A feasibility study was recommended by the Government in 1985 to investigate what type of crossing should be provided on the downstream river in Cork. That was done at a cost of £340,000 to £350,000 and I understand a recommendation was made that a crossing should go there. A bridge order was then given to the Department by Cork Corporation. The amount of money that has been spent over the years — I know the Minister is well aware of this — particularly by the Department of the Environment regarding infrastructure, is enormous. A south side ring road has been constructed at a cost of £25 million and a similar sum is to be expended on the north circular road. That does not take into account the cost of constructing Glanmire bypass, which is to be ready for use in 1993. Despite all this enormous cost on road infrastructure and after the expenditure of a third of £1 million on road studies, there is still no word from the Department about whether a crossing will be allowed.
How long does it take to build a crossing? I emphasise the word "crossing" rather than a tunnel, even though Cork Corporation, Cork County Council, the harbour commissioners and everybody involved in the environment in the Cork region recommend a tunnel. Even though a recommendation has been made that there should be a tunnel, arguments are still going on about what type of crossing. It is sad to think that we have put so much money into infrastructure and have not yet given the order for a crossing. I understand that the design work on a tunnel would take from two to three years and that it would take another three years to build it. You are talking about 1995 if you give the order now. Both the north circular road and the south ring road end up nowhere. Since the main road from Waterford leads into the centre of the city, you will only create traffic congestion if the crossing is not built. I do not see the logic of that when the feasibility study has already recommended that a crossing must go there.
I well recognise that the Government must have priorities. At a meeting of municipal authorities in Westport two years ago, myself and a councillor colleague of the same party as the Minister had discussions with him about this crossing. Indeed, the Minister gave us a very fair hearing and I want to thank him for that. However, that was over two years ago and nothing has happened about the provision of this crossing.
What does this crossing mean for Cork? Over £100 million has been spent on infrastructural work in the lower harbour area. The deepwater berth takes ships of 75,000 tonnes, but we cannot get traffic down there. There is no logic in that. In addition, in the Ringaskiddy area we have over 1,000 acres available for development, yet we have the situation that when you leave the Ringaskiddy area you go nowhere. It is not logical to have an ongoing argument about what type of crossing should go there where there appears to be no difference in cost between providing a tunnel and a high rise crossing. From an environmental point of view I do not think a high rise crossing would look the thing. If you had a low level bridge you would have delays of 15 minutes on average 12 times a day because of shipping traffic. You could imagine the build up of traffic there.
What would a tunnel mean? It would mean the employment of 300 people over the three year period. It would require 9,000 tonnes of steel from Irish Steel and 75,000 cubic metres of concrete. Think of what this would mean for the Cork area. I do not want to create an air of despondency, but there is a strong feeling in the Cork-Kerry region that the area has been downgraded. That is not fair because successive Governments have provided excellent infrastructure. Two bridge crossings were opened in 1985 and they have done excellent work for the city. However, when you look at the situation, particularly on the southern side of the inner harbour area, the Minister will agree it is wrong that we should have an ongoing argument about what type of crossing should be provided. The cost of a tunnel would be £39 million.
The inquiry set up in 1985 believed that the delays that would be caused by a bridge crossing would be unacceptable. For the sake of the people who have invested in their businesses in Cork it is time this ongoing argument was brought to an end. Every week we hear public representatives, particularly on the Government side, suggesting that the Minister will make the order in two weeks' time. In 1986, the present Taoiseach, when in Opposition, said in the Neptune Stadium in Cork that the order should be granted then.
Why not give the go-ahead and say we are considering this — we are talking about a crossing but we are not decided one way or the other. Could we get clarification? If the crossing is not provided by 1995 there will be more congestion in the city area. After all the good work that has been done we will be back to square one again. We can put a high rise bridge over the traditional old village of Douglas, but when the people of Douglas look up at that in two or three years' time they will ask "Where is it going?" In fact, it is going nowhere except to the river. I do not see the logic in that. It is embarrassing to public representatives from all sides that we are building infrastructure but yet we cannot get from one side of the river to the other because no decision has been made by consultants. I understand there is an ongoing argument between one consultant group and the group involved in the feasibility study.
It is unfair to the Cork-Kerry region, Cork County Council, Cork City Council, the Harbour Commissioners and everybody involved. It is unfair that, after all the recommendations that were made, and particularly by the Harbour
Commissioners, we should say there is no way we would consider a downstream crossing of a bridge, giving the impression that we should downgrade the upper harbour. There is over 10,000 feet of wharfing in the upper harbour; there is only 700 feet in Ringaskiddy. Let us not kill Cork because a bridge should go there. There is no way we can say that all shipping should go on in the lower harbour. We would have to build more wharfing and more berthing there. That involves more money, and that is not on.
The difference between a high rise crossing and a tunnel would be, in my view, £2 million to £4 million. We should not be saying that is not a priority. It must be a priority for that region. Look at all the money that has been put into Ringaskiddy by all Governments, including the present one, money spent on the environment, water structure, road structure and so on. Yet the roads lead to nowhere. I would appreciate if something constructive could be done and some logical argument made about what way we are going.
