Yet again the preparatory work for a major new strategic road network has raised not only local concerns, but also basic questions about the efficacy and fairness of the public consultation process which is promulgated as an important factor in the route selection.
Early in the new millennium, Waterford is at last to get its much-needed second bridge and city by-pass, a project intended to relieve the pressure on Rice Bridge which, as the only Suir crossing on National Route N25, is used by about 28,000 vehicles every day.
But the planned new high-level crossing just upstream of the bridge requires an associated roads network, and the range of options put forward by the planners for this network has already caused a spirited controversy.
More than 100 residents and land-owners of the Butlerstown area, west of Waterford, met last week and voiced multiple criticisms of the several route options presented for their comments, as part of the consultation process.
Residents of the areas affected were asked to complete a questionnaire on their preferences on five options for the Kilmeaden section of the western by-pass.
But the basis on which these initial options were arrived at has already been questioned by a local residents' action group, which asserts that the format of the questionnaire is being driven by the specific alternatives set out for comment.
"These alternatives have been developed within a policy framework which has never been submitted for public consideration," the action group said in a press release.
"We're worried that policy decisions have already been made without consultation," said Mr Peter Griffin, chairman of the action group. "We feel that public consultation, as it is put forward at this stage, is in name only." Many individual concerns were voiced at the meeting, and there were numerous complaints that precise details of the various routes and their effects had not been supplied to individual property-owners who might be affected along the way.
Although the Regional Design Office in Tramore, which is contracted by the National Roads Authority to do the design work, has held a consultation meeting for land-owners and mounted a week-long public exhibition in Waterford City Hall, broad concerns were still manifest.
Many concerns expressed involved individual interests. As one speaker put it: "Clearly, our own opinions are influenced by where we are."
And it was acknowledged that there would be "pain" in whatever route option was chosen.
But one general criticism targeted the stated policy objective of the Design Office, that the selected route should not significantly intrude on the Mount Congreve estate, which contains shrub gardens of international importance.
A Design Office pamphlet and presentation had noted that there were plans for the privately-owned estate, which employs more than 100 people, to be maintained and owned by the State at a future date.
But Mr Griffin told the meeting that only the house and gardens, and not the agricultural land, were to be made over to the State.
It was disingenuous to say that a road route could not be considered because it would go through State land.
According to the committee of the action group, "the Mount Congreve factor" is being used as an all-powerful screening device.
Three out of five route options were being rejected on the basis of impact on the estate, but no relative measure of the extent of this impact was offered.
The group said it was inexplicable that the publicly-owned disused railway line running from the immediate area of the new bridge directly to the N25 beyond Kilmeaden had not been put forward as a possible route for the road.
"We're suggesting that someone has made a policy decision not to evaluate the railway line route. Yet it is an existing corridor and should be evaluated. It would offer an option that would have least impact in terms of land acquisition, house demolition and farms affected."
Many other reservations were voiced about the limited range of options on which the residents had been asked to comment. One speaker complained that there was no provision in the questionnaire for a respondent to declare that he or she was not happy with any of the proffered route options.
The action group's secretary, Mr Brian Kennedy, commented that even the propounding of a set of route options presented the property owners with a fait accompli.
"We're saying: `Can we look again?' We're not accepting what has been landed on us." A long and bitter battle on all of these issues was predicted.
The discussion pointed up the absence, in road planning generally, of any broadly agreed system of assessing and adjudicating on the relative importance of the various degrees of impact which the new road would have on holdings and their owners.
One woman who had no difficulty describing the impact on her business was Ms Joan O'Mahony, proprietor of the 36acre Killoteran Riding School.
All the route options so far presented would come through her land, she pointed out, adding: "I'll be wiped out."
She has built up the riding school for some 33 years. It is a major local amenity, the oldest riding school in Waterford, and also offers training for the handicapped. Her case vividly illustrates at least one arbitrary assumption of modern road planning, that cars must have priority over horses.
Public representatives at the meeting agreed to press for at least an extension of the deadline for public submissions until the end of September (rather than the August 8th deadline which had been imposed).
With the scene set for what will certainly become a prolonged public campaign, plans have been made for a further public meeting next month.