide, Swords, the airport, Ballymun, Finglas, Blanchardstown, Coolmine, Lucan, Clondalkin, Baldonnel, Saggart, Tallaght, Sandyford, UCD and Booters-town. There is merit in such a proposal. Perhaps the Minister will clarify whether that project and the Luas line are mutually exclusive. Has he received a submission in that regard and, if so, what is its status?
The Dublin Transport Initiative was a very important and worthwhile endeavour. For the first time all aspects of transport in the greater Dublin area were examined in a comprehensive way. Most importantly, for the first time, there was public involvement and consultation regarding the deliberations. I recall attending a number of public sessions organised by the Dublin Transport Initiative in local areas, which were very well attended, and the standard of debate was first class. The initiative is a very important milestone in the development of transport policy in the city. My only regret is that it did not study adequately all proposals for a port access route. In particular it did not analyse and evaluate in a satisfactory way proposals from National Toll Roads plc for an east-west Liffey tunnel. Perhaps that battle is lost, or perhaps the project will be resurrected in the future.
Information submitted to public representatives at the time was that the proposed Liffey tunnel would create 600 jobs over the five years' construction period; directly create 35 full-time jobs; involve no cost to Government — funding would include 70 per cent Structural Funds, £70 million, and 30 per cent private funding, £30 million; generate £25 million in tax revenues on capital cost from VAT, PAYE and PRSI; generate significant company tax, PAYE, PRSI and VAT payments for the 30 years' duration of the toll scheme; reduce traffic congestion on the quays and facilitate public transport, particularly on the quays; the toll franchise would return to Government ownership after 30 years; it would increase the competitive advantage of Irish exporters through Dublin port; stimulate development and economic growth in the city, particularly the port area; require no Government subvention of operating or maintenance costs, estimated at £1 million annually, and provide a much needed port access route. The Dublin Transportation Initiative did not evaluate that project as well as it should have and perhaps it will be resurrected at some stage.
A port access route is vital for the survival of manufacturing in the City of Dublin. Dublin port is being strangled because of traffic congestion generally. Nevertheless, I have much difficulty with the proposed A6 Dublin port tunnel route from Whitehall to East Wall. As an isolated proposal it makes no sense and would simply result in thousands of cars using the East Wall road area — it is estimated that it would double traffic in that area. Perhaps the Minister for the Environment will say whether the southern leg of the eastern by-pass is back on the agenda. To propose in isolation a port access route to East Wall would cause many difficulties, a matter of which we should be very conscious.
There has been very little consultation with local residents about the Dublin port tunnel. Many residents have legitimate concerns and cannot get satisfactory answers from the technical people involved — for example, people have fears about their homes. There are many rumours in the locality about the effects of this tunnel. I am unable to allay the concerns because I do not have the technical qualifications to deal with the queries raised. It is disgraceful that people cannot get satisfactory answers to their legitimate queries.
Many concerns have been raised locally about the Dublin port tunnel. The location of the tunnel portal in the Whitehall area on the Swords Road has been questioned. Concerns about emissions and noise in the Whitehall area have led to requests to move the tunnel portal northwards, and I support that view. There is concern about construction disturbance; construction vibration from the tunnel, particularly in the Marino area; possible damage to houses in Marino; compensation arrangements, should that arise; noise and vibration from the tunnel after construction; amenities and facilities in Fairview Park; air quality in the East Wall Road area and at the northern portal; and recreational amenities involving water sports in the Tolka River. These are genuine concerns but to date they have not been adequately dealt with by the consultants. An environmental impact statement was promised in March — it is now June. Dublin County Council is not able to facilitate the project until these questions are answered satisfactorily.
The engineers involved say the A6 route must be taken and the routes A1 to A5 cannot proceed — it must be the A6 route or nothing — but I do not believe what engineers say. In his contribution our leader, Deputy Ahern, said that he has observed engineers for years and while they always say they cannot do a task, after adequate consultation they come up with satisfactory solutions as to how it could be done. An acceptable alternative to the A6 route must be brought forward, following real and meaningful consultation with all concerned.
The Austrian tunnelling method, known as NATM, is being used to construct the tunnel but the reports we receive about this method lead to worries. There was a damning review of the use of this method by the British Health and Safety Executive, which dealt at length with the possibility of tunnel collapse. It is estimated that new safety measures will have to be introduced, which will increase the existing £130 million cost.
Members of the public must raise funds to make submissions on issues like Luas and the Dublin port tunnel but they have no satisfactory way to hire experts to make proposals which differ from those put forward by the local authority or CIE. Now that we are trying to encourage community activity and participation, a system of funding should be put in place for voluntary groups who confront proposals such as this on infrastructure, etc. The EU will probably implement it for us in due course but it is an issue for the future.
A number of Deputies asked who was looking after transport in Dublin. Three Government Departments, four local authorities, a host of transport providers, the Garda, the National Roads Authority and, most recently, the Dublin Transportation Office are all concerned with one problem. That is unsatisfactory. Dublin Bus Nitelink service should be extended because it is inadequate at present. Given the current number of taxis in the city, the overall picture should be examined and Dublin Bus should play a greater role. Cycleways are another development for the future and local authorities should be seen to do more in that regard. I welcome the provision of new DART stations in Clontarf and Drumcondra which will improve public transport in the city.
The "road rage" phenomenon has been observed in the US and the UK and Dublin's transport problems are becoming so chronic that we will witness this phenomenon here also. We must tackle our problems now. We have the opportunity and the funding to do it. We must get our priorities right and get these major developments under way.