Committee Reports::Report No. 16 - Review of Procedures relating to road openings by utilities::29 July, 1986::Appendix


	HOME Baile
	COMMITTEE REPORTS Tuasascálacha Coistí

Committee Reports > List of Committees > Dáil > 1986 > Committee on Public Expenditure > Report No. 16 - Review of Procedures relating to road openings by utilities

APPENDIX 2 Letter to the Clerk to the Committee from New Dublin Gas

8th May, 1986

Re: Excavation of Dublin Streets

I refer to your letter of 4th April re above and regret the delay in replying to you.

However, we welcome this opportunity of discussing the position from where we stand and submit the following points.

(a)Presently, Dublin Corporation undertakes the permanent reinstatement of all openings frequently some considerable time after the excavation; whereas we have been trying to do this work ourselves with the following advantages:

1)Reduction in public criticism of temporarily repaired holes.

2)Surfaces would not deteriorate in vicinity of cuttings.

3)Reduction in accidents to vehicles and the very old/young.

4)Better public image of Councils and Gas Company.

5)Huge cost advantage as per attached schedule.

(b)Our records/maps entirely adequate for their purpose. Prior to 1982 the company’s gas supply network was recorded on maps of various scales and survey dates. However, in 1982 with the expected arrival of Natural Gas the total Distribution Network was very critically examined and the opportunity was taken to transfer all above information to the new I/I000 scall Ordinance Maps then being provided. (A copy is enclosed of part of one of these maps showing the Gas Mains in the vicinity of their Building). The updating of the gas network shown on the maps is being continually updated using information gathered from work on the gas network itself. In addition any new or replacement work on the network is also recorded on the maps.

The information recorded is the size of the main and the type of material used i.e. Cast Iron, Ductile Iron, Polyethylene or steel wherever possible the cover on the main and its position from a fixed structure is noted. Reference is also made to the maximum operating pressure of the main, i.e. I0 psig, 30 psig, 60 psig, 100 psig etc.

We look forward to our meeting on Tuesday next.

Yours sincerely,

____________________________

W. GLYNN

	DESCRIPTION	QUANTITY	SOUTH MIDLANDRATE		DUBLIN CORPORATIONRATE
	DESCRIPTION	QUANTITY	RATE	TOTAL	RATE	TOTAL
					(as rates 1/1/85 which by agreement held for 1986)
1.	Permanent Reinstatement of base and weariog course rolled asphalt surfaced carriageway 15/1/1C	762 m²	20.95	15963.90	110.70	84353.40
2.	Permanent Reinstatement of tarmac or bitumen macadam surfaced footway, base and wearing course reinstatement 16/1/1C	263m²	14.60	3893.80	41.10	10809.30
3.	Permanent Reinstatement of R.C. Carriageways up to 300 thick. 17/1/1C	97m²	36.20	3511.40	80.60	7818.20
4.	Permanent Reinstatement of concrete footways up to 150 thick	581m²	18.75	10893.75	53.40	31025.40
5.	Permanent Reinstatement of kerbstones and launchings	24m	3.24	Nil	-	Nil
				34208.85		134,006.30

DUBLIN CO. AVERAGE RATE	COUNCIL TOTAL
149.00 120.00	106680.00 92440.00	Note: The Dublin County Council average rate used has been obtained from the analysis sheets attached which rates have been increased by 15% to give an updated (1986) average rate.
70.52 61.32	18546.76 16127.16	To obtain more accurate rates than those shown a much deeper analysis would be required and even then it is doubtful if the rates would be more meaningfull.
138.39 120.34	13423.83 11672.98	From the analysis attached it can be seen that there is no logical comparison between the various rates for similar work - this would appear to arise from the rate dubious method of charge which is uncheckable.
124.58 108.33	72380.98 62939.73	The rates set out in green are the original average rates which have not been increased by any percentage (rates would be those applying in “Late” 1983 to “Mid” 1984).
-	NIL
	211031.57 182179.87

4.Any unreasonable insistance on after-hours working as a norm on jobs which affect traffic flow has obvious cost implications. At the very least it is necessary that all utilities be treated the same in this area. If, as appears likely, the Traffic Dept. is to continue to be the co-ordinating body, they are likely to be sensitive to these arguments. The same applies to restricting the hours of the working day. We are not experiencing major impositions at the moment and most Traffic Dept. stipulations are reasonable. Negotiation, however, is an element which should continue.

5.In the area of co-ordination the existing 10-day notice system of Corporation direct labour works and the advisory meetings on major contract work are very useful and these arrangements should continue. We are reliant, however, on Traffic Dept. alerting us to conflicting work by other utilities and we do not preview their work with an eye to mutual benefit or rationalisation. Perhaps something may be done in this area.