The Dublin Port Tunnel opens on Wednesday, way over budget. Will it succeed in reducing congestion in the city centre, asks Environment Editor Frank McDonald
When the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, cuts a red ribbon to open the Dublin Port Tunnel next Wednesday, Santa will jump out of his grotto in the back of a truck to greet him, before heading off in the first truck to drive through what's billed as "the longest urban motorway tunnel in Europe". The 4.5km twin-bore tunnel, built at a cost of €752 million-plus (they're still arguing about the bill), is finally being delivered as a mammoth Christmas present to Dublin, with the promise that it will "dramatically reduce the number of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) in the city".
According to Dublin City Council and the National Roads Authority (NRA), "over 98 per cent of trucks leaving the port will be able to use the port tunnel". But they are vague about the number that will actually use it, just saying it "will take the majority" of HGVs out of the city centre.
The trucks are being lured into the tunnel by a projected journey time of just six minutes - toll-free - and exclusive access for the first month or so, with no competing traffic. After February 19th, however, the council's HGV management regime will introduce an element of compulsion: all trucks with five axles or more will be banned from the inner city from 7am to 7pm seven days a week, except those with permits to make deliveries to city-centre stores, for example. Trucks too tall to enter the tunnel will get "transit passes" allowing them to exit from the port on East Wall Road. This arrangement will apply pending publication by Minister for Transport Martin Cullen of laws to regulate maximum height, under which the taller trucks - which account for less than 2 per cent of the 6,500 to 7,000 that serve Dublin Port daily - may be banned from Ireland.
Such a draconian measure would overcome the controversial issue of the port tunnel's operational height - 4.65 metres - being too low to cater for the taller "super-cube" HGVs. However, its designers point out that the tunnel is higher than the four-metre minimum laid down by the EU in 1996.
One way or another, next Wednesday's opening will bring much-needed relief to city-centre streets and the Liffey quays in particular. This should make it possible to reinstate the quays as "the frontispiece to the city and the nation", as the Architectural Review described them back in 1974.
The fact that Dublin Port is hemmed in by the city became the principal justification for investing so much taxpayers' money in the port tunnel. So it would be deeply ironic if it was to relocate to a planned cargo port at Bremore, near Balbriggan, as the Progressive Democrats (among others) have proposed.
The tunnel originated with the Dublin Transportation Initiative final report in 1993. It was first proposed as a single-bore, two-lane tunnel just for trucks. But, in October 1994, the government - prompted by Bertie Ahern, then minister for finance - agreed to a twin-bore, four-lane tunnel. With cars to be allowed in as well, Ahern could see the prospect of bringing relief from heavy traffic to residents of Drumcondra, in the heart of his constituency. The only condition was that the cars would have to pay tolls, to discourage its use as a fast-track commuter route.
A convoluted argument was advanced at the time to justify its north-south alignment, as opposed to the much more logical east-west alignment proposed by National Toll Roads plc for its Liffey tunnel, which would have given port-related traffic a direct route to and from the halfway point of the M50.
On December 7th, with just two weeks to go before the port tunnel's official opening, the Taoiseach expressed regret that the Liffey tunnel had not been built. But he was wrong in recollecting that the original proposal was to build both tunnels; in fact, they were directly competing schemes. The underlying reason for choosing the north-south alignment was to keep alive the great white hope of generations of road engineers in Dublin: an eastern bypass of the city. All it would require is a extension running via Sandymount and Booterstown to link up with the southern leg of the M50.
This remains at the top of business lobby group Irish Business and Employers Confederation's (Ibec) transport agenda, although it was not included in the Government's €34.4 billion Transport 21 investment programme. But Ibec is banking on an eastern bypass coming to be seen as the "magic bullet" to deal with chronic congestion on the M50.
In the meantime, the port tunnel will be operated by French multi-national Transroute. Its snazzy logo was designed by Tim Brick, Dublin City Council's project manager, who has lived with the tunnel's tribulations for the past 10 years - which included liaising with the contractors, Nishimatsu-Mowlem-Irishenco.
DISAPPOINTINGLY, THE TUNNEL portals on which the logo is based do not live up to the sleek image it projects. Though they constitute the most significant structures on the way into town from Dublin airport, their cheap cladding calls to mind Monaghan chicken coops or mushroom tunnels.
Pressed metal with a light cream- coloured powdered finish was selected because it is more neutral than, say, stainless steel, which would glare in the sunshine, or stone, which would have been too dense. Leaving the concrete shell exposed was also ruled out because it would have been "too brutalist".
However, the final finish has won few fans. "It was the inevitable result of a design-and-build contract," one source said. Nishimatsu-Mowlem-Irishenco submitted the lowest tender, and it was accepted. But little thought was given to peripheral issues such as how the portals would look. The consortium won the tender in December 2000. At that time, the projected cost of the tunnel was €448 million. By 2002, it had jumped to €580 million and now to €752 million, including pre-planning costs, land acquisition, construction supervision, insurance, legal fees, etc.
Claims by the consortium for more money, which would bring the total bill closer to €1 billion, are being vigorously contested by the city council. Despite this long-running dispute between the contractors and the client, all "snags" associated with the tunnel - including its notorious leaks - were sorted out.
More recently, the emphasis switched to safety, including drills to deal with any emergencies. We are assured that a control centre will monitor the tunnel continuously and that it will have an on-site specialist fire tender and crew trained for the subterranean environment.
Nobody really knows for sure what impact all the trucks will have on the M50 after the tunnel opens, but everyone involved in the project is keeping their fingers crossed that it will work. Having spent so much money on it, without a cent in aid from Europe, we must all hope that they are right.