Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Metrolink south of Charlemont

123468

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,484 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Digging a new launch site to retrieve an old TBM and remove spoil from would be more effort than starting afresh. Once the TBM is done its done.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,034 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    So you are saying that once the RO is granted it cannot be changed, even in a relatively small way, opens up the RO to being cancelled by JR.

    It is clear that the GL should be upgraded to ML between Charlemont and Sandyford, however that is eventually done. Two major points of dispute centre around Dunville Ave, which would need to be closed, and St Raphaelle's Road needs to be bridged. Both could be done once the RO is granted for ML as stand alone projects.

    The other issue is the actual tie-in and where it is to go and how.

    We already have retired curmudgeons saying ML should be cancelled in favour of more car parks at the airport and more buses to the city centre because ML is just a connection to the airport. So any opportunity to get the whole thing cancelled will be seized by them.

    How do we ever get anything like infrastructure done, or houses built, here? We have people objecting to BusConnects because they do not want a bus stop outside their house, but OK to have it outside someone else's home. The GL will be closed for, was it, four years to upgrade it to ML and ML was to cost €23 billion.

    It is like rolling boulders uphill, only for them to roll down again. M20 got planning only to be cancelled. Metro North got a RO only to be cancelled. ML should be under construction now, nearing completion of the tunnel.



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,477 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    The RO is a planning permission, any change to it will also have to go through planning, even small changes. Of course, small changes won't need to go the full consultation route, but it'd still need to go into ABP. Larger changes, like a new route, or moving a station would almost certainly require a new RO to be sought.

    But no, it's not that a change would cause an existing RO to suddenly be opened up to a JR, once the RO has been granted and the period for a JR has expired then it's almost totally bullet proof. However, starting a new project, a SOC project, that changes the ending of the Metrolink project, will require a brand new RO, and because it affects the existing Metrolink project, it creates a level of risk that I think TII would find unacceptable.

    What happens if they don't get the RO? What happens if some one takes a JR? As you mention, the bus woman took a JR, the decision on whether or not she's even allowed to take a case isn't until June, an actual JR could take years to sort. In the case of the Metrolink, We'd have a TBM in the ground, with no idea on if we're ending in Ranelagh or continuing on further south, and that risk is a recipe for massive cost overruns, a la the NCH. TII are a fundamentally conservative organisation. I find it frustrating at times, but I can't really argue with their success rate.

    I do agree with your points on getting stuff built, but I would point out that MetroNorth and the M20 weren't killed by objectors, they were killed by the worst financial crash in Irish history. TII have an amazing track record of building what they want.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,034 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    According to one of the MetroLink documents that I have the RO was due in 2021 and the line would be operational in 2027. Also cost would be about €3 billion.

    Now, the RO 'might' be ready by 2025, and just inflation over those four years will have doubled the cost. Also, it is unlikely construction will start by 2027 which is when it was due to be operational. So no wonder the working cost has jumped from €3 billion to €9 billion.

    Didn't they build Metros in Madrid in 2 to three years? Well, yes they did. Spain's first metro line (of 3.48 km) was built in just two to three years, a remarkable engineering feat. The Spanish Flu, similar to the current Covid pandemic, caused great devastation. The Madrid Metro started with a small corridor of 3.48 km in 1919 and has since grown to 295 km with 303 stations - that is in 5 years. ML is 16 stations and 18.8 km long.

    Why can things not get done here? We cannot even get the GL conversion included in the build.

    The NCH is almost identical - as it is the most expensive hospital in the world when cost per bed is used.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,926 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    I cannot believe you're seriously comparing construction timeliness in 1919 to those of today... the story of Madrid Metro's expansion from the 1990s onwards is a good enough counter example on its own.

    Green Line conversion was excluded from Metrolink for very good reasons. It will be expensive per rider: the capacity is not needed for another decade or more, it would break Luas Green in two for three years, it would add no extra public transport catchment and it would hobble Green line in the city. There's better, more pressing projects to spend the cash on. Before any upgrade, I would expect a new Green branch to be in place to handle the disruption..

    But Madrid is very unlike Dublin. It has a high population density of over 5000 per square km, and that makes rail transport the best option, despite the cost. Dublin's figure is 3600, and North of the Liffey is denser than South. The only census area in Ireland with population density close to Madrid is... Kinsealy-Drinan, outside of Swords, and that's where Metrolink is running to.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,979 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Of course, the counter argument to that is, if we’d built proper public transport in the city centre and immediate suburbs, we’d have that density and not urban sprawl.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,926 ✭✭✭KrisW1001


    Unfortunately, it doesn't work both ways. Just putting in public transport won't increase population density: once private houses are in place they're difficult to replace.

    As a country we're paying the price of some poor (and often corrupt) land-use decisions from the 1960s to 2000s.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,199 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    I’m still quietly confident that enabling works will start next year and talk of construction not kicking off until 2027 will turn out to be excessively pessimistic.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,822 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    ABP announced a new consultation must be carried out and that hasn't started yet so you're talking about the earliest possible RO date being in 2025 and a year or more to get contractors tendered for and mobilised and on site. 2027 seems like earliest possible date assuming that the general election doesn't result in project cancellation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,126 ✭✭✭spillit67


    It’s incredible how poor the reporting on this is. The IT improved during the hearings but there is nobody out there with a good grasp of timelines.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,066 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    What other European cities (or any cities really) have a pop density of 3600 pskm and what kind of rail transport have they got?



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,199 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    That’s a worst case scenario. We’ll have to hope it turns out better in reality.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,822 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    How is it 'worst case' though? ABP have already announced a further round of consultation which has yet to be scheduled and it's now the middle of 2024. That puts any granting of RO well into 2025, which then means you're tendering for construction from some point in 2025, you're talking easily a year for that. Construction starting in 2026 is an optimistic case scenario at this stage assuming no more blunders, dawdling or political interference. Remember we've an election before the RO is granted.

    DART+ West will soon have it's second birthday in ABP.



  • Registered Users Posts: 135 ✭✭OisinCooke


    Was just having a look thorough the 2018 Green Line tie-in and Metro Upgrade report and was looking at the plans for the metro-idication of the existing stations and was very surprised to see that all will still feature a very tram-style at-grade pedestrian track crossing at both platform and ends. With the heavy emphasis on the removal of at-grade crossings for Metrolink due to it being driverless, this seems like an obvious contradiction…

    Will platform screen doors be placed on the crossings maybe, only allowing pedestrians to cross when no train is present? For the planned frequency though, surely there’ll almost always be a train present or at least close enough to warrant the barriers to close…? Seems odd that this very light rail feature was kept for what will be an automatic and highly frequent metro service… Any thoughts from those more in the know?



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    I don't have the exact details, but if memory serves, it wasn't decided that Metrolink would be a driverless system initially, but somewhere in early planning.

    It's possible those upgrade reports you're talking about were concurrent with that decision, and that they largely didn't get updated from previous Metro plans because the Green Line tie-in and upgrade wasn't going to be included in the Metrolink iteration of the plan anyway.



  • Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭citizen6


    Is there any detail on how the Green Line capacity upgrade would work, with extra Luas running Sandyford to Charlemont? Where exactly would the turnback at Charlemont be? Would it require an extra platform on the bridge, to avoid blocking other Luas while everyone gets off the terminating ones?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭Consonata


    There will be a new turnback platform built at Charlemont on the bridge I believe. There is space for it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭Consonata


    The latest designs had elevated pedestrian crossings with lifts I think.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,754 ✭✭✭Tow


    The original plan was to knock the houses on the left side of the current track, heading from town. The brick terraced houses built in the 80s and maybe couple of period houses.

    When is the money (including lost growth) Michael Noonan took in the Pension Levy going to be paid back?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 135 ✭✭OisinCooke


    Just a few ponderings on the GL - ML upgrade:

    When (and I’m confidently saying when because it simply needs to happen and I firmly believe will happen) the Green Line is realigned along the N11 and the original alignment closed and upgraded to Metrolink, will there be a station at Ranelagh…? Plans seem to suggest there won’t but I feel that that’s a rather silly plan, as it is an important station in a dense area which is also filled with businesses and shops and not a whole lot of other transport connections. I know the plan is to surface the metro between Charlemont and Beechwood but I feel that a station (even a very shallow one, just about below street level) should be built in Ranelagh and would not compromise the rise out of the tunnel. There is a noticeable drop in gradient between Ranelagh and Beechwood station which itself will help the resurfacing while still allowing a flat station to be built in Ranelagh. Any thoughts…?

    Secondly, (although less importantly) what will become of the existing viaduct track section between Charlemont and Ranelagh? Knocked for housing? Converted to a New York style elevated viaduct garden park…? Either seen attractive to me to be honest, but it’s just a thought that crossed my mind. Or, in fact, will a Luas connection (as either a spur off the Green Line or maybe as the end of a line from Lucan or elsewhere) be maintained between Harcourt and Ranelagh to provide a direct connection to the Metro there instead?

    Finally, regarding the depot in Sandyford, it’s very likely that an N11 Luas route would run from the N11 down Brewery Road before rising to rejoin the Luas overbridge before Central Park, therefore an interchange station would likely be built where the road comes close to the depot. However seeing as how Metro will already have a large depot in Dardistown and will by unable to use the small and tightly-curved Sandyford tram depot, will it be kept for Luas? It would involve an awkward entrance. Instead, could the Sandyford Metrolink terminus be brought forward into the site to provide effectively a cross-platform interchange with GL services and direct access to Brewery Road? Would help to lengthen the already incredibly short distance between the Stillorgan and Sandyford stops. I presume another Green Line depot would be built in a greenfield site somewhere along the Bray extension too. And would the 4ft 8 1/2in track connection be maintained between Metro and Luas here? I think it should for potential interoperability and diversion purposes (unlikely but no harm in hanging onto it…)

    Just a few random musings that crossed my mind. Thanks all



  • Registered Users Posts: 666 ✭✭✭loco_scolo


    If it was my decision, I'd consider having the Metro tunnel descend between Miltown and Cowper. I'd keep the Luas as a terminating spur from Cowper heading north serving Beechwood, Ranelagh, Charlemont, Harcourt, SSG etc. And the Metro would have stops at Miltown (above ground), Beechwood (underground), Charlemont (underground) and so on.

    There is absolutely no need for a Metro to serve Cowper, it's not a busy stop. Keeping the Luas spur directly connected between Cowper and Charlemont would be preferred for residents of that area, given the fact Ranelagh is a hub with a wide catchment and embedded travel patterns.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭gjim


    When (and I’m confidently saying when because it simply needs to happen and I firmly believe will happen) the Green Line is realigned along the N11 and the original alignment closed and upgraded to Metrolink, will there be a station at Ranelagh…?

    No there won't be. The expense and disruption of mining out a station anywhere near the triangle could never be justified. But it bothers me also - especially as the station in Ranelagh is actually positioned in a very busy spot with potential for north/south and even east/west bus transfers. While many of the southern Green line stops are in fairly quiet and relatively inaccessible spots.

    I've spent time before on here arguing that, if it were at all possible, that they should have considered having the tie-in north of the canal in Peter Place even it meant considerable disruption involving a stretch of cut n' cover down the middle of Earlsfort terrace and some private house CPOs in Peter Place. Something like this was considered during one of the old MN options documents. I don't think my arguments succeeded in changing many minds back then so I won't go into it again but the loss of Ranelagh as a metro station (once the original plan was was scuppered by the "discovery" of the sewer pipe) was a big motivation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭citizen6


    I would assume that if the Metro surfaces between Ranelagh and Beechwood, then Ranelagh is a Luas terminus with limited service. You could have Broombridge-Ranelagh on the existing alignment and Finglas-Cherrywood/Bray on the new N11 alignment, or similar.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,199 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    The post upgrade arrangements have already been decided and probably won’t change. The elevated and surface alignment will remain from Charlemont to Beechwood, with the surface station moved north of Dunville Avenue so that the level crossing can be removed, and Metro extended from Charlemont south, no Ranelagh stop, underground stop at Beechwood, then a tie-in and then continuing along the existing surface alignment to Sandyford.
    So there will be Luas from the city centre terminating at Beechwood, and there will be Metrolink from Swords to Charlemont to Beechwood to Sandyford.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 147 ✭✭PlatformNine


    Sorry to ask but I am a bit confused, which plans show there won't be a station at Ranelagh? The only ones I can find are from 2017 and show plans to extend the Ranelagh platform for the metro tie-in. However they are from 2017 so I would hope there are newer plans?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 94 ✭✭BusGuy


    If we can barely handle a housing crisis, how in the world can we make a metro? There are too many issues currently going on, and we are already paying well over €2bn for a hospital. Surely the money from the Government is gonna run-out at any point during the construction of the Metro…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,484 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The two things aren't related.

    BAM are the primary issue with the hospital. There's been plenty of large projects delivered here either without issue or with minor enough issues.

    Long term capital investment is something you can and should borrow for if required.



  • Registered Users Posts: 94 ✭✭BusGuy


    What about BusConnects? Dublin is a cramped city compared to London, so there is no point for a Metro here. If you want to make something like this, the middle of Ireland is a good idea. You need lots of land.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,484 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Just because you like buses enough to base your username on them does not mean they are the answer to the problems.

    There are cities smaller than Cork with metro systems. Dublin needed one 50 years ago, let alone now. A second line should begin planning as soon as design is finished on this one; as that's also needed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 94 ✭✭BusGuy


    It's like saying Luas needs a blue line. The Green Line is cramped from 8.00 AM to 9.00 AM in the Dundrum region, and also from 3.00 to 4.00 PM when students are coming back from school on the Kilmacud stop.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,484 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Yes, the Luas need more lines. There are two Luas extensions and an additional line in various stages of planning; and another six or so radial and three partial orbitals proposed. These are needed as well as Metrolink and further Metro lines.

    The Green Line also needs the metro conversion that is now long-fingered.



  • Registered Users Posts: 94 ✭✭BusGuy


    I just feel like Ireland is going too crazy on these transport projects, we don't have space for this, given that the Luas can't even go to Swords or something.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,484 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    We aren't, we do have space, and the Luas isn't going to Swords because Metrolink is.



  • Registered Users Posts: 135 ✭✭OisinCooke


    Very confused as to what your point is here… The Green Line south of Charlemont is desperately cramped for large portions of the day in many areas, upgrading this section of the line to a driverless high-capacity Metro that runs every 90 seconds is a pretty obvious solution to that… And what is the Luas Blue Line?? New Luas lines will be needed and will be constructed over the next few decades, and while I agree with you that Bus Connects is very much needed, it and new Luas and Metro routes go hand in hand and compliment each other. And your argument that Dublin is more cramped than London is just even more case for Metro, rather than busses. A metro is an underground/completely segregated high capacity railway that can carry huge amounts of people very frequently through areas where it is otherwise extremely difficult to provide mass transit in the form of a bus or tram. Where in the middle of the Ireland do you suggest is anywhere near dense enough to warrant the construction of a Metro? And you need waaaay less land by far to build a Metro than to build any other form of transit corridor, so again, I am confused by your point here…



  • Registered Users Posts: 94 ✭✭BusGuy


    1: I took the just made up the blue line as an example.

    2: A metro running every 90 seconds is quite a bit unbelievable, the Luas is supposed to run every 5-10 min both directions during early & late peak times, but the outbound (Sandyford - City) direction is too frequent than the inbound (City - Sandyford) direction.

    3: If the Metro is gonna be built right in the middle of the city, so much, I mean too many disruptions will be caused, which leaves the Department of Transport for the Metro idea to blame here.

    Going back to my 3rd point, we are probably gonna lose many but not all bus connections to the city for many days, if not months but not years.



  • Registered Users Posts: 135 ✭✭OisinCooke


    And yes, this is something that confused me for a while, the 2018 Luas Green Line Tie-In Study recommends a stop at Ranelagh in may of its appraisal options, be it extending the platforms at the current Ranelagh stop or building a new underground stop there depending on the tie-in location. The 2018 Green Line Metro Upgrade Study also backs up having a Metro stop at Ranelagh with extensions being provided to the current platforms.

    However, the 2019 Jacob's Metro Constructability Report recommends a tie-in between Beechwood and Cowper, with an elevated Luas stop being built north of Dunville Avenue and a Metro stop directly beneath this (just about below ground level) with the Metro rising to grade south of Dunville Avenue. This is also the only of the reports that acknowledges the driverless heavier-rail nature of Metrolink as opposed to the tram-style nature of Metro North, recommending raising platform heights, adding platform screen doors and passenger under/overpasses. It's well worth a read in relation to this project

    https://www.metrolink.ie/media/ox0p3cjb/constructabilityreportgreenlineclosure.pdf

    Hope that helps with the confusion :)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,484 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Metros can and do run every 90 seconds, you not believing it doesn't change the fact that they already do.

    Buses can be rerouted. Boring a metro does not create much if any disruption to roads above.



  • Registered Users Posts: 426 ✭✭dublincc2


    I haven’t been following the Metrolink saga for a while, are they still talking about a driverless/automated fleet? I assume procurement for the units is still a way off yet.

    On a slightly unrelated note, and the ship has probably sailed for this especially since a lot of the infrastructure has been destroyed, was it ever considered to reopen the Harcourt Street line to Bray for the DART? This probably would’ve been a better option than the Luas Green Line and would likely bring forward any plans for an underground system in Dublin, such as connecting Harcourt St to Broadstone.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70,484 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Yes.

    Never going to happen now. Luas to Bray might.



  • Registered Users Posts: 426 ✭✭dublincc2


    One of the issues with the old Harcourt Street station was that it was too far from the city centre. In fact the original proposal would’ve had the terminus located on the southwest corner of St. Stephen’s Green.

    An idea would be to return heavy rail including the DART to the Harcourt Street line, extend the terminus to St. Stephen's Green and develop that as an interchange between Metrolonk, Dart Underground and Luas Cross-City. The Green line would begin at St. Stephen's Green and terminate at Broombridge, which would be a link between a re-opened Broadstone station handling Galway/Sligo trains.

    Maybe a bit far-fetched, but is very much possible. None of the buildings between the old Harcourt Street station and the southwest corner of St. Stephen's Green are listed, mostly newer office additions at the back of Georgian houses. A distance of 370m.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 135 ✭✭OisinCooke


    This was considered in the 1970s, the line from Bray to Harcourt Street would be reopened as suburban rail, where it went underground at Harcourt Street, across the city and emerged at Broadstone before following the old line (again, now the Green Line) to Liffey Junction and on out to Blanchardstown. The plan was for a giant hub station at Temple Bar - CIE owned a load of land here back then and the plan was to interchange with the other underground suburban line, a line from the Heuston to Sandymount (don't ask why they pretty much doubled the PPT link that already existed between the Heuston line and the southern line…).

    In reality though, the Green Line serves this cross city link and services on the Harcourt Street line far better than a DART style service ever could and the upgrade to Metro on this line will be unbelievably transformational - A DART style service on that line could offer a 10 ish minute serice per direction, metro will offer 90 seconds, which is as turn-up-and-go as it gets.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 147 ✭✭PlatformNine


    Thank you! That was a good read. I have to say though, I knew the green line would need to be closed for an extended period of time, but I didn't realise that best case it would be three years. I understand that there is no other way to get around that, I just wasn't expecting it to be so long.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,754 ✭✭✭Tow


    And close off all the crossing, so allow for driver less trains.

    You also have to take into account 3 years could extend into 9/10 years...

    When is the money (including lost growth) Michael Noonan took in the Pension Levy going to be paid back?



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,477 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    This is why I believe that the only way that this is happening is a separate Luas "new green line" project, with an alignment such as Charlemont>Lesson St>Donnybrook>Stillorgan Rd>back across to meet at sandyford at some point.

    That'd allow the Luas to continue working for most areas while the Metrolink tie in and upgrade works are done to the line. It's the only real way to minimise the disruption.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 147 ✭✭PlatformNine


    Yes but the closures for that don't seem to be nearly as bad. The report makes it sounds like a lot of the crossing upgrades can be done with minimal or no closures to the green line. Also there is a massive difference between just the crossings being closed, which can also be upgrades in phases to reduce disruption, and the entire green line which once closed will stays closed until work is complete.

    I agree, something needs to be done so the green line past Sandyford doesn't need to close, but thats still the entire Ranelagh-Stillorgan section being closed for a minimum of 3 years. Even without loosing the full green line it would still be a massive hit to Dublin's PT capacity.

    It does make me wonder if any of the other options had a shorter closure time, even if it comes at the cost of a poor environmental, large amount of CPO, high price, or even a long overall construction time. 3 years is a long time to loose access to one of the best modes of transport in the city.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,169 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    CPO the Oakley Court apartments and build the tunnel portal there, most of the work can then be done offline seriously reducing the length of closure. No Ranelagh station but solves most other issues.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭Consonata


    If you're doing that you probably could even do an underground Ranelagh station



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,169 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    No, apart from there being no space to build an underground Ranelagh station, it would be too close to Charlemont. The station would have to be built along with the portal with the station being in a retained cut north of Dunville Ave, that would be 1km south of Charlemont. You could potentially cut through under the existing embankment to Beechwood Ave which would leave a short walk to Ranelagh village.



  • Registered Users Posts: 264 ✭✭not1but4


    The tunnel will stop at short of the Ranelagh station and the track will be 25m below the surface. Will be interesting to see how they would do the tie in with Beechwood now as IIRC the old plans had the tunnel going the whole way to Beechwood. I would imagine by the time the TBM is in Ranelagh there will be plans to continue it further south.

    Page 44: https://downloads.metrolink.ie/documentsro/Alignment%20Details%20Book%202%20of%202%20Dublin%20City%20Council.pdf



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,450 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    I don’t see them keeping the TBM going, they won’t want to push out the finish date. They’ll need to get it opened and work from there.



Advertisement