Tom Morrissey (Progressive Democrats)

We are back in this House tonight to discuss the vexed question of the M50. While I do not want to give a history lesson to some in this Chamber, it is important to note that when the M50 toll contract was signed, there was no monopoly because an outer ring road was planned for approximately two miles from the motorway. As people drive along the N7 today, they will see a large sign at Rathcoole referring to an outer ring road. That was the plan at the time but the county council in Dublin was split into three in 1994 and when the development plan for Fingal County Council was completed in 1999, the council voted, by 23 to one, to delete the bridge coming across from Woodies in Lucan. That is why there is an interchange at Woodies on the N4. It was designed to join up with the N7. That work has largely been done by South Dublin County Council and that council, since 1999, has merrily gone on planning its road infrastructure as it had been planned in the 1980s. I was the only councillor who said there should be a second crossing at that point but it was deleted from the plan by the council, with county management approval and against the wishes of the then Dublin Transportation Office. That decision gave a monopoly to the M50.

Figures were produced and reports published when the upgrade of the M50 was first discussed at Fingal County Council five years ago. Councillors at that time were told that some 14,000 motorists — and the figure is probably 20,000 today — were travelling from Blanchardstown to Lucan, via the M50, every day. These motorists were causing enormous congestion on the N3 roundabout and more important, they were being forced to pay NTR for the privilege of crossing to Lucan, as their only alternative was to go through Chapelizod or Lucan village. That scenario was voted for by councillors, some of whom now sit in this Chamber. The point is that there was no monopoly initially, but one was given to NTR by the decisions I have just outlined.

Nothing that I have heard today offers any solution in the next two years. However, a solution must be found for the short term, particularly in light of the opening of the port tunnel. When the original toll bridge was in place, up until 2001, there were four lanes on it, with a dual carriageway running in each direction across the Liffey. Mysteriously, when NTR built the second bridge, it reduced the four lanes to three, which is a complete waste of infrastructure. My solution, which would cost nothing in terms of additional infrastructure, is the reintroduction of four lanes on each section of the bridge. The most westerly northbound lane could be given over entirely to traffic coming from the Lucan and Kildare areas, given that it is estimated that between 20% and 25% of traffic travelling across the bridge comes from the N4. At present, if a motorist coming in from the N4 in the morning wishes to use Eazy Pass, he or she must cross the three lanes of the M50, slowing up all of the traffic. There should be a dedicated lane on the inside for such traffic, which would remove the need for motorists to weave and merge on the N4 interchange. This would cost nothing to implement.

As one drives along the N7 at present, beyond Naas, the traffic veers out into the northern lane of the N7 and a contra-flow lane operates for a section of the road for about a mile. I travelled that route last Sunday and asked myself why that could not be done on the bridge. Last September I proposed this on behalf of my party and I still do not understand why it cannot be done. I do not believe that anyone has a monopoly on wisdom on this issue and I have certainly heard little wisdom tonight.

I heard the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Rabbitte, say in the Dáil last week that he would consider moving the toll plaza back towards Castleknock. That was part of the original NRA proposal for the upgrading of the M50 but it was lashed and removed from the plan because the plaza would be on top of people's houses, with attendant problems of lighting, pollution and so forth. If that is the Labour Party's solution, I am sure Deputy Burton will be very happy to inform the residents of that area.

My suggestion is that, with no extra cost by way of infrastructure, we could have one-way tolling on the bridge and nobody would lose. When the original bridge was in place, motorists had to travel over the single bridge and weave through traffic to go through the southern or northern toll. In two years' time, when we start upgrading the M50, that will have to happen again. There will be tar barrels, cones and bollards along the M50 and, if it is going to be like the Naas road was, we must have controlled management of the motorway.

The Minister should consider reversing six of the southbound lanes at the toll bridge, so that rather than having seven southbound and seven northbound lanes, we could have 13 northbound lanes, adding tremendously to the capacity on the M50. He could allow for free tolls for motorists heading south, reduce the northbound toll from €3.60 to €3.00, which is easier to collect and force NTR to advertise Eazy Pass packages. Proper demand management measures must be put in place. Users of the Luas pay in advance. In the same vein, there should be more use of Eazy Pass. People should be forced to use Eazy Pass and told they will have to queue if they do not do so. Equally, they should be told if they do use it, they will have an easier passage through the toll plaza. Demand management measures are essential.

The capacity of the M50 can be increased by introducing four lanes across both bridges, as was the case in the past and I urge the Minister to give consideration to that option.