Sensible solutions offering value for money should be at the kernel of FF-PD negotiations on the Bertie Bowl, Dublin transport and the motorway programme, writes Frank McDonald, Environment Editor
When Bertie Ahern first mooted developing "A Stadium for the New Century" in October 1998, it was not tied to Abbotstown. A feasibility study was needed to "show us whether we are in cloud-cuckoo land or not", said the Taoiseach. Carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers, it was this study which, ironically, transported the project "into cloud-cuckoo land".
Not only did it endorse the building of a new stadium seating 80,000 spectators, it also proposed it be broadened into a "Campus of Sporting Excellence", catering for as many sports as possible, and suggested Abbotstown as the site.
In doing so, the consultants - and the Government, by accepting their report - ignored one of the central recommendations of the Dublin Transportation Initiative in 1994: that retail, industrial and leisure-related development should be strictly curtailed along the M50 corridor.
PwC even envisaged that private cars would be "the predominant means of transport" to Abbotstown, right on the edge of the M50, and 14,400 parking spaces would be required, as well as a motorway interchange, 11 km of new roads and three bridges.
The cost of additional infrastructure has since been estimated by High Point Rendel (HPR) in its independent review of the project at €28 million, including an apportionment of €8.25 million of the cost of the metro plan to provide stations adjacent to the site.
But the €8 billion metro plan may not happen. Though the PDs would proceed with the first phase - a line from Shanganagh, near Bray, to Dublin Airport - they see private sector investment as essential to defray the huge cost.
There is no specific commitment by either party to extend the metro to Abbotstown or anywhere else within the lifespan of the next government. Without such a transport link, major fixtures would cause chaos on the M50.
Mary Harney said more than once during the general election campaign that she favoured making better use of existing resources - Croke Park, which will have 79,500 seats when it is finished, and Lansdowne Road.
Significantly, neither suffers from access problems, as both are within walking distance of the city centre. With railway lines under their stands, they can also be served by high-capacity public transport.
Even if the proposed national stadium is scaled down to the 60,000-65,000 capacity favoured by the IRFU and FAI, Abbotstown is the wrong location because of its relative inaccessibility. Lansdowne Road or the Irish Glass Bottle site in Ringsend win hands down.
Given that even Fianna Fáil is vague about the rest of Sports Campus Ireland, the chances are that Abbotstown would end up with only two sports facilities - the €63.5 million Aquatic Centre, due to be finished this year, and a scaled-down "Bertie Bowl".
HPR estimated the cost of the 80,000-seat "world-class stadium" initially at €406 million, as against a €287 million estimate by Campus and Stadium Ireland Developments. A "Lite" version, with 60,000 seats, is likely to cost from €200-€300 million.
What's the point in spending all of this money in the wrong place, especially when we have realistic alternatives staring us in the face? Certainly, given the state of the Exchequer, the other sports facilities envisaged for Abbotstown must be regarded as fantasy.
So now that the Government is locked into the relocation of its laboratories to Co Kildare at a cost of €179 million, what might be done with the 500-acre site? Affordable housing is the obvious answer; even at mid-range densities, the land could accommodate 10,000 new homes.
Urban density is also central to the viability of the metro plan for Dublin. Can such a sprawling low-density city, occupying an area more than double the size of other European cities with comparable populations, support a system with a capacity of 50,000 passengers an hour? The DTO insists it can, arguing that development will follow the metro routes. It sees the metro as a core element of a "mesh" of transport services.
However, the pledges by the PDs and Fianna Fáil to proceed with the first phase are contingent on the metro being procured by a public-private partnership (PPP), to reduce the Exchequer's exposure. If this does not produce the funding, who will pay for it then?
A similar funding gap has opened up in the roads programme. When the National Development Plan was unveiled in 1999, it was envisaged that PPPs would raise a significant portion of the cost of new motorways and high-quality dual-carriageways, then estimated at €6 billion.
But actual private sector investment has turned out to be infinitesimal - just as it did with the Aquatic Centre at Abbotstown - and, in the meantime, the estimated cost of completing the NDP roads programme has doubled to €12 billion. The final bill is anybody's guess. Despite this and the sacrifice of at least 5,000 acres of agricultural land for new roads, Fianna Fáil remains blindly committed to the NDP programme.
The PDs have expressed some reservations, arguing - at least in the case of the N9 - in favour of improving existing national roads.
Perhaps Mary Harney could insist that if she takes charge of a new "super" Department of Transport, with responsibility for both roads and public transport, a review should be commissioned to see if wholly new motorways are the right horse for the course.
Sensible solutions that offer value for money, based on the National Roads Authority's 1998 Roads Needs Study rather than the overblown NDP programme, must be the priority now - precisely the same consideration that should apply to the Bertie Bowl and public transport plans for Dublin.