Ivor Callely (Dublin North Central, Fianna Fail)

I thank Senator Morrissey for raising this issue on the Adjournment. I listened with interest to what he was saying, some of which was contradictory, some of which was not quite correct. I share some of the views that he raised. I have raised some of these aspects with officials. I am familiar with the Dublin Port tunnel. I was a member of the council through which it was processed and the tunnel is located in my constituency. My own wish is for all HGVs to be accommodated in this tunnel as it has cost in excess of €750 million. Unfortunately, we have found ourselves at this stage and we hope it becomes operational in early 2006.

Following Government consideration, the Minister for Transport announced on 21 October 2004 that the operational height of the tunnel would not be changed and that the construction of the tunnel would be completed with an operational height of 4.65 m. The decision was based on safety grounds, but cost and time delays to the opening of the project were also factors. The options for increasing the height of the tunnel were considered by the NRA, by the independent consultants, Atkins, and by Dublin City Council. The contractor, NMI, priced the work that would be involved in increasing the height of the tunnel. It was clear that raising the height of the tunnel would not be justified having regard to safety, cost and delay factors.

The main safety issues related to the reduction in lane widths and increasing kerb height, which would be required to secure an increase in tunnel height. The implications of overheight HGVs for the rest of the national road network also had to be taken into account. Reducing lane widths would constitute a reduction in overall tunnel safety given that it will be carrying a very high percentage of HGVs, including fuel tankers and other hazardous cargos. It is apparent that wider traffic lanes offer greater vehicle separation than narrower lanes.

Increasing kerb heights, which Senator Morrissey did not mention, would also impact on safety. The NRA is of the opinion that the lower kerb height of 150 mm represents a safer provision than the 200 mm kerb height which would be required to secure a height increase.

The implications of facilitating through the tunnel higher vehicles than the national motorway and road network can safely accommodate had to be considered. Bridges and other structures on motorways and national roads are not designed to cater for vehicles higher than the current tunnel height by and large and safety concerns would arise were such vehicles discharged from a revised tunnel onto the national road network. I see the Senator is shaking his head, but while there may be aspects of the road network which feature infrastructure such as he outlined, other infrastructure has the same parameters as the tunnel. Some bridges may even be lower than the safe operational height of the tunnel. A traffic management plan is to be put in place as well as the port tunnel.

There are potential additional costs associated with the Senator's proposal of at least €33 million and up to €65 million and completion of the tunnel would be delayed by seven months or more. The Senator seeks to ask a contractor near the completion of a project to provide an estimate for additional work and to say how long it would take. I am not sure people would want to enter such a loose arrangement in the context of so vast a project. We could not be satisfied the estimated additional costs would not be exceeded.

The priority is to secure completion as quickly as possible of a safe tunnel facility in line with best international practice. The operational height of the tunnel when complete will be 4.65 m which is greater than that obtaining in most EU member states. As the Senator knows, the announcement was made on this matter following collective consideration by his colleagues in Government. I understand from the NRA and Dublin City Council that the tunnel will be completed in December 2005. We will carry out a number of operational safety tests over a period of six to eight weeks at that point after which, hopefully, the tunnel will be commissioned.

A consultant engineer brought to my attention views similar to those of the Senator and I arranged for him to meet an official of my Department. I understand the concerns he raised were adequately addressed. As a public representative, Senator Morrissey should feel free to bring to the attention of my office any information he has which he believes requires further evaluation. If he does so, I will arrange for the issues he has raised to be teased out in greater detail. An Adjournment debate may not be the best format in which to address some of the issues he has raised.

While tunnel height is a matter for my colleague, Deputy Cullen, as the Minister for Transport, Senator Morrissey referred to the height of vehicles which falls under my direct area of responsibility. I published a consultative document on the broader question of a maximum height limit for vehicles which has generated 41 submissions from corporate entities, representative groups and individuals. The submissions are being considered with a view to establishing a definite position. I hope the foregoing clarifies the matter for the House and is somewhat helpful.