It's a total gem for all the wrong reasons.
I disagree completely. I've read a couple of sections of it and the vast majority of what I've read was not only completely sensible but weirdly prescient. This was drawn 50 years before they started the M50 -
They spend quite a bit of time on roads and cars but they also discuss the railways in a completely rational way although they were a bit overly optimistic about the advantages offered by the newfangled (at the time) buses.
If you think that Dublin's unsustainable pattern of sprawling development is something that happened by accident during the economic boom of the last 15 years, then you should read this section
. Their notions of urban planning and development are entirely modern. The sad thing is that they observed that Dublin was in the fortunate position to avoid the undesirable fate of the sprawling cities of Britain. Well we've blown that one despite a warning 65 years ago.
They recognise the need for Busaras. They predict that the Harcourt line might be replaced by an electrified light-rail line. They correctly diagnose the problem with the main city rail lines (that they don't come "in" far enough) - effectively stating the problem that the interconnector solves.
They get some things wrong but I don't see anything to scoff at in the report.