On Friday I spoke with Senator Tom Morrissey of the Progressive Democrats at the end of the party’s ‘A New Heart for Dublin’ conference, which detailed their idea of redeveloping Dublin Port into a residential area. Sen Morrissey is the man spear-heading the idea, and the conference was launched by Michael McDowell, where he spoke about Bertie Ahern’s indication to support the idea.
Unfortunately the subsequent article didn’t get that many column inches, but I think what he said is quite interesting, especially considering his upcoming attempt at Dáil election in Dublin North, the fact that it gives an idea of some of the PD manifesto next year (along with the stamp duty drops and tax cuts) and the fact that he seemed to speak on party opinon rather than personal.
Below is a transcript of the entire interview, word for word (although I dropped the ‘eh’ bits).
I’ll post it here without comment, and hopefully a discussion will get going on it at Irish Election:
Me: OK, so I was at the conference earlier and I just wanted to ask you a few questions about it.. Obviously the plan is to build up Dublin Port and move the industrial and freight…
Sen Morrissey: [Interrupting]Gradually over a 25 year period; it would be a gradual development…
Me: Yeah, move it to Bremore [which is north of Balbriggan]. The obvious question is, what is the point of the Port Tunnel if the port isn’t going to be there?
Sen Morrissey: Because we would be saying that there would be a cohort of 50,000 people living in the Dublin Port area, in the new quarter area, and that that area in any event would need that structure, that road link to the M1 and to airport etc. and around Dublin… it’s not wasted, it is anything but wasted. We would say it would be better used for that than for the purpose which people have been told it was for which is to service the port. It will not be able to service the port entirely because of the HGV’s that it will not be able to contain, or fit properly.
Me: So what you’re saying is it would be a kind of a short cut to the airport?
Sen Morrissey: Exactly, and we are saying that we would see Dublin port as a world class cruise line terminal, and the reason it could be developed as a world class cruise line terminal is because of the connectivity of Dublin airport with Ryanair and Aer Lingus across Europe and then obviously via the Port Tunnel to the cruise line terminal.
Me: So, do you think that people, that the public would have accepted that this was going to be built if it was going to be used as a short cut…
Sen Morrissey: Well, no… in any event the proposal we’re talking about here… I mean the IFSC started in the 1980’s in a lot less prosperous time actually when we were in the depression. It has taken us 25 years to build the IFSC and we now see the jewel that it is. The whole thing is a 25 year project. It is a gradual migration, so… and a super-structure of infrastructure must be in place in the Balbriggan area to cater… and we would be opposed to Bremore developing without a super-structure of infrastructure.
Me: I don’t know if you’ve given it much thought, but would it [the port tunnel] be free for the residents to use?
Sen Morrissey: Well the only reason it’s tolled now is to prevent residents, or cars using it so that it will be available for lorries. But I mean, we have major reservations about the insurability of the tunnel as it is with the number of truck movement, of gasoline out to the airport and beyond the M50 there, the number of petroleum trucks. I believe there is a question of the insurability of the tunnel.
Me: I have to say, I mean, you sound quite negative about the port tunnel considering the PD’s are in Government
Sen Morrissey: Well no, no… we’re saying that the port tunnel will not do the job that the people of Dublin have been told it will do, which is that it will clear Dublin city of trucks, it will not do that.
Me: But, I mean, it was the Government the PD’s were part of that told the people it would do that job.
Sen Morrissey: Dublin City Council, actually. The City Council build Dublin Port Tunnel, the city council are the clients. The city council is the client, not the Government.
Me: But obviously this isn’t something that has not come up in the past about the Port Tunnel.
Sen Morrissey: No, but we are entitled, whether or not… the fact that we’re in Government does not preclude us from asking challenging questions of the people who we put in charge of our infrastructure, namely the NRA with Dublin city council as their clients. And we are entitled to ask questions in relation to safety… we know they got it wrong in relation to it’s height, we know that they have built it in a city that has a smaller population now than it did in 1971… so we are saying the people who are in control don’t have all the answers. We are entitled, if no one else will, if no one else in opposition will or no one in the city council will, we are entitled to ask challenging questions in relation to the future of Dublin. And that is why we are looking at the Dublin Port proposal as it is based on European and Worldwide best practice in relation to the redevelopment of Ports. And we happen to have a port tunnel that will service Dublin port, albeit not in the fashion that it was first intended to, which was to remove all trucks because it cannot remove all trucks.. some trucks are going to be too large for it in any event… and in the longer term in any event that structure of the port tunnel in any event will be used and would be necessary if you were housing 50,000 people in that area.
Me: So I mean, I suppose, fair enough you’re entitled to ask questions about the port tunnel…
Sen Morrissey: [interrupting] But we are saying in our literature that our proposal could not have gone ahead without it… we are saying that in our literature. It would need that type of structure as a roadway out of it… we’re not hiding from that.
Me: Say for example, getting access to the airport… by the time this were made, even if it were to go ahead right now and they broke ground on it now, the likes of the Metro would be in place by then… wouldn’t it be that public transport will have improved in the next 25 years, providing greater access to the airport?
Sen Morrissey: [Long pause] Access to the airport for the metro? Sorry, maybe I’m missing your point. Of course we’re investing and there’s going to be a new metro. But we are saying that you cannot put 50,000 people, and they’re not our figures, they’re figures given to us by City Council, that’s what that area could accommodate. We’re sure not suggesting that you can feed 50,000 down the quays, that you can link it to the M1, so the port tunnel is not wasted money. We’re saying it could not go ahead without the port tunnel; the proposal would not be a valid proposal to put for serious consideration without that super-infrastructure by way of public transport and car transport.
Me: Just to move onto the figure, it may not be your figure, but of 50,000 people…
Sen Morrissey: [Interrupting] Well there’s a reason we used it because we were given that figure…
Me: And if I’m correct it’s 660 acres that could be used for re-development…
Sen Morrissey: [Interrupting] No, there’s a land-bank in the port of 660 acres. We are not, and anyone who read our literature will see that we are not closing Dublin Port, we want to turn it into a world class cruise line terminal. We still see passenger ferries coming into Dublin. We want to remove the industrialised aspect of Dublin Port, which is the containerised aspect of it, and we want to free up that land for development and we’re asking is it right, at a time when we’re asking couples and young people to live as far as way as they can and force them to drive to Dublin to work when we have a valuable land bank housing empty containers.
Me: So what you’re saying is there’s land up to 660 acres which could be potentially developed?
Sen Morrissey: Yes, on a phased, master-plan basis
Me: I mean, doing the maths as far as 50,000 people divided into 660 acres, that works out at about 750 people per acre, which seems like you’re really going to be cramming the people in there just to make it fit.
Sen Morrissey: It certainly is not because we are saying this is an area which will accommodate high-rise style development without it imposing on other communities. At the moment we are imposing high-rise in some areas which some areas are not suited for because we’re retrofitting high-rise into low-density areas and people are already objecting to that over the last 10 years. This is an area in Dublin where we can have density, where we can have a proper transport system, a proper Metro etc. etc. So it’s not cramming people in, we are saying it will have parks, marinas that people, the whole, this is based on what has been done in Bilbao, Haffen City, Barcelona, that people instead of commuting into the area, they work, live and play in the area. And that the mistakes we’ve made in the past can be readdressed in this area by way of urban sprawl.
Me: One of the first speakers after yourself and an Tanaiste was Frank McDonald of the Irish Times and he was quite positive about the idea but one thing he said he wouldn’t support was this idea of what he described as a ‘mini-Manhattan’, so do you think, even though it wouldn’t be imposing on other residential areas do you think people in Dublin would want to see that? Going by the image you used I mean…
Sen Morrissey: It was used for what you might say, artistic, dramatic effect. If we had produced a load of four story buildings as we have in the IFSC, four story and six story it would not have grabbed attention.
Me: But I mean in order to, obviously it’s not going to be just residential in this area but in order to fit 750 people per acre you would need quite tall buildings, so do you think people in Dublin actually want sky-scrapers or want these?
Sen Morrissey: But we are getting them.. An Bord… South Dublin County Council has allowed a 25-story development outside Sandyford, or outside… when I say Sandyford it’s more towards the mountains beyond Sandyford. So we are getting tall buildings, but we are not getting them on a planned structured basis. We are getting U2 tower on the quays, we’re getting the Crosbie tower at the point, so we’re going to have these dotted, we’re saying this is a way to have them on a planned basis and it has to be a master-plan after public consultation. It can address many of the mistakes of the past and mistakes have been made and people must stand up and admit that mistakes have been made. The figures are there to prove mistakes have been made.
Me: So would you be confident that people would support having these kinds of structures in Dublin city?
Sen Morrissey: Well we have gone out, we had a public meeting in Clontarf last year and, we have a meeting in Clontarf castle, not last year, last January. And last January we had a public meeting in the Mount Herbert Park hotel in Ballsbridge, both sides immediately of the river, now we did not get objections to that type of proposal.
Me: Finally, you may not be the best person to, perhaps the Tanaiste would be best to comment on this. One thing he mentioned in his speech was that he had spoken to the Taoiseach and he had indicated that he supported this. Would you, given that this is something you’ve put a lot of time and effort into, would you expect this to be part of the Programme for Government should the PD’s get re-elected?
Sen Morrissey: I would certainly say yes. I was not aware of that until Michael McDowell, the Tanaiste said that today and certainly in any event we would have been making it party policy for us. We would have been making it part of our, we’ll be making it part of our manifesto projections come next May and certainly if we are forming a Programme for Government it would be a logical extension that we would say yes, this should be looked at in the context of the next National Development Plan
Me: Do you think it would be a… what’s the term… a basic demand for the PD’s or do you think that it wouldn’t be a sticking point as far as an agreement for a coalition goes?
Sen Morrissey: Well it’s not going to, all these things are too far out to start talking about what’s going to be in the programme for Government.. Hopefully we will be in the happy position of being able to form a Government, that would be great. I am saying categorically that it’s a plank of our policy…. We would hope that it would be included in the Programme for Government in any event but moreover we would be encouraged that the fact that the Taoiseach has shown support for the policy. We’re not saying that we have specifics here, nobody has specifics here, this is a plan for Dublin, just as former Taoiseach Charles Haughey, in a depression and recession ridden economy in Ireland set about the IFSC. We’re saying we did it in a depressed time, why can’t we do it in a boom time?