RESIDENTS of areas affected by the proposed Dublin Port Tunnel have accused its designers of failing to release data requested by them, saying this "makes a mockery of the consultation process".
On July 26th, the Marino Development Action Group said it asked Dublin Corporation to supply test borehole results, vibration testing results and all data relevant to the choice of the "preferred route" for the tunnel, which would pass under more than 280 homes.
Mr Fintan Cassidy, spokesman for the newly formed Combined Residents' Associations (CRA), said it was spending £7,500 to engage a geotechnical expert from Britain who would assess this information and review the environmental impact statement on the £130 million tunnel plan.
"The longer they withhold it, the more suspicious I get," Mr Cassidy said. "We wanted the information in time to make a submission to the Minister (for the Environment) by the original closing date of August 30th." This has just been extended to the end of September.
But a spokesman for the tunnel project team said some of the information had already been forwarded to the residents' action group - including additional data on the choice of route - and that further information requested more recently would be supplied as soon as possible.
The CRA, which represents the Marino group as well as residents' associations in Fairview, East Wall, Clontarf and Santry, has objected "most strenuously" to the corporation's "attempt to divide us into three separate groups" for consultations.
"We intend to be treated as one entity when and if the consultation process begins," the residents group said, adding there should be an independent chairman and everything should be open for discussion - including the route of the tunnel.
Mr Cassidy said the corporation and its engineering advisers, Ove Arup and Geoconsult, had defended the selection of their preferred route - known as A6 - as being the only one suitable for using the New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM), because of its hard limestone profile.
"We have now been told that the A6 route is final and not open to negotiation," he complained. "In fact, all the major decisions were made prior to beginning the consultation process. The tunnel design, costing and route selection are all based on the use of NATM."
According to Mr Cassidy, the claim by one member of the project team that the A6 route had been chosen to minimise the tunnel's impact on residential property was "extremely disingenuous", given that it would pass under nearly 300 houses at an average depth of 15 metres.
Mr Cassidy also queried whether the £130 million budget would hold, because of the need to take on board 97 recommendations by Britain's Health and Safety Executive on the use of NATM, which has been implicated in a significant number of collapses and other accidents.
But the tunnel project team spokesman said any approved method of tunnelling which was safe would be acceptable - though NATM was "the most likely" - He added that alternatives to the A6 alignment had been considered and it would be up to the Minister to decide the final route following a public inquiry.
