W1B-024 Tunnel - TD-0.txt
17TH JULY 1996 CLLR. D. MCDOWELL, T.D. 107C MALAHIDE ROAD, DONNYCARNEY, DUBLIN 3.

RE: DUBLIN PORT TUNNEL (D.P.T.)

Dear Councillor, I refer to your letter dated 21st May 1996 to the National Roads Authority, and to Mr. J. Fitzgerald, City Manager.

In your letter the first three paragraphs list some of the genuine concerns that residents along, and close to, the route have in relation to the scheme. Both the Consultants and the project management team are fully aware of these issues and they are being fully addressed within the E. I. S. for the scheme. In addition many meetings and briefings have been held with various residents'groups and local organisations. Exhibitions were held at three locations along the route during December 1995 and January 1996, with a permanent exhibition mounted in the Civic Offices since the latter date. All people who attended these exhibitions were given the opportunity to comment on the proposals and to highlight their concerns, and these were considered as part of the design and E.I.S. preparation process. In addition to these exhibitions, group briefings, and public meetings which were held, many individuals, representatives, associations, and interest groups contacted various personnel attached to the project seeking information or expressing their views. All of these contacts were responded to, usually by written reply, giving whatever details were being sought. Like all other aspects of the project, this was done in a courteous, respectful and helpful way.

The allegations that "the project managers have behaved in an arrogant and unhelpful way" is completely without foundation and is totally rejected. At all times the public's queries and concerns have been dealt with courteously and efficiently. It has been our objective from the commencement of planning of this project to inform the public to the best of our abilities and also to ascertain their concerns so that the E.I.S. can be as broad and effective as possible. I must note however that the "project managers" have had to endure abuse and invective of an extreme nature from certain parties opposed to the project. The opposition in some areas is of such a hostile nature that Dublin Corporation senior personnel, and the Consultants Geoconsult - Arup, were forced to withdraw from one public meeting, such was the level of abuse that they were being subjected to.

Your letter also refers to the allegations of structural damage during the site investigation. Representatives of Geoconsult - Arup JV and Dublin Corporation met with local residents on 4th April 1996 and proposed, on the basis of an independent opinion from Forbairt, that the same drill rig be used to generate vibrations which could be then measured and assessed at the locations of the alleged cracks. This proposal was rejected by the residents which is regrettable. It is the considered opinion of the technical experts in Geoconsult - Arup JV that the vibrations from the drill rig could not cause structural damage and a number of tests were carried out in other areas subsequently which confirmed their views. However they are more than willing to re-check the vibrations in the contentious areas if so allowed.

At all stages of the project due regard is given to the legislative and statutory provisions pertaining to the scheme. In particular this applies to the E.I.S. which is being prepared in full accordance with the Roads Act 1993 and the Road Regulations 1994. Wide scale consultation has been carried out during the preparation of the E.I.S. as recommended in the draft E.P.A. guidelines.

On the second page of the letter it is stated that "very many people have little or no confidence in the project managers or any of the Authorities." It is not accepted that this is an accurate reflection of the views of the many people concerned, but instead is the reaction from a small number of people who are vehemently opposed to the tunnel. It is in this context, that the statement regarding confidence should be viewed. It is a matter of concern, of course, that there is a suggestion of lack of confidence. The project team and all parties associated with the planning and design of the scheme will continue to provide comprehensive information to, and meet with, local people and their representatives. The modes of consultation will be reassessed to see if they can be more direct and effective and also to build up greater rapport with local groups.

Your letter continues on to suggest that funding should be provided to local residents'associations, to allow them to commission independent research and advice. On the basis of a Dublin Corporation management decision, this suggestion was rejected earlier in the case of one particular group who had requested funding. It is considered that this was the correct decision and should continue to apply. The design work that has been done, has been executed in a professional, thorough and unbiased manner, and must be supported as such. Funding of separate research by opposition groups is not necessary provided that the general and technical information in the E.I.S. be made available to the various interested groups, at least for inspection, and preferably for sale of copy.
It is noted that under Section 50 (2)(b) of the Roads Act 1993 that the E.I.S. must contain "the data necessary to identify and assess the main effects which the proposed road development is likely to have on the environment". The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the public can examine information that the proposing Authority has collected on the environmental effects. The critical issue is that the information is made readily available to the public and Dublin Corporation will be scrupulously careful in this regard.
In summary there is no basis to the allegations concerning the conduct and operations of the project team. In all respects, and at all stages of the project to date, the scheme has been progressed in accordance with all legal requirements and obligations, and in a proper and professional manner at all times. Finally all the main environmental data collected for the E.I.S. will be made available to the public as required under the Roads Act and in fulfillment of the democratic process.

I trust that the above information is satisfactory.

Yours sincerely, ROY CHAMP, A/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.
