. . 
We are a Residents' Association which was revitalised in 1993 and has been extremely active since. We represent approximately 1,000 households. Our area is not directly effected by the DPT but we first took an interest in the issue in 1994 (when it was called the Northern Port Access Route). This was because our Association identified traffic volume and speed as being the issue most damaging to our area.
In 1995 we issued a report on "Traffic in Fairview" which analysed this issue and made recommendations on what would be good for our area and for Dublin.
Over the last number of years traffic in the Fairview area has increased to the point where many residents expressed their concern. Much of this is caused by the recent developments of housing estates to the immediate north of the area, development of infill sites in the area and also the way in which traffic is, in effect, encouraged to use Philipsburgh Avenue by traffic calming measures in other areas. In responding to representations, the Fairview & District Residents' Association has drew up the report "Traffic in Fairview".
The main concerns of the Committee were:
I am currently vice-chair of the FDRA and have been either chair or vice-chair of the Association for the past five years. I am married with two young daughters and have lived in Fairview since 1988. I do not live in an area directly effected by the DPT.
I am one of the people who got involved in starting the Combined Residents' Association. This brought a number of Residents' Associations in north-east Dublin together to voice their concerns on the DPT. Through this group I have taken part in Dublin Corporation's "Consultative Process".
Although not directly relevant to my evidence, perhaps I should point out that I am also a Labour Party candidate for the upcoming local elections. I have been Secretary of the Dublin North Central Constituency Labour Party for two years. I am chair of the Fairview Labour Party.
I work as the Audit Technology Manager for PricewaterhouseCoopers and have a degree in Information Technology from DCU. I have worked in the Central Statistics Office, the Department of Agriculture and Trinity College.
I do not put myself forward as an expert on traffic, air quality, noise pollution, tunnelling techniques or any other such topic. Instead I claim to represent the views of the lay-people within Fairview.
We believe Dublin Corporation has asked the right question: how do we best reduce the number of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) on the streets of Dublin in a way that is beneficial to the hauliers and the people of Dublin. Unfortunately we also believe the Corporation has come up with the wrong answer - the Dublin Port Tunnel.
The objections of our Association to any north-south tunnel focus on the following areas:
The cost of the Dublin Port Tunnel as outlined in various reports (as opposed to press reports) has been as follows:
| Dublin Port Access & Eastern Relief Route | £103.5m |
||
| DTI Final Report (excluding management) | 1994 | £109m |
|
| DTI Final Report (including management) | 1994 | £104m |
|
| DPT original 1995 prices @8% | 1996 | £118.8m |
|
| DPT revised 1997 prices tolled scenario @8% | 1998 | £152.2m |
Sources
Note that the main difference between the DTI's NPAR and the 1996 DPT is the addition of the second tunnel. This has apparently added only £9.8m (9%) to the cost of the tunnel despite the difference in the price basis that could account for this on its own.
Note that the cost of the DPT has increased by 28% from the 1996 to the 1998 report. This is due to:
There is no breakdown that I know of which breaks down the increased cost.
The benefits to be accrued from the DPT have been estimated as follows:
| Dublin Port Access & Eastern Relief Route | £173.6m |
1 | |
| DTI Final Report (excluding management) | £67m |
2 | |
| DTI Final Report (including management) | £207m |
3 | |
| DPT original 1995 prices @8% | £331.2m |
4 | |
| DPT revised 1997 prices tolled scenario @8% | £352.7m |
5 |
It is not clear whether the cost & benefit estimates in the 1996 report were for a tolled or untolled scenario.
The only explanation (that I can find) of how the benefits are calculated
is contained in the 1992 report on the Dublin Port Access & Eastern
Relief Route.
Note that the benefits of the DPT has increased by 6% from the 1996 to the
1998 report. The reasons for this increase are not at all clear as the updating
of the price basis could account for the slight increase (estimated 3% pa
for 2 years) and the increased depth should not change the benefit at all.
However the movement of the northern portals further north should dramatically
decrease the benefits as traffic from the Coolock Lane interchange will
now not be able to use the DPT. There seems to be no reflection of this
decrease in the estimates.
The 28% increase in cost compared to a 6% increase in benefit (1996 - 1998) is extremely significant. This reduced
When the NPAR / East-West Tunnel / Canal routes (all including management measures) were considered by the DTI they concluded that the Canal Route was the cheapest option (£112m v £207 for the NPAR), represented the best IRR (13.2% v 11.8 for the NPAR) and represented the best BCR (2.4:1 v 2.0:1 for the NPAR). The NPAR won out on NPV however.
The 1996 DPT EIS states that "The relative economic benefit of the Royal Canal Route and the Northern Port Access Route is more finely balanced. The canal route is significantly cheaper and in 'value for money' terms performs better, with a higher benefit / cost ratio and internal rate of return." (EIS Vol1, Pg7) Value-for-money is the measure recommended for use in all public sector projects while private sector investments generally use internal rate of return on investment (IRR). It goes on to state that using the Net Present Value (NPV) method, the DPT comes out on top but this depends entirely on the aforementioned dubious benefit measurements leading up to the year 2030 (1996 EIS Vol3 App J).
Therefore since the DTI (totally unexpectedly and thanks to political pressure) narrowly selected the NPAR as the best option for port access, the following has occurred:
These differences will have a significant impact on the NPV - it should be reduced dramatically. It is impossible to conclude anything other than that the increased cost and decreased benefit of the DPT means that this can no longer by any estimate be considered to be the best option for Dublin.
And yet the latest (1998) report states the NPV to be £200.4m while the DTI's NPV was estimated at £102m. I think it is clear that all the figures need to be reassessed.
All over the world, from San Francisco to Birmingham, it has been shown time and time again that building more roads leads to more traffic with all its attendant disadvantages (parking problems, increased pollution, traffic jams in city centres where the new roads all meet, increased frustration, lack of investment in public transport etc.). The tendency for this road to become a "fast-track" for non-port traffic has already been demonstrated by calls to scrap the planned tolling of car traffic.
The long-running campaign to surround Dublin with a motorway, to change the planned "C-ring" into a "D-ring", will not go away when half of the remaining leg has been built. It is inevitable that the roads lobby will press for a "Southern Port Access Relief Route" to complement its northside twin. This will involve further expenditure on a massive scale in order to tunnel underneath the Liffey and Sandymount Strand. Relief of heavy traffic travelling through Sandymount - lorries bound for the RORO terminals in the Port in particular, perhaps on their way from Wexford - will again be used as an excuse. This second phase will, of course, be in addition to the inevitable overrun on budgeted costs for a project of this size and duration.
Dublin Corporation has recently added the southern leg of the Eastern Bypass to its Development Plan. The attitude seems to be that since the Eastern Bypass as a whole has twice been rejected by the Corporation, it will be approved (& built) in a piecemeal fashion. Extra expenditure is inevitable.
The key argument must come down to how best to spend scarce resources. Is the proposed Santry / Whitehall to the port route the best and most cost effective way to solve Dublin Port's and Dublin City's traffic problems?
Most port-related traffic comes from the west - from Waterford, Cork, Limerick, Galway, Sligo etc. Upon completion of the "C-ring", future easy access to a western port relief route from southern and northern traffic will be made considerably simpler.
Private finance was available for a western port relief route (the Liffey Tunnel) thus reducing the cost to the public purse even further.
The DPT is been presented as the transport solution for Dublin's northside: the southside is due to get two light rail routes while there is no certain light-rail north of the Liffey.
We are strongly of the opinion that, in general, Dublin's transport problems can only be solved by increased investment in public transport. Not only is light-rail required, so are:
We see the DPT as eating up available funds which should be spent on public transport for the northside.
The DTI's philosophy was that these measures must be implemented as a package as various elements interlink and support one another - this seems eminently sensible and it would be nothing less than ridiculous to implement one expensive option and leave no money to implement a range of cheaper, more effective options.
This integrated strategy - the jigsaw - is one of the main reasons put forward in favour of the DPT.
And yet the proposed DPT is a two tunnel motorway rather than the DTI's single carriageway.
And yet Dublin Corporation is proposing to construct the full Eastern Bypass.
And yet new HGV management options such as the marshalling yard is being held up.
And yet the Luas options currently under consideration bear no resemblance to the DTI's light rail.
One more change is required - scrap the DPT.
We are strongly of the opinion that the question which needs to be asked is: how best can we allocate available resources to solve Dublin's transport problems, rather than any narrower question. Asking the right question will yield sensible solutions.
Issues involved in Dublin's transport problems includes, but is not limited to, access to Dublin Port. The alternative, apparently more cost effective, route - the Liffey Tunnel - must be given more serious consideration. Other options for solving transport - not merely traffic - problems have been outlined above and are detailed in the DTI's report.
. .