There is a widespread belief that the population of the region around Dublin is growing at a tremendous rate and will soon account for half of the State's population. However, its scale and recent expansion are sometimes exaggerated.
It depends upon how one defines Dublin for this purpose - and, of course, upon using a consistent definition over time. There is no point in comparing population changes in the county borough area governed by Dublin Corporation, for this now contains only two-fifths of the conurbation's total population. Greater Dublin now extends throughout most of Co Dublin and into parts of three neighbouring counties, Meath, Kildare and Wicklow.
The best way to define what is greater Dublin would be in terms of the area contiguous to the city where the population is expanding as new houses are built. Defined so, greater Dublin extends north and south along the coast for about 30 miles in each direction, and to the west for about 20 miles. But it does not spread more than a dozen miles to the north-west or, because of the mountains, more than about seven miles due south.
Within this continuous growth area of under 600 square miles - comprising not much more than 2 per cent of the State - about 1,300,000 people live, accounting for 34 per cent of the State's population.
A further 225,000 people live in more remote parts of Meath, Kildare and Wicklow, giving a total of just over 1,500,000 for the four-county Dublin region.
Greater Dublin is the fastest-growing region in our State. Between 1961 and 1981 its population increased by almost half - by one-third of a million - rising from 760,000 to 1,095,000. That represented an annual growth rate of almost 2 per cent over two decades. But thereafter its growth slowed to little more than onehalf per cent a year, with the result that during the 15-year period to 1996 only 100,000 more people were added to its population. As that was less than the natural increase in population, there was, contrary to popular belief, a modest net outflow from the city during that period.
Since 1996 Dublin's rate of growth has accelerated again, a further 100,000 people having been added during the past five years - an increase of about 9 per cent. About half of these are accounted for by the excess of births over deaths. The other 50,000 reflect net migration into greater Dublin, some half of it, I suspect, people coming from outside Ireland.
Nevertheless, even with this rapid economic growth, greater Dublin's population does not seem to have attained the annual percentage increase it was experiencing during much of the 1960s and 1970s. Why, then, do we feel that in recent years it has experienced unparalleled growth?
Because relevant data on the area I have defined as greater Dublin are not available, to find the answer we have to look beyond to the Dublin region as a whole, including those parts of the three neighbouring counties that lie outside.
Since the mid-1990s the economic situation in this wider Dublin region has been transformed. Although in the past five years its population has risen by no more than 115,000, the numbers at work have increased by over 200,000, or 37 per cent. Therefore, the dependency ratio (the proportion of dependants to workers) has fallen by one-third, from around 150 dependants per 100 workers to about 100.
The false impression of an exceptional population increase has derived from the huge rise in the numbers at work. In turn, this growth in employment and economic activity accounts for a jump of one-third in the number of private cars registered, even though in the last five years the population has risen by only 8 per cent.
It is, perhaps, not surprising that both housing and transport have yet to expand in line with this economic activity. But one must surely be alarmed by the deplorable time lag between the start of economic growth, over seven years ago, and action to cope with its consequences.
There has been a failure to grapple with housing needs. There has been much ineffective, and in some cases misplaced, tinkering with grants and tax reliefs. But there has been no evident willingness to tackle the fundamental problem, that a small number of individuals, who appear to have much political influence, have first acquired, then hoarded, and in due course made huge profits from the disposal of some of their share of this critically important community resource.
Moreover, the servicing by the public authorities of such land when it is released has fallen years behind the needs of our population.
As for the transport needs of our city and its hinterland, progress has been pathetic. It is only now, seven years after the need for improved bus corridors became evident, that they have started to appear.
As for adequate rail services, it is only within the past couple of months that the first proposals have belatedly emerged - and thus far these are no more than proposals. Even the over-ground Luas will not start to operate until 2003, five years after its planned date. And this system is now seen as so inadequate that last year it was decided that its inner city section will be replaced by a tunnelled Metro shortly after its inauguration - an example of bad planning and wasteful expenditure.
Even today we are still waiting for a metropolitan transport authority to be set up, with power to tackle the problem effectively. Responsibility for Dublin transport is divided among three Government Departments: Public Enterprise; Environment; and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, as well as between no fewer than seven local authorities and three public transport companies.
Without the rationalisation of this absurd structure, one can only be sceptical about the prospect of solving Dublin's traffic problems within the already very long proposed time-scale of 15 years.
Greater Dublin
('000 population)
1961 - 761
1966 - 841
1971 - 906
1981 - 1095
1986 - 1132
1991 - 1147
1996 - 1195
Est.2001 - 1300