Minister for Transport Martin Cullen yesterday turned the sod on one of the State's most expensive road projects, the €570 million Shannon Tunnel - and faced immediate criticism that the tunnel should have been replaced by a much cheaper bridge.
Described by Government as a key aspect of the State transport strategy Transport 21, the toll-motorway completes the Limerick Southern Ring Road and is to be the fourth crossing of the Shannon at Limerick.
It will provide an important transport route from the N7 Dublin to Limerick road, bypassing the city and linking to Co Clare and the Atlantic corridor.
The project involves 10km of dual carriageway and 900m of tunnel. It is due to be completed in 2010. The contract was awarded to Direct Route Ltd, a company which was involved in the construction of the recently opened M8 Fermoy bypass.
However, as he turned the sod yesterday the Minister was accused of waste by the chairman of the Dáil Public Accounts Committee, Fine Gael TD Michael Noonan.
Mr Noonan claimed a bridge costing about one-third the cost of the tunnel would be sufficient.
The issue arises because of the proposed relocation of Limerick Port to Foynes. When the fourth Limerick crossing of the Shannon was being planned, the Shannon Foynes Port Authority argued strongly for a tunnel, claiming a bridge would interfere with shipping destined for Limerick docks.
However, the port authority has since announced plans to relocate port activities to Foynes and redevelop the Limerick docklands as an urban regeneration scheme.
Mr Noonan said the decision to relocate the port came too late to change plans for a tunnel. He added: "there has been a failure of joined up Government".
Mr Noonan recalled that Julie O'Neill, secretary general of the Department of Transport, had earlier this month given evidence to the Public Accounts Committee that significant cost differences emerged between the bridge and the tunnel options, with the current situation, suggesting a bridge would have been sufficient.
The National Roads Authority was unable to say yesterday what exactly was the difference in cost between a bridge and a tunnel.
Mr Cullen said yesterday "obviously there are cost differences, but I think the work had been so far advanced on the tunnel that the right decision was to proceed with it."
Mr Cullen also said he did not believe motorists would be discouraged from using the new road and tunnel because of toll charges.
"It's more cost effective - even for the trucks - it's a big saving on sitting in traffic," said Mr Cullen.
