ESB has not ‘dictated’ route

CLARE County Council has refuted claims that insufficient consideration was given to upgrading the existing road network before it was decided to proceed with the Limerick Northern Distributor Road. The local authority has also rubbished claims by local representatives that the ESB “dictated” the emerging preferred route corridor for the more than €100 million project.

Councillors from the area, Cathal Crowe, Joe Cooney, Pat Hayes, Pascal Fitzgerald, Michael Begley and Pat Burke, asked the county manager at a recent meeting of Clare County Council “what consideration was given to the existing roads network in South-East Clare when the preferred route for the Limerick Northern Distributor Road was being identified?”

“It splits Parteen in half, cutting at the heart of the village,” said Councillor Crowe. He said it runs through people’s homes and flood-prone lands and claimed “appropriate consideration was not given to the existing road network when the route for the Northern Distributor Road was being selected”.

Anne Haugh, director of services with responsibility for transportation, responded saying the route selection process gave due consideration to the ‘do minimum’ scenario, which examines an online upgrade of the existing route and traffic management alternatives, which seek to respond to problems by maximising the value of existing infrastructure.

“In both cases, the existing road network, which is already overstretched, is deemed to be of insufficient capacity to cope with the increased volumes of traffic. As a result, a significant upgrade of the existing road network would be required so the cross-section of the existing road network would be capable of delivering the levels of service and safety required,” Ms Haugh said.

“While improving and upgrading the existing road network in the area would undoubtedly bring a benefit in the short to medium term and might address some local objectives, it would not bring the benefits that an element of infrastructure such as the Limerick Northern Distributor Road would bring in the medium and long terms, nor would such an approach be instrumental in making South-East Clare and the north side of Limerick City more attractive as a target for inward investment across a variety of areas, including education, industry and business,” she continued.

“The Limerick Northern Distributor Road will serve the long-term strategic needs and prospects for the area and these cannot be facilitated by the upgrade of existing roads, all of which provide frontage to existing residential and other developments, particularly when one considers that sections of the Limerick Northern Distributor Road will facilitate up to 30,000 vehicles per day 20 years from now,” Ms Haugh added.

Councillor Crowe said it was his opinion that the ESB gave details of the routes that would not suit them and he called for “equal weight to be given to the local people and to the ESB”. Other councillors concurred.

Councillor Joe Cooney said he had hoped for a more detailed response than the one that was given. He said he wanted to know more about what consideration was given to “splitting a valley in half and cutting through a flood plain”.

“I am disappointed that the ESB could say what routes didn’t suit them,” he added.

Councillor Pascal Fitzgerald said councillors don’t have enough information and also said the ESB’s preferences should not overly influence the eventual route. He added he believed that the operators of the Shannon Tunnel would “have put in an objection to this”.

Councillor Pat Burke agreed, asking “if this road goes ahead why was the tunnel ever built?” Councillor Fitzgerald also criticised the emerging route as it involves the compulsory purchase of people’s homes.

Councillor Michael Begley claimed, “There were 10,000 vehicles per day using the existing route at the height of the industrial and economic activity. If that was the correct figure, the figure of 30,000 vehicles per day seems to be exaggerated.” This figure, according to the council, was “based on modelling, current information and projections into the future”.

Councillors were reminded that the public and businesses in the area had a right to make their views heard during the consultation process. One senior council official stated that given the country’s economic circumstances, he would “be optimistic to see that this road would be accommodating people 10 years from now”. He added, “The ESB has not dictated where the emerging preferred route should go”.

There were more than 400 submissions and all of these are being considered at the moment, according to the council. It was also pointed out the project is road infrastructure and not a flood-relief scheme. The responsibility in developing it is not to worsen the risk of floods on the route but there is no onus on the council to alleviate existing flood risk. The official also conceded there may be tweaking to the preferred route option.