It is now three years since the government-sponsored Dublin Transportation Initiative finalised what was meant to be an integrated strategy to deal with the capital's growing traffic problems, putting forward a balanced programme of investment in roads, public transport and traffic management. Despite the DTI's consensus approach, which involved all the "actors" on the transportation scene, there were fears even at the time the final report was produced that it would almost inevitably be "cherry-picked" by vested interests, with the result that a golden opportunity to get things right would be squandered.
Of course, no government could have committed itself to the entire £1.2 billion investment programme recommended by the DTI, at least in the short term. But there was substantial EU funding available under the National Development Plan 1994-1999 and, with this money "in the bank", much of the DTI strategy could be realised.
Sacrifices had to be made, notably the decision to defer the proposed Luas light rail line to Ballymun on the basis that it could not be built within the EU funding timescale. But the European Commission did manage to secure a commitment that it would go ahead as soon as the Dundrum and Tallaght lines were completed.
Then, at two minutes to midnight in planning terms, the row erupted over whether the DTI was right in proposing an on-street light rail system in the city centre. The most voluble spokesman for putting it underground was Dr Garret FitzGerald, and his efforts provided aid and comfort for the road lobby, which doesn't want Luas anyway.
As the deadline for getting the project under way loomed ever larger, the present Government decided to commission an independent study of the underground option. It has since emerged that the joint Government-EU monitoring committee which oversees spending the current tranche of EU structural funds decided last July that if sufficient progress was not made on Luas by next spring, "all or part" of the EU funding for it would be reallocated.
Given that the consultants have not yet been appointed, that the study itself will take at least six months and that the Luas public inquiry can only resume after its recommendations are considered by the Government, it is now almost a racing certainty that over £100 million in pledged EU funding for the project will be lost.
In the meantime, design changes to placate local opposition to the Dublin Port Tunnel, the next biggest DTI project in financial terms, will substantially increase its current estimate of £130 million. Indeed, the Luas underground study may shed more light on the real cost of tunnelling under Dublin, putting the port tunnel in perspective.
If progress on Luas and the port tunnel has been painfully slow, inordinate delays have also been the hallmark of much less costly elements of the DTI strategy such as the installation of quality bus corridors. So far, only five of 11 recommended QBCs have actually been achieved.
Cycleways, too, have been slow to materialise, which is one of the main reasons the Dublin Cycling Campaign was prompted to stage Saturday's "funeral" for the DTI. The City Council recently deferred a proposed cycleway on Clontarf Road because of pressure from local residents who fear it would block access to their driveways.
The loss of all-day parking opportunities outside business premises along proposed cycleways or bus lanes has also been a major factor in frustrating progress. And despite the best efforts of the Dublin Transportation Office, "custodian" of the DTI strategy, it has sometimes proved impossible to deal with these problems.
But Cllr Ciaran Cuffe, transport spokesman for the Green Party, believes there is another, deeper reason for the slow progress on the DTI. According to him, the "culture" of the local authorities, particularly the continued dominance of older, unreconstructed roads engineers among their professional staff, is at least partly to blame.
"Dublin's local authorities were not geared up for the DTI, so they have got on with doing what they do best, building roads and motorways," he said. "It has taken a very long time to provide new, properly trained personnel to do other things, such as designing cycleways and the proposed `environmental traffic cells' in the city."
Mr Cuffe also believes that the local authorities have been equivocal in their attitude to Luas and are not doing all they can to facilitate it. "The good will is there, but bureaucratic wheels turn extremely slowly on non-road projects because the roads engineers are still setting the agenda," he said. "In other words, the politburo is still at work."