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 all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
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

N8/N25/N40 - Dunkettle Interchange [open to traffic]

1…2122242627…87

Comments

  • #1152
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,241 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    grogi wrote: »
    Not only that. Once the Dunkettle RB has running lights, the traffic coming from the East going North, will cross the construction site not leaving the flyover, turn around at the RB and use that slip.

    Very nice. I didn't realise this: a clever little change.
    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    Under the M8 and onto a new roundabout Outside the Ibis Hotel onto the old N25. Bridge will need to be constructed.
    Yes, exactly. This is the one I keep banging on about as a better route as a good cycle/pedestrian routing.


  • #1153
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    hans aus dtschl wrote: »
    Very nice. I didn't realise this: a clever little change.


    Yes, exactly. This is the one I keep banging on about as a better route as a good cycle/pedestrian routing.

    To do that you’ll need to have cycle traffic go across a lane of cars. They’ve taken the easier option which requires maybe an additional 200m of cycling.


  • #1154
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,241 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    To do that you’ll need to have cycle traffic go across a lane of cars. They’ve taken the easier option which requires maybe an additional 200m of cycling.

    Under the slip lane would have made more sense.

    You're making little of the proposed route's inadequacies.
    It has an additional hill built in, 3 road crossings with no priority, and without splitting hairs, it'll be around 300m to 350m extra. No big deal whatsoever if you've a motor, but not ideal if you're walking or cycling.
    Every design manual that exists says don't give cyclists/pedestrians extra gradients, extra distance, extra stops, extra conflicts with motorised traffic.

    This one's like a checklist of things you shouldn't do, if you were remotely serious about sustainable travel.


  • #1155
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,038 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    hans aus dtschl wrote: »
    Under the slip lane would have made more sense.

    You're making little of the proposed route's inadequacies.
    It has an additional hill built in, 3 road crossings with no priority, and without splitting hairs, it'll be around 300m to 350m extra. No big deal whatsoever if you've a motor, but not ideal if you're walking or cycling.
    Every design manual that exists says don't give cyclists/pedestrians extra gradients, extra distance, extra stops, extra conflicts with motorised traffic.

    This one's like a checklist of things you shouldn't do, if you were remotely serious about sustainable travel.

    Would the cycle lane have to go under one or both new lanes? Getting under the lane immediately next to it could be possible as that lane is rising to meet the M8. The next lane (closest to the rail tracks) seems to be a good bit lower as it have to go under the M8 meaning a very steep drop would be required to get under it and provide sufficient headspace.


  • #1156
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,241 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Would the cycle lane have to go under one or both new lanes? Getting under the lane immediately next to it could be possible as that lane is rising to meet the M8. The next lane (closest to the rail tracks) seems to be a good bit lower as it have to go under the M8 meaning a very steep drop would be required to get under it and provide sufficient headspace.

    Yes exactly it would only need to go under the furthest West/North slip lane. That's the one that rises up to meet the M8 as you say. Effectively run the pedestrian/cycle route beside the railway tracks.

    I don't know their reasons for deciding against it, but I hope they had a reason other than "cost". You'd have been talking small investment at build stage to have quite a desirable route for all users, whereas I'd describe the proposed route as a deterrent to both novice and very competent users (no mean feat making things worse than they are!). Perhaps that slip lane just doesn't rise enough? I don't know I'm afraid.


  • #1157
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,038 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    hans aus dtschl wrote: »
    Yes exactly it would only need to go under the furthest West/North slip lane. That's the one that rises up to meet the M8 as you say. Effectively run the pedestrian/cycle route beside the railway tracks.

    But the pedestrian/cycle route wouldn't be directly beside the railway tracks would it, there would be another traffic lane in between (i.e. the lane I said you wouldn't be able to get under)? Just clarifying.


  • #1158
    a/tel
    Registered Users Posts: 112 ✭✭a/tel


    Took a few shots at the end of the pedestrian/cycleway today. Looks more or less complete.


  • #1159
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    hans aus dtschl wrote: »
    Under the slip lane would have made more sense.

    You're making little of the proposed route's inadequacies.
    It has an additional hill built in, 3 road crossings with no priority, and without splitting hairs, it'll be around 300m to 350m extra. No big deal whatsoever if you've a motor, but not ideal if you're walking or cycling.
    Every design manual that exists says don't give cyclists/pedestrians extra gradients, extra distance, extra stops, extra conflicts with motorised traffic.

    This one's like a checklist of things you shouldn't do, if you were remotely serious about sustainable travel.

    Just saw the last posters photos of the end of the cycle route. Didn’t realise what a roundabout route they’ve taken.

    Presumed they would have hugged the M8 but no.


  • #1160
    a/tel
    Registered Users Posts: 112 ✭✭a/tel


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    Just saw the last posters photos of the end of the cycle route. Didn’t realise what a roundabout route they’ve taken.

    Presumed they would have hugged the M8 but no.

    Behind the wall pictured pictured is the literally the M8.

    There is nowhere to go due to the bridge unless they has built steps down to Richmond Hill just before the bridge. The road is so narrow there its just too dangerous.

    But there will have to be some sort of footpath from Richmond Hill down past the Gaelscoil to meet the new footpaths leading towards Burys Bridge


  • #1161
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    What is that road in the second picture? Looks like a new build but coulnd't possibly be as there are no footpaths or bike lanes.


  • Advertisement
  • #1162
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,241 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    Just saw the last posters photos of the end of the cycle route. Didn’t realise what a roundabout route they’ve taken.

    Presumed they would have hugged the M8 but no.

    Yep, and my apologies, I'm obviously not describing the issues with this route very well.
    Experienced users will avoid it because of the loss of priority (I'm confident they'll cycle on the slip ramp). Novice users will avoid the area because it's "too dangerous".
    Unfortunately it's my belief that a good solution was cheaply available.
    a/tel wrote: »
    There is nowhere to go due to the bridge unless they has built steps down to Richmond Hill just before the bridge. The road is so narrow there its just too dangerous.

    But there will have to be some sort of footpath from Richmond Hill down past the Gaelscoil to meet the new footpaths leading towards Burys Bridge

    There is a proposal to add a cycle lane and footpath (segregated) on the North side of the L2998 (Richmond Hill) under the M8 bridge as part of the City Council Glanmire Part 8 schemes. I'm not sure there's enough space under the bridge, and a bigger issue is that the users will have to cross the L2998 Richmond Hill road with no controls. The LCD display there currently shows that motorists regularly do 80+ kmh, with poor sightlines.

    As an experienced cyclist who cycles this area regularly, I can tell you that this is an unpleasant road to cycle. It's one of the worst parts of any journey for me, so diverting the City-to-East vulnerable traffic to here is a bad idea.


  • #1163
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,241 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    spacetweek wrote: »
    What is that road in the second picture? Looks like a new build but coulnd't possibly be as there are no footpaths or bike lanes.

    This is the most northerly part of the scheme.
    This view is North West from where the M8 bridge passes over the L2998/Richmond Hill.

    In my scribble attached, the proposed scheme is in black, the photo location is in green and photo direction is to the North West.
    The section you're seeing is the proposed shared motor/cycle/pedestrian section.

    Edit:
    The works are now substantially complete East of the M8.
    There are no crossings of any kind at Factory Hill or North Esk. As the basic "test" goes, I probably wouldn't allow a child to traverse this scheme alone.


  • #1164
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,241 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    But the pedestrian/cycle route wouldn't be directly beside the railway tracks would it, there would be another traffic lane in between (i.e. the lane I said you wouldn't be able to get under)? Just clarifying.

    Sorry I just saw this message!
    I think you're right, yes, it would not be directly beside the railway tracks, rather it would be beside the road which is beside the railway tracks.


  • #1165
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Cabinet approval for main construction contract expected within weeks

    https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Cabinet-approval-for-main-Dunkettle-works-expected-81daf55d-bd20-426a-9a43-9bc7eca5b538-ds


  • #1166
    Leonard Hofstadter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Leonard Hofstadter


    marno21 wrote: »
    Cabinet approval for main construction contract expected within weeks

    https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Cabinet-approval-for-main-Dunkettle-works-expected-81daf55d-bd20-426a-9a43-9bc7eca5b538-ds

    That will be fantastic news, badly needed for the city.


  • #1167
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,038 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    marno21 wrote: »
    Cabinet approval for main construction contract expected within weeks

    https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Cabinet-approval-for-main-Dunkettle-works-expected-81daf55d-bd20-426a-9a43-9bc7eca5b538-ds

    Is that approval to tender the main construction contract? I thought they had issued the revised tender but the article says;
    Once it is approved, we are ready, TII are ready to tender straight away.


  • #1168
    annfield1978
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 569 ✭✭✭annfield1978


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Is that approval to tender the main construction contract? I thought they had issued the revised tender but the article says;

    Tenders are back, they are ready to appoint when approval given


  • #1169
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,963 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    Yes, main construction contract. That was just poor reporting by the Echo.


  • #1170
    Fabio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Fabio


    Does anyone know when the slip-road from the Glanmire Roundabout onto the M8 northbound will be open? No details in the latest Dunkettle email...


  • Advertisement
  • #1171
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Fabio wrote: »
    Does anyone know when the slip-road from the Glanmire Roundabout onto the M8 northbound will be open? No details in the latest Dunkettle email...

    Was originally supposed to be the end of September. Can’t see that happening now.


  • #1172
    Hibernicis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,619 ✭✭✭Hibernicis


    Fabio wrote: »
    Does anyone know when the slip-road from the Glanmire Roundabout onto the M8 northbound will be open? No details in the latest Dunkettle email...

    Based on previous posts on this thread it was due for COMPLETION by the end of September. It will open as part of the main contract works, so some time away yet.


  • #1173
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Hibernicis wrote: »
    Based on previous posts on this thread it was due for COMPLETION by the end of September. It will open as part of the main contract works, so some time away yet.

    I thought it was due to open in advance of main works and is to be utilised as part of traffic diversions during the build?


  • #1174
    Hibernicis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,619 ✭✭✭Hibernicis


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    I thought it was due to open in advance of main works and is to be utilised as part of traffic diversions during the build?

    This is the post I was referring to
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114557321&postcount=1135


  • #1175
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,963 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    I thought it was due to open in advance of main works and is to be utilised as part of traffic diversions during the build?


    Not for sure, I made that up thinking it would be logical.


    As the M8 has to be moved slightly eastward to make the new interchange work, the join between the new sliproad and the current M8 will be poor at best for now. They say they'll need traffic management there. As a result, it won't open until the main contract has been signed.


  • #1176
    Fabio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,262 ✭✭✭Fabio


    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    Not for sure, I made that up thinking it would be logical.


    As the M8 has to be moved slightly eastward to make the new interchange work, the join between the new sliproad and the current M8 will be poor at best for now. They say they'll need traffic management there. As a result, it won't open until the main contract has been signed.

    Ah ****e :(


  • Advertisement
  • #1177
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    Not for sure, I made that up thinking it would be logical.


    As the M8 has to be moved slightly eastward to make the new interchange work, the join between the new sliproad and the current M8 will be poor at best for now. They say they'll need traffic management there. As a result, it won't open until the main contract has been signed.

    Could easily have traffic lights there at peak times to make it work.


  • #1178
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Project to come before Cabinet for approval next week. Contract award shortly after.

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40056242.html


  • #1179
    steeler j
    Registered Users Posts: 317 ✭✭steeler j


    I wonder who will get the contract


  • #1180
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,963 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    Could easily have traffic lights there at peak times to make it work.


    Trouble is if you have traffic lights a few hundred meters up the M8 it'll back up to the roundabout and clog up the entire interchange.


  • #1181
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,963 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    marno21 wrote: »
    Project to come before Cabinet for approval next week. Contract award shortly after.

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40056242.html


    Excellent. Hopefully before the budget and the inevitable cull of everything.


  • Advertisement
  • #1182
    Leonard Hofstadter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Leonard Hofstadter


    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    Excellent. Hopefully before the budget and the inevitable cull of everything.

    About time! Good to see it's Green proof, we must count ourselves lucky that Cork is getting at least one roads project done while we have Green-induced misery in Government.


  • #1183
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,561 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    Trouble is if you have traffic lights a few hundred meters up the M8 it'll back up to the roundabout and clog up the entire interchange.

    The lights would be on the slip lane only. Not on the mainline. The slip lane would be green at the same time that the eastbound entry to the roundabout is also green.


  • #1184
    Cookiemunster
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 12,188 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    Excellent. Hopefully before the budget and the inevitable cull of everything.

    This isn't going to be an austerity budget so there won't be any cull. Long fingering maybe, but not a cull. Most of the world is borrowing and spending its way through this (and the EU is practically encouraging it) and we won't be any different. The austerity budgets will be 3-4 years down the line if things don't pick up in the medium term.


  • #1185
    Hibernicis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,619 ✭✭✭Hibernicis


    steeler j wrote: »
    I wonder who will get the contract

    What would be even more interesting is to establish the saving achieved by re-tendering vs the price SISK were quoting last year.


  • #1186
    steeler j
    Registered Users Posts: 317 ✭✭steeler j


    Hibernicis wrote: »
    What would be even more interesting is to establish the saving achieved by re-tendering vs the price SISK were quoting last year.

    Yes it will be very interesting


  • #1187
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    https://twitter.com/dunkettleint/status/1311325157953351680?s=21

    https://twitter.com/gnbcork/status/1311339769906036737?s=21


  • #1188
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    https://www.echolive.ie/corknews/Cabinet-expected-to-approve-tender-for-Dunkettle-Interchange-project-tomorrow-bdc199f9-db6a-43dc-bc2f-d3148e6c3512-ds
    APPROVAL is expected to be granted tomorrow to allow the Dunkettle Interchange project go ahead.

    The Cabinet is due to discuss the major project tomorrow and grant approval for the tender stage.


  • #1189
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    https://twitter.com/padraigosull/status/1315722598748172289?s=21


  • #1190
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,038 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    I'd be amazed if Sisk aren't preferred tenderer given they are already on site and should already know where to make money during the job. The big question is how much will the preferred tender sum be below the amount Sisk were looking for in the negotiated process?


  • #1191
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Be ready also for an overinflated price in the press release tomorrow that includes all non construction costs as well similar to the N5 and N22 schemes which were overinflated by €120m and €90m respectively.

    This is a recent habit of including costs outside of the construction cost of the contract they are about to award, and mainly serves to provide fodder for the opposition about spiralling costs.


  • Advertisement
  • #1192
    highwaymaniac
    Registered Users Posts: 210 ✭✭highwaymaniac


    marno21 wrote: »
    Be ready also for an overinflated price in the press release tomorrow that includes all non construction costs as well similar to the N5 and N22 schemes which were overinflated by €120m and €90m respectively.

    This is a recent habit of including costs outside of the construction cost of the contract they are about to award, and mainly serves to provide fodder for the opposition about spiralling costs.

    To be fair, the public spending code (for €100M plus projects) requires government approval for all the project costs which includes an allowance for risk items and general contingency and it is the Vat inclusive figure that goes to Govt.. so it is the total amount approved by Cabinet which is generally reported by media. The contract award price exclusive of Vat is published on e-tenders.ie so it is available.


  • #1193
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,038 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    highwaymaniac wrote: »
    To be fair, the public spending code (for €100M plus projects) requires government approval for all the project costs which includes an allowance for risk items and general contingency and it is the Vat inclusive figure that goes to Govt.. so it is the total amount approved by Cabinet which is generally reported by media. The contract award price exclusive of Vat is published on e-tenders.ie so it is available.

    The contracts are "fixed price" (not that that means much) so in theory there is no allowance for risk after tenders are received. The cabinet approve the preferred tender cost plus VAT, not that plus another wedge on top which would be eaten up if they did. The other project costs being referred to are design costs, land acquisition, enabling works, etc.


  • #1194
    Leonard Hofstadter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Leonard Hofstadter


    Whatever the semantics of it are, it's great news if this finally does go ahead in spite of having the bonkers anti-car and anti-motorist Greens as part of the Government (I'm sure they'll find other ways to shaft the motorist tomorrow:rolleyes:).

    Of course, the 2:1 ratio for PT vs roads spending is after the money for roads maintenance has been spent, and there's meant to be another billion in capital spending for transport next year compared to this year anyway, so fingers crossed we'll get some other roads projects off the ground during the lifetime of this Government:).


  • #1195
    highwaymaniac
    Registered Users Posts: 210 ✭✭highwaymaniac


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    The contracts are "fixed price" (not that that means much) so in theory there is no allowance for risk after tenders are received. The cabinet approve the preferred tender cost plus VAT, not that plus another wedge on top which would be eaten up if they did. The other project costs being referred to are design costs, land acquisition, enabling works, etc.

    No it's definitely the total project costs that is approved by Cabinet not just the preferred tender cost plus Vat.

    See section 6 - Final Business Case
    https://assets.gov.ie/43560/1ac8bb5e81304861afc5a6c6c10d733a.pdf


  • #1196
    Pete_Cavan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,038 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    highwaymaniac wrote: »
    No it's definitely the total project costs that is approved by Cabinet not just the preferred tender cost plus Vat.

    See section 6 - Final Business Case
    https://assets.gov.ie/43560/1ac8bb5e81304861afc5a6c6c10d733a.pdf

    Yes but risk and contingency isn't going to see the price overinflated by €100m as referred to above. A project with such a risk profile would not get approved. I assume costs incurred prior to construction stage are being added in to make the investment sound bigger.


  • #1197
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,241 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »
    Whatever the semantics of it are, it's great news if this finally does go ahead in spite of having the bonkers anti-car and anti-motorist Greens as part of the Government (I'm sure they'll find other ways to shaft the motorist tomorrow:rolleyes:).

    Of course, the 2:1 ratio for PT vs roads spending is after the money for roads maintenance has been spent, and there's meant to be another billion in capital spending for transport next year compared to this year anyway, so fingers crossed we'll get some other roads projects off the ground during the lifetime of this Government:).

    FIRSTLY:
    There's a lot of talk of "anti-car" and "anti-motorist" greens on this forum.
    I'm not a member of the green party and don't vote green, but the discussion really wears thin after a while. The greens haven't progressed anything of note in terms of sustainable transport and are progressing roads projects aplenty.

    SECONDLY:
    It's not really "PT vs roads spending", since plenty PT uses roads. Take for instance the N28 to Carrigaline, that roads upgrade will actually be an enabler for PT on that route. What the NTA (and greens) want is more like "PT vs private motorist spending".

    We're still throwing money at private motorist infrastructure projects and admonishing people for their resultant transport choice on the side. Don't let the sound bites about "anti-motorist" agendas or "downtrodden motorists" on the "drive time radio" mislead you otherwise.


  • #1198
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    After all that.. awarded to Sisk.

    https://twitter.com/eoinbearla/status/1315976651323387906

    3 year construction timeframe would indicate a start of heavy works in Q1 2021 or so. Shouldn’t take long given that they already on site.


  • #1199
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,241 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    marno21 wrote: »
    After all that.. awarded to Sisk.

    https://twitter.com/eoinbearla/status/1315976651323387906

    3 year construction timeframe would indicate a start of heavy works in Q1 2021 or so. Shouldn’t take long given that they already on site.

    This makes sense to me: a lot of work is complete.
    I've been watching all of the preparation work they were doing and thinking "they better get moving with the next phase or they're going to end up re-doing stuff.
    The new Little Island interchange ground works are fairly advanced, for instance.

    Looking forward to this being done.
    But I'll reserve the right to moan about the pedestrian/cycle infrastructure until the new Glashaboy river crossing is in place. Which I'm optimistically thinking will be in 2035 or so.


  • #1200
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    A year wasted for what? Nothing it seems!


  • Advertisement
  • #1201
    hans aus dtschl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,241 ✭✭✭hans aus dtschl


    Cork Trucker wrote: »
    A year wasted for what? Nothing it seems!

    Is a year definitely wasted?
    I thought that the preparatory works continuing on the way they did might go some way towards reducing the impact?


Advertisement