|
The Institution of Engineers of Ireland (IEI) held module one of a four
module course on road planning and construction in Mullingar on September
12th and 13th 2001. The course was attended by more
than 150 people. Fifteen speakers made presentations. Subjects covered
included Public Private Partnership, Traffic engineering, Cost Benefit
Analysis, Project Management Guidelines, Constraints Study, Route Selection,
Statutory Procedures and Environmental Impact Statements.
The introduction was made by Mr. Liam Connellan. Mr. Connellan is both
president of the IEI and Chairman of the NRA. Other speakers were Mr.
Michael Egan, Head of Corporate Affairs, NRA, Mr. Gerry Murphy, Manager
Public Private Partnership, NRA, Mr. Donnacha O'Cinneide, Chartered
Engineer, University College Cork, Mr. Declan McIlraith, NRA. Additionally,
speakers were drawn from Consulting Engineering, Local Authority and service
industries associated with road building generally. Mr. Sean Barrett,
Transport Economist, Trinity College Dublin, though not a speaker, was
present in the audience during the two days of the conference. It was
emphasised at the outset that the IEI and NRA are inextricably linked in the
roads programme.
Mr. Connellan claimed that the NRA infrastructural programme was running to
schedule but Mr. Egan of the NRA claimed that the programme was being
seriously hampered by the IFA campaign in which its members were refusing
permission to road builders to enter their lands.
The chairman allowed about 5 minutes for questions from the floor at the end
of each presentation. It was noted that with the exception of the Statutory
Procedures lecture - which dealt with the CPO procedure - very few questions
were forthcoming and that the questions that were put, generally came from
the same few delegates one of whom was a member of CaST.
Mr. Egan put forward as one of the benefits of the motorway programme, the
removal of traffic from urban centres with all the environmental and quality
of life implications that this entailed. On the other hand however, the
tolling programme as described by Mr. Murphy, the PPP manager in the NRA,
will negate these positive effects since it will result in directing traffic
away from the bypasses and through the town centres. This was put to Mr.
Murphy in the question and answer session - that tolling would defeat the
purpose of bypasses - but he refused to accept the point or that in fact any
inherent contradiction existed between Mr. Egan and himself.
A consultant engineer representing Mott MacDonald EPO, Mr. Michael Conroy,
enquired if additional legislation might not be possible since the inability
to access sites for the purpose of carrying out site investigation was
having an adverse effect on their work. Mr. Egan pointed out that the Roads
Act (1993) empowered the Local Authorities to enter lands without permission
should they so wish.
Both Mr. Egan and Mr. Connellan raised the matter of the motorways saving 50
lives per year and reiterated their commitment to these assertions.
Mr. Egan made reference to the spreading of misinformation and the
demonisation of the NRA by some people in likening the organisation to
Cromwell.
Mr. Michael Kennedy, an economist with the NRA, described the method of
doing a cost benefit analysis to justify new roads. In the question and
answer session, a CaST representative pointed out that the criteria used
were too limited as they did not address value (as opposed to cost) and did
not take into consideration other competing forms of transport, other than
roads. In summary, the only costs considered are land acquisition, road
design costs, construction costs and maintenance costs. The benefits
considered are travel time savings, accident reduction costs and vehicle
operational costs. No environmental effects are considered. No attempt is
made to assign value to the lost landscape or irreplaceable destruction of land or
the damage to individual businesses in the path of the road or the
disruption to intercommunity traffic and business or the damage to the
communities themselves.
Our conclusion is that the road building juggernaut rolls on. The CaST representative
attempted to hire one particular expert to prepare for an oral hearing but
was politely refused on the basis that this would not be possible because of
his having worked for the NRA in the past. It is not the first such
experience that CaST has had. This is further evidence to support a general perception that professionals associated with road
building are either working for the NRA or hoping to work for the NRA,
something that makes it extremely difficult for those that wish to
provide an alternative to NRA projects to do so effectively.
© Copyright 2001Campaign for
Sensible Transport (CaST)
|
