Deputy Collins has not more than 20 minutes.
Adjournment Debate. - Waterford Bridge.
I wish to thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for allowing this question to be raised on the Adjournment and to thank the Minister for consenting to reply to it.
There is no more emotive issue in Waterford than the question of a second bridge. There is nothing more calculated to lead to argument, public and private, and more likely to lead to criticism of public representatives in Waterford than the naked question of the state of the Redmond Bridge and the need for a second bridge for Waterford. There is justification for the concern expressed by the people of Waterford about the present state of Redmond Bridge. This is an old bridge which was built at the beginning of the century, opened around 1913, in a day when we had no articulated vehicles. Today we have these 40-foot containers, long vehicles, heavy vehicles weighing 32 tons gross, indeed sometimes weighing even more, because there is certainly an allegation that many companies are exceeding the permitted axle loadings.
Because of the age of the bridge and the rapid development in transport technique, especially in the last 20 years, it is becoming clearly obvious that Redmond Bridge is not capable of facilitating this traffic. It is not capable of handling the weight or the volume of the traffic at this point in time. It just was not built for it technically; and that it has lasted for so long is a high tribute to the engineers who designed it and the builders who built it.
Concern has been expressed in public—and the Minister is aware of it—about the future of Redmond Bridge. The Minister is more than aware of the public pressure being brought to bear on him to provide a second and preferably a high-level bridge in Waterford. It has come to the time in relation to the heavy traffic when the life of Redmond Bridge can be counted in years. Concern has been expressed about the need to enforce the maximum axle loading regulations and unless these regulations are adhered to the bridge is in danger.
It was in that context that the Minister received, on 29 March last, a deputation of public representatives and local authority employees—managers and engineers—from Waterford city and county, Kilkenny and Tipperary. It was the unanimous wish of that deputation that the Minister would sanction the building of a high-level bridge for Waterford. I have never seen such unity of purpose in any deputation with which I was concerned.
It is to be regretted that the Minister has decided that, due to the state of repair of the present bridge, a low-level bridge, or a twin for Redmond bridge, should be built. His grounds are safety ones and are quite valid. The safety of people and traffic is his responsibility. However, it was the opinion of the City Engineer, certainly, that if certain arrangements were made, especially in relation to the maximum axle loading limits being enforced, that the bridge would last for six years at least. This period, it was agreed, would elapse from the time the Minister gave sanction for the bridge to the time of completion. We were satisfied that the bridge could be maintained in proper repair, assuming money was spent on it and the maximum loadings adhered to during that period of six years.
We require a high-level bridge for a number of reasons. One—and by far the most important—is that we must have a second bridge to cater for the volume of traffic, particularly coming from the north end of the city, the main Dublin road, Kilkenny road, the road to the north and the road from the north-west. There is an incontestable case for a high-level bridge in Waterford. The other reason we are seeking a high-level bridge is that we need to have a network of roads serving the city, ring roads which will facilitate and dilute the traffic around the city rather than continuing the present situation where all the traffic is filtered right into the centre of the city causing severe congestion. It has been the wish for nigh on 15 years that we should get this second bridge.
I think it was on 5 October last year that the final plans for a high-level bridge were submitted to the Minister's Department. Those plans were meticulously drawn up and we were satisfied that they were the best possible plans in the context of the overall development of the city, the industrial and commercial development. The roads required would be neatly linked in and would allow for a ring-road from the new high-level bridge across the southern part of the city to connect up with the main Cork road. On the north side of the city we were putting a ring-road around the Ferrybank side of the city to connect up with the New Ross road and also feeding from and feeding into the bridge would be a major road linking up the main Dublin and Limerick roads. That would have solved the traffic problems in Waterford for the foreseeable future.
Therefore, it is to be regretted that the Minister is in favour of a low-level bridge for Waterford, a twin to Redmond Bridge. In the booklet entitled Road Development Plans for 1980s the Minister quite clearly has set his sights on a low level bridge in Waterford city which should be completed, if I have read the relevant section correctly, by 1984. The question of a high-level bridge to be completed by 1989 has been suggested. I would like the Minister to confirm that he does mean that the high-level bridge will be completed by 1989 as is suggested in his booklet although I doubt the Minister's intentions in the matter because if we take a time scale of six years in the building of the bridge I would feel that the Minister does really not have his heart in the question of a high-level bridge in Waterford because if he did and if his intentions were clear and if his intentions were to allow the corporation to continue to purchase all the necessary land and property in order to have the feed roads into the bridge ready he would have issued a letter of approval of the technical design for the high-level bridge. This has not been forthcoming to my knowledge. I am not aware that he has issued it or that he intends to issue it. I would ask the Minister to say clearly if he intends to issue this letter. If he does not, there will be grave disappointment in Waterford and the setback will be very great. It will be obvious to all that the Minister does not intend to put his heart into the provision of a high-level bridge for Waterford.
Waterford's population in 1977 was 42,250. I do not mean the strict legal population but the population as specified in the Brady, Shipman, Martin Report, the Waterford Environs Study, Structure Plan Stage. That population of 42,250 is expected to rise to 53,584 by the end of the eighties. Waterford has only one bridge. Towns of smaller size have two bridges and I understand Sligo town has three bridges. If anything should happen to the Waterford bridge, if it should fall, apart from the personal disruption it would cause, the commercial life of Waterford would be in jeopardy because there would be no way across the River Suir. If the low-level bridge is provided the present traffic congestion will not be alleviated; the city centre will continue to be a turmoil of congestion; the commercial life of Waterford might be irreparably damaged if a high-level bridge is not built.
I know it is the Minister's intention to allow a second-level bridge to be built and I know it is his intention to allow the Ferrybank dual carriageway to be built within the next four years. I know his reasons are safety reasons and I take his point but if he does not say that he is going to issue a letter of approval for the technical design of the high-level bridge and if he does not say, "yes, we are going to build a high-level bridge and it will be completed by 1989", there will be grave disappointment in Waterford and there will be a certain feeling that Waterford is not getting its fair share of the national cake. That opinion is very prevalent in the city and I am sure the Minister will find that out from any of the Deputies from the constituency that Waterford is not getting its fair share. It has got more than its fair share of unemployment and industrial hardship in the past ten years but has not got its fair share in respect of new industry and in respect of the infrastructural service which any growing city needs. Waterford was designated as a growth centre but very few people in Waterford would believe that it is a growth centre now. I am putting it straight to the Minister and I want a straight answer. Will he forthwith issue a letter approving the technical design of the high-level bridge thus allowing proper planning and acquisition to continue and to be completed so that the high-level bridge can then be constructed? I want the Minister to give his assurance that money will be provided and set aside year by year and a commitment made to the people of Waterford that this high-level bridge will be completed before the end of the eighties.
All the public representatives in Waterford would prefer to see the high-level bridge built first and if necessary the low-level bridge built afterwards. That is the clear opinion of the people of Waterford and of the members of the staff of Waterford Corporation. We have had full support for our cause from all the public representatives in the adjoining counties. It is obvious that the future development of Waterford in the long term depends on proper access to proper service roads and proper ring roads and unless the Government give a commitment in respect of this high-level bridge the people of Waterford will be gravely disappointed. I want straight answers to straight questions. I want to know will the Minister issue the letter approving the technical design and give a clear commitment to the House that the high-level bridge will be proceeded with as soon as the property and lands have been acquired by Waterford Corporation. I want this question answered.
The Deputy is looking for straight answers to straight questions. I can assure him he will get straight answers. First of all, I would like to explain the problems in Waterford. I am afraid the Deputy was trying to put the cart before the horse. Waterford Corporation are proposing to build a high-level bridge. I told them what they had to do in order to set up an inquiry when they sent a deputation up here on 29 March last. I also confirmed this in writing on 9 April. I told them that I am in no way opposed to a high-level bridge. They are fully aware of this. I told them that in order to get the bridge under way they would have to be able to assure me that they have the land available for approach roads. They admitted they had not. I also explained that they would have to hold a bridge inquiry and when they could satisfy me that they had acquired the land either by negotiation or compulsory purchase order that the construction of the bridge could be got under way. I also explained that the bridge inquiry and the inquiries for the compulsory purchase of land would have to run simultaneously. I made this clear in writing to Waterford Corporation and I do not know what the confusion is about. I said I would set up the inquiry as soon as they satisfied me on those matters. How much straighter can I be with regard to an answer than that?
With regard to the letter the Deputy is looking for about the design of the bridge, that can come only after the inquiry because, as Minister, I am in the role of final adjudicator with regard to the inquiry. Therefore, I cannot prejudice objections that may be voiced at the inquiry by taking the action the Deputy is asking. The inquiry must come first and the bridge order afterwards.
That should satisfy everyone that I am in no way opposed to the high-level bridge, that I am in favour of it. I appreciate how necessary it is for the further development of the area and I shall continue to support the project. Waterford Corporation must play their part. Otherwise they will delay having the high-level bridge. It is estimated now that it will be almost seven years before a vehicle crosses the high-level bridge. At my meeting with the deputation the county manager, without my posing the question, said that it would be at least six years before traffic would cross the bridge. If the corporation get on with the job they will have the high-level bridge in the minimum time. The delay is not at this end. It is the corporation who are delaying matters now.
That brings us to the second issue which is involved, namely, the state of Redmond Bridge, the only bridge crossing the River. Without a bridge into Waterford the commercial life of the city, of other parts of Waterford and as far as south Wexford would be completely strangled. Even the ferry service from south Wexford to Cork would be interfered with. The Redmond Bridge is in a very bad state of repair and I have responsibility in the matter. I did not make the decision about the poor state of repair of the bridge. The consultants employed by Waterford Corporation said so in their report. The estimated cost of temporary repairs is now approaching £500,000 and even if those repairs were carried out the consultants state that they cannot guarantee any life for that bridge thereafter. It could well be that £500,000 would be thrown down the drain and Waterford might be left without any bridge. Does Deputy Collins and his colleagues want that to happen? What about the economic and commercial life of the area and the further development of Waterford city?
Last Friday when I was launching the national road development plan I said that Redmond Bridge is inadequate for the volume and type of traffic using it and is also structurally deficient. I said that the immediate requirement for Waterford city is the replacement of Redmond Bridge. I stated, however, that having regard to a number of considerations such as regional development, the growth of port activity and industrial development, the proposal to replace the present bridge is without prejudice to the development of proposals for another new bridge to be built upstream of Redmond Bridge with new connecting roads to the Rosslare, Kilkenny and Cork roads. In the page which I presume the Deputy referred to with regard to Waterford, it does not speak about a bridge but about bridges.
Having regard to the present state of the bridge, even after carrying out the repairs I mentioned it would be unsafe. In the event of a serious accident, perhaps loss of life or property, responsibility would rest here, not with Deputy Collins. The Minister of the day would be the person responsible. I have responsibility to the people who use the bridge. I also must ensure that traffic can come and go into Waterford. In an effort to ensure this in the minimum of time, I have decided that Redmond Bridge must be replaced so that vehicles may cross the replacement bridge in two years' time as against the minimum of seven years for a high-level bridge. Do the people want a bridge into Waterford or do they want to be in a situation where they may have to wait seven years? I do not think the people of Waterford want to wait so long.
I wish to give straight answers to the questions put by the Deputy. So far as I am concerned the high-level bridge is on. Waterford Corporation should take the necessary action. It is they who are causing the delay, not my Department. The Deputy said plans were submitted last autumn but they were not adequate, as he knows. They did not make provision for approach roads or their acquisition. There is little use in looking at plans to put a bridge across the river when it is not possible to get on to the bridge or to get off it. The corporation should look into these essential matters.
The Deputy can be assured that the high-level bridge is on, but equally the replacement of Redmond Bridge must also be on. Waterford Corporation and the Minister have a responsibility to sure that there is no loss of life or property on the existing, inadequate bridge. They must also ensure that the commercial and industrial life of Waterford does not come to a standstill. We must ensure that traffic can use the replacement bridge until the high-level bridge becomes operational in about seven years' time.
The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 9 May 1979.