N2 - Slane Bypass [planning decision pending]

This is what An Bord Pleanala's own report had to say about a HGV ban :

" It is doubtful therefore whether the proportion of traffic movements that could be diverted from the N2 would be sufficient to reduce traffic volumes in Slane to a level at which the existing hazardous conditions would be satisfactorily resolved and at which the community would be reassured that their safety concerns were being adequately addressed. Furthermore it appears to be very likely that a significant proportion of the diverted vehicles would divert not to the M1 motorway but to other unsuitable roads and river crossings. Against that the bypass would result in the removal of a substantial volume of car and light goods vehicle traffic from Slane. "

Posted on FB:

SLANE BYPASS
SENATOR DOMINIC HANNIGAN stated at the hearing:
"vehicles going through Slane on the N2 are there not
because they are avoiding any tolls, they are there
because they have to be there, it is their desire line
in terms of their origin to their destination."

The inspector stated:
"You are required to carry out comprehensive origin/destination surveys to determine the patterns of traffic movements in the M1/M2/N2 road corridors, with particular regard to the origins and destinations of heavy goods vehicles, and to submit the results to an Bord Pleanála."

All comments from the politicians seem to think that the necessity of the road was proven.

Why don't they read the reports before making fools of themselves?

For those digesting reports at the moment, here is a write-up of the Oral Hearing linked from the Tara-Skyrne FB page:


Slane Bypass Oral Hearing - 18th Feb 2011

The actual submissions on the day were much much longer than what you will read here which is only a summary and cant possibly do justice to the superb performance of An Taisce, Swans and Snails, Mr Mac Eochaidh Senior Council for Mr Rodgers, Dr Mark Clinton and Prof George Eoghan. However, while this write up is not exact, (I am not a stenographer and it is only taken from my own notes on the day ) it will serve to give you a flavour of the proceedings far better than what has appeared in the media. The actual transcripts should be available from An Bord Pleannála.

It began with Mr O Gerailt giving a brief summary of the previous day’s route selection process. Mr Mac Eochaidh, Council for Mr Rodgers pointed out that the EIS Directive and its amendment requires that it be published at the earliest possible stage of the process. However it was published at the last minute and is therefore ineffective. Ian Lumley of An Taisce concurred saying a substantive report and assessment of impact to remedy the initial observation is only now being made by the secondary report and complained that An Taisce were to give evidence without ever having seen the additional information. He recommended that the hearing be adjourned and it be properly advertised as is required.

Inspector: Copies were given on Wed evening and the agenda has been divided so that next week further issues can be brought up then. He decided that the Hearing should continue and Dr Comer can be questioned then.

Peter Sweetman – Swans and Snails: Substantial further information should be made public and Navan Fort people from the North should be consulted as well.

Senator Hannigan to the stand : Councillor 2004 Slane area, Labour.

Crowed about his own background a bit before telling us about the clear benefits of the Slane By Pass- ease traffic congestion, would yield twice the financial benefit of Metro North, impact on buffer zone would be extremely limited and not worthy of changing the Plan, urged them to proceed with it as soon as possible.

Peter Sweetman: Are you giving evidence as a professional Engineer? I am surprised at comparison between it and Metro North as there is NO COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS.

H: Denied that as he said that he saw it.

PS: I spent 25 days at the consultation for Metro North and didn’t see it. It isn’t in public domain so you must have seen it illegally.

H: Saw costs for construction plant, labour materials, journey times, cost of land.

PS: Didnt include the negatives and therefore fundamentally flawed.

H: I didn’t do the analysis so you should relate that to those that did.

PS: But you relied on it. What negative cost benefit analysis did it have on habitat?

H: Safety, journey time, all strongly in favour of scheme.

PS: Of course as they didn’t include habitat impact. Did you read the cost benefit analysis cover to cover? It dosnt include impact on archaeology and habitat ( I missed a bit here, C) Costs.

Deputy O Byrne to the stand: FG

Appealed to An Bord Pleannala to take the common good of the country and locals into consideration above the objections. He went on about the practical difficulties of parking, access with children, meeting his family for a meal makes it difficult for them especially if coming from Duleek. Then he said that there had been no objections until the proposal appeared on RTE and the usual suspects rose up in anger. He then asked the board to consider the common good rather than the heritage. He then went back to clarify that his referral to objectors as the usual suspects was not meant in the criminal sense. He also said that he has had debates with one or two of them on radio. He praised the M1 as being a major addition to Bru na Boinne, a tourist attraction as it helped to get people around and said that in years to come he wouldn’t be surprised if a preservation order would be put on the M1 bridge over the Boyne! He finished by saying that it is Govt policy that the by pass should be built and should be a priority of the next Govt subject to PP and available funding.

Shane Mc Entee to the stand: FG TD

Started by saying that he was speaking as a private citizen not as a TD as he had received his P60 a couple of weeks ago. He gave an empassioned account of the slaughter on the roads and how that had diminished through the combined efforts of the RSA, NRA and the Gardai. He pointed to a picture on the screen behind him which is of traffic crossing the old bridge in current us in Slane and said it was the most beautiful picture you would ever see. This is where so many people lost their lives...there is nothing else to discuss here except safety, to everyone else YOU ARE WRONG. Dont let another life be lost on this bridge. How were the pylons allowed to happen? They destroyed the views, where were the protesters? What about the incinerators? They can hide the bridge where you wouldn’t know it was there, abandon this objection now.

Mac Eochaidh ( Council for Mr Rodgers) :

Q. Are you disappointed that Meath Co Co havnt obeyed the resolution passed by them on banning HGVs – hasn’t been implemented?

Mc Entee: To try to put traffic into surrounding roads would result in more lives lost. Toll people are only interested in money, there is no other way but the by pass.

Mac E: The N33 is the Slane By Pass and north of Ardee onto the M1 will work. Were you aware that Mr Cummins(?) asked the NRA to do a study on HGVs and it was never done?

Mc Entee: Not aware, I leave it to my councillors. I appreciate life.

Mac E: It is clear you were not aware of the study which was not undertaken.

Mc Entee: That is not what I am saying- I will check my records and give them to the Inspector here.

Inspector: Can you explain the HGV study as it has been mentioned as a viable option.

Mac Eodhaidh: It is a central concern to my client, highly technical, needs serious study. Would need to involve NRA, Meath, Louth, Dublin, signage- highly technical. Why didn’t NRA do it or did Mr Cummins(?) ask? Did NRA say no? The answer is critical to this hearing. Traffic not just going north of Slane- Dublin Port for example. Cost of design, electronic tagging, barriers around Slane and other villages, study has not been done. Law requires that alternatives be considered. The HGV is not mentioned in the EIS, not even considered. What are the legal reasons this did not happen? We were told yesterday that we would be given the answer and we await with baited breath. Will call evidence next week that there is a problem from lacal traffic also and a traffic expert has been secured for this. New case, new data.

Mc Entee: Common sense, we are not in a position to pay 4-5m of people’s money at this stage for a new study, go and see the traffic for yourself, the original bridge was designed for an ass and cart, build proper road. He mentioned a personal friend who had been killed on the bridge.
PS: It is up to us to raise legitimate questions, I am rather shocked at Mc Entee’s ignorance of the law

Ian Lumley: There is ample international precedent for controlling HGVs. The real question is why Slane remains a national route when it is in close proximity to other routes, designate M2 as national road, remove volume of thru traffic.

Prof George Eoghan to the stand:

Spoke on own behalf as someone who intimately knows the archaeology of Bru na Boinne under the following four headings

1. An outline of his involvement over decades
2. Summary of the archaeology in Bru na Boinne
3. His views on preservation of the area
4. Evaluation of overall evidence.

He gave account of his initial involvement back to 1954 when digging a cable with PJ Harnett to bring light to the tomb at Newgrange for visitors. The key part of his work was at Knowth. Production of books, monographs, conservation and development, on his say- established importance- the construction of the visitor centre and designation by Unesco as a World Heritage site. Knowth site produced evidence of 12 other cultural centres. Geophysics, geological, historical research. We still don’t know the extent of the archaeology of Bru na Boinne. As a result of excavations we now have a wealth of knowledge. Knowth gave a hint of extraordinary richness, scientific, tourism, gave history of the groups of people who settled in the area from ancient to Kings of Brega to Cistercian to farming peoples right up to modern. Preservation of monuments and landscape essential. Now feels buffer zone too restricted, thinks a larger area should have been included as our knowledge has increased and amplified. At present impinged on by M1 ten miles away to eastern side Railway, motorway soon to Navan, enclosed by road and rail, linked by transverse routes- area is saturated with arteries of communication. Slane By Pass a major infringement. Too simple to concentrate on north south road as there is also an east west consideration, east of Slane a considerable concern. Dr Comer produced a report which he hasn’t yet seen, other alternatives. Non implementation of HGV ban by Meath Co Co- could be monitored over a five year period then by pass reconsidered, look at linking up with N2 NE side of Slane and not impinge on Slane and it’s environment. Outstanding national and international significance. Newgrange Knowth and Dowth the embodiment of genius, gave more info on discoveries highlighting uniqueness. A distinguished past, nothing should take place that would prevent it from having a distinguished future.

Q. PS: How big should the buffer zone now be in your opinion, not needing to be sure, just what do you think?

Prof: Certain areas to the eats and west and towards Drogheda where area could be extended slightly.

PS then gave presentation Swans and Snails:

Started by quoting recent fines awarded against Ireland for breach of EIAs. Mc Entee might have to pay the fines. Quoted articles Ireland has failed to comply with. Failure to transpose legislation.

Once a point is legitimately and adequately made it is up to the authority to provide evidence. The requirement is for us to raise our concerns and for the authority to carry out . Judgement and fine happened on Green Minister’s watch. SAC and SPA infringed upon by the development. Rodgers has given evidence on protected species. Mr Madden should have asked locals so that birds could have been looked at at the right time, evidence related to bats distinctly missing also. All varieties recorded in area no indication of flight path or feeding areas. Major failing must assess under article 3 all likely effects on environment- this cant be done on the evidence provided to you. Clear environmental management plan will be done later but this is not good enough. Information required to make a proper decision has not been made to the Board. Until Supreme Court actually decides what INTEGRITY OF SITE actually means a decision cannot be made. At best decision should be stayed until EU makes a decision which would probably be about a year after Supreme Court gets around to interpreting. His opinion that negative impact on habitat is flawed. Must show that we have selected the best possible selection. If they went to Commission with evidence as it stands there would be an injunction. Gave Galway example. Ireland is worst offender in EU under habitat directives. Road from Dunleer up past Slane being used by enormous amount of HGVs dodging toll. Initial surveys inadequate. 2005- reduction on all rds shown on NRA documents but increasing in Slane. Signage needed. Spend money on making the n33 rd suitable, has been dismissed but how much work would be needed to solve the problem, it is premature holding this hearing at this time. Board must make a decision on whether Mr Comers report was significant. This hasn’t been made public. Will talk about salmon etc later.

Q; Slane Committee spokesperson Maria Meagher. Hooper swans and bats, wonders when Slane people will be given the same protection. We are the endangered species that should be protected.

PS; The brief to the Consultant was flawed not the consultant’s work.

An Taisce: Ian Lumley: Total concern with people of Slane, families affected, unacceptable volumes of traffic and resulting fatality rate. Common purpose is to bring this situation to an end and solution. An Taisce is a voluntary organisation, no payment for participation. Would ask Dr Mark Clinton to give his evidence today.

Dr. Mark Clinton: Monuments and Antiquities Chair for An Taisce. Archaeologist.

Commented on impact on World Heritage , to fully appreciate the proposal one must look at original designation of WH site. Some history given...CPOs, core area whittled down to bare minimum rather than considering the importance of the arch heritage- should have been as far east as the Hill of Slane. Full extent been adopted an outer and inner zone, core and buffer area. It is entirely possible that an invigorated application will be made in the future and shouldn’t be jeopardised. As far west as Delvin River....include Monknewtown, close proximity to a henge near bend in the Boyne. History of the Kings of Brega briefly given. Early Medieval. Inter relationship of Kings of Brega and Hill of Slane should have been included in core area- omitted in initial designation. Battle of the Boyne, main fighting in vicinity of Oldbridge, point if crossing of key importance. Impartial history 1693 George Storey – further west at Rosnaree. Crucially this crossing point leads to Crewbane. Crossing point of Williamite forces as illustrated is in the immediate environs of proposed bridge for Slane By Pass. Bride as proposed would not enhance the area. An Taisce is in the process of enhancing walking and cycling along river past the Battle of the Boyne site, future tourist attraction. Approach by boat would recreate original boat voyage of ancestors – not helped by bridge as proposed. By Pass will define east boundary of Slane. Draw for ancilliary developments, may facilitate full scale development. Boxing in of WH site by roads not recommended- has implications for criteria for WH status. Environment protection law- directive 2004-02/EC scheme impacting environment must have an EIA obligatory in Ireland since 2004. Absense of standing stones in area may indicate that there was a reason for this- status, culture, dosnt mean it wasn’t in use. Any prehistoric settlement here important in relation to BnBoinne. Potential for further location of sites is high. May be unidentified subsurface. 8 directky impacted 2 indirectly brings to most contentious issue. Code of practise- Preservation in Situ is desired option. How many have been preserved in recent boom? You would be hard pressed to name 2 out of 10,000. Where is the balance? Lost any hope after shameful decision on Lismullin, major cultural significance. Described the Henge- dimensions, orientation etc. Emhain Macha similar features- Kings of Ulster, Dun Ailline Kildare – Kings of Leinster, other parallels to key important sites, Rathcroghan. Geophysics results from Hill of Tara. Examples of non identical sites. Emphasised importance of Lismullin. Natural hollow in floor of valley unique in context of Irish archaeological record. Buried, demolished. The argument that it was i possible to preserve at the time is NONSENSE, UNACCEPTABLE. This is the fate of any arch discoveries along N2 EVENif connected to tombs. Original boundary line of WH was dictated by land ownership. 580m-Crewbane flora fauna best examples of indigenous natural forest and habitat in the Boyne Valley. Must be closely examined. Visual impact and impact of future ancillary development. Pg 38 of EIS ref to topsoil collection- trenches by machine now accepted. No legal provision in National Monuments Act , no meaningful protection. Excavation rights can be granted by Minister for Environment. Relevant sections 1930-2004 not discretionary a) all disturbed arch objects must be retrieved b) preserved against damage 1987 ammendment – above or below surface. Use of mechanical digger- defacement, destruction. Machine trenches envisioned on N2.

Beggars belief that HGVs not banned years ago. In practise across EU, speed limits. M1 and M3, tolls- could face court action for loss of revenue. Let us not endanger the status of few remaining important arch sites.

Q. Mr Baxter ( Owns Hill of Slane)

Hill of Slane in my family since early 19th C. Never had contact with members of An Taisce. OPW vandalised the Church, ripped up tiles and rails. By Pass project demanded by people of Slane.

Inspector: Do you own the buildings?

Baxter: Yes under the protection of the National Monuments Act. OPW involved to offset litigation from visitors- injury etc.

Q. To George Eoghan by Ms Kenny An Bord Pleannala: Any additional comments to add regarding how the original buffer zone was made?

GE: The committee reviewing BnB with special reference to preservation decided in order to protect core area with advise from landscape architect Tony o Neill- to add on a buffer zone.

K: Prof Frank Mitchell was also involved, anything else?

GE: It happened many years ago when one wasn’t as aware of landscape preservation as one is now.

K: Specific areas- east and west

GE: Buffer should be re looked at. Not in a position to say where but it should be reviewed again scientifically.

Q: person unknown: to Dr Mark Clinton- You are aware of discussion of SBP going back 8 years and all options were to the east. Did you make any submission.

No. ( this was answered by someone else will call 7)

Mr Flannagan ( Senior Council for Meath Co Co) : HGV ban was suggested years ago and there was no suggestion received.

7; Direct your question to An Taisce, general, would rather discuss substantive nature of the text.

Ian Lumley: HGV ban was made. Object of state bodies to carry out reports and observations.

Swans and Snails: James Leahy- Boyne Navigation. (He spoke so fast I caught little, it was handed out in notes afterwards.)

An Taisce owns Boyne Navigation and Canal- owner of navigation rights. Spoke on wider impacts in general, specific on CPO and specific area of the river. M1 towpath still not complete. Severance of adjacent lands would be permanent. North and South would be blocked by piers. Will the severed lands be accessible by towpath or by going around field- implications for Rights of Way. EIA dosnt address impact on Boyne Navigation. Inland Waterway Assoc. current work undertaken at Oldbridge – full impact must be undertaken prior to commencement. May be navigable in less than 10 years depends on resources of voluntary groups, feasible that canal would be up and running by time By Pass being constructed. An Taisce already creating walk and cycle ways in the area. General impact pg6-7 reductive, remedial, dosnt address navigational issues, visual impact has been noted but not addressed. Impact rated as moderate- this has not been demonstrated. EIS dosnt consider that the canal will be constructed by time SBY under construction. No mitigation proposals. Very technical, several references to reports. Ecology, hydro ecology. Special Area of Conservation- significant sensitive water bodies. EIS should address which drains pass into and under the Boyne. No direct mention of canal. Contradicts much of the analysis, much relevant to the Boyne itself but canal should be included. Clay lining- sensitivity to effects of construction. Industrial arch not recognised, navigational canal not mentioned or on inventory of arch sites- nor impact on towpaths, access. Dosnt recognise canal as being part of the land that will be severed. Impact of treatment pond not addressed, clay lining not considered. Issues beyond scope of EIA. EIS dosnt consider need for temporary bridge another construct to consider. This is not acceptable- should be demonstrated that it can be built by at least one feasible method. EIS impact only addresses permanent footprint not the construction phase. Cranes, piling equipment, foundations- building complex construction sequence. Is it more likely a causeway will be built? If so this info needs to be made available to EIS. If flow is stopped for more than a few weeks it could cause permanent damage to clay lining of canal.

F: Basis for relevant discussions next week- some already addressed by Mr Mc Gerailt

Mac Eochaidh: Need confirmation of towpaths and openness during construction of scheme.

Mc G: Risk evaluation as we go along through the project. Assume there will be no navigation as there isn’t any at present. Will have to look at methodologies to accommodate navigation during works. Signing and guarding all routes passing under bridge. Can be adapted as suits. Tow path at present is a dead end. A lovely amenity but would be closed during construction works. They know from experience about clay linings and effects of construction. Pipe jacking- you can go as deep as needed, several metres below canal- engineering methods that will avoid damage to- requires access pits both sides, v expensive. If restoration project changes current state of canal this would have to be looked at again. Intend to minimise any disturbance. Made best efforts to address problems, would be good to get synergy between the two projects.

Inspector: Restoration of Canal, is this a phased thing? Much further on up from Slane?

IL: 8 sections some already in use. 3-4km navigable and in use. Progress lock by lock from the sea lock.

Inspector: Is towpath continuous?

IL: Generally continuous, crosses river in 4 locations.
Mac E: Put up drawing fig 8.2 Q for Prof GE- what are the effects on sousterrains?

GE: Could be considered as part of the Knowth Complex. Recent discoveries just at outside of outer boundary is of a sousterrain 8010th century. In same area remains of 2 earthworks which are clearly part of the important site of BnB and near area of proposed bridge. Likely there are other sites we don’t know about and that they will turn up. Buffer zone not extensive enough.

Q: Any comment about discovery of quartz on site?

GE: Vety associated with passage tombs in BnB. No evidence at present of presence of other monuments however not ruling out possibility that there may be a passage tomb at that point.

Q . Info on grey wacky (sp?) at Crewbane?

GE: Not native to the area so had to be transported there. Adds to info of quartz, extention of evidence, regardless the importance of 3 important arch sites outside the buffer zone.

K: Any possibility that it may have been relocated from elsewhere?

GE: Possible but unlikely. Decorative feature represents activity contemporary with passage tombs in that area.

F: When you were asked about specific areas the buffer zone should be extended to before lunch you didn’t say but yet after seeing you speaking to Peter Sweetman and Ian Lumley during the break you changed your evidence. ( accusatory tone)

Carmel Diviney: Thats not true!! May I interject?

GE: Crewbane should be included. To give spontaneous view would be premature without further investigation.

F: Refers to report by Conor Newman, attempts to confuse GE.

CD- takes to the stand and makes several requests for mike to be turned on. Inspector attempts to close discussion after further clarification from GE. CD gets mike working and insists that she should be allowed to make her observation as she has written notes of specific areas GE quoted as being of special concern and to which extent the boundary should be extended to - dealt with before the break. Proceeds to read it out and ended by asking F to withdraw his accusation as that is how it had come across. No reply from F.

Ian Lumley concludes: Long conclusion very eloquent and to the point, some main points here-

Sadness at why we are here. Wouldnt be here if Meath Co Co and Nra had done things properly back in the 90s. Combined M2/M3 would have avoided Tara Skryne, bad planning, this is a white elephant project. An irrevocable burden on the next generation – not just a lost opportunity but negligence on behalf of statutory authorities. Cynical measure to pre empt legal action by An Taisce on M3 0 Roads Act amended to delete section 18 – evaded NRA negligence. Because Section 18 was statutory requirement, NRA plan should have been subject to EIS compliances. Consequences are the fatalities in Slane and other accident black spots around the country. Traffic counts falling, particular issue to tolling and toll evasion. North South traffic using N2 travelling through Slane – no reason to be on that rd other than toll evasion. Emerging factor in Limerick and M8 also. Exchequer- subsidy to prop up the shortfall. Very sophisticated measures now available eg Shadow Tolling. Hypocritical, immediate ban on HGV’s – should have happened 10 years ago. Trans boundary connection between Dublin and Derry- SBP deliberately designed to be part of it- transnational dual carriageway. SIA being evaded. M3 Motorway developed ahead of road and rail locked into Dunboyne as far as it progressed. New generation of car dependency. Navan rail links long fingered. Rds proceed fatally undermining public transport. Meath Co Co lack of co ordination of planning – public transport corridors, malevolently evident now where more so than in Meath. Rezoning and planning permissions. Density of roads simply not tenable. Immediately available alternative- remove traffic north of Ardee going through M33 –in large part toll evasion resulted in so many unnecessary vehicles entering Slane. Slane already bypassed by M33 – needs traffic management. Requires introduction of appropriate road pricing regime. M2 and M3 combination lost by strategic failure of NRA. N2 north Ashbourne Ardee and M2 National Rd, re designate as regional road status. All thru traffic now going through Ardee North diverted by M33 to M1. Collon divert to M1 rather than through Slane . Dramatically enhance tourism- culture and environment of Boyne Valley and Slane. When one bad planning decision made, others are inevitable eg Kentstown landfill shouldn’t have been permitted, quarries waste or other operations – retrospective measure now needed to manage them.

HGV ban, lobbying by Irish Road Haulage had it ignored. Nothing has been done. Legal liability for accidents as a result on Meath Co Co and NRA. Prevailing trend- public interest set aside in favour of vested interest.

Q Flannagan: Proposal of M2 HGV ban first time raised since EIA published

IL: No you are part of the problem- representing clients who are responsible. Pathetic attempt to shift culpability which rest on you and your clients. Would like to see a legal writ against MCC for failure to implement the HGV ban.

F: tried similar tactic used to confuse GE earlier on Mac Eochaidh regarding a statement he allegedly made earlier relating to HGV ban. To this Mac E replied that F must have been at a separate oral hearing as on no less than 5 occasions he has misinterpreted the submissions. To this there was a round of applause from the audience who have witnessed F’s twisting of evidence. F addressed the Inspector that he would leave it up to him to decide as it would be in the transcripts.

Mac Eochaidh: Managed to secure traffic expert, to be dealt with next week- agreed by Mc Gerailt.

And you've been asked, over and over again, ad infinitum, what route you'd want the detoured lorries to take and you've never been able to give an answer. Until you can come up with one, perhaps you could refrain from trying to spread the Slane problem to every other small village on rural roads in the area.

"Well, you could just put up a sign at either end of the village saying 'no lorries'".

Give me strength.

monument wrote: »

I don't see what point there is claiming otherwise, it is this simple:

The ABP inspector's report clearly says that a HGV ban was not looked at and that it would be only reasonably that it would be looked at.

Not true at all. It was looked at in some detail. See below.


"It would be fair to state that there is a consensus that the current traffic situation is intolerable so that the Do Nothing or Do Minimum scenarios are not acceptable (page 95)

It is not correct to say the HGV ban wasn't considered, as the following shows:

"The feasibility of imposing such a ban was the subject of extensive discussions and reports involving the members of Meath County Council, the officials of Meath County Council, the National Roads Authority and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport. Details of these discussions and reports were made available in material submitted during the course of the hearing and it is clear that the officials of the Council came to the conclusion that the imposition of a HGV ban on the bridge would not have been a satisfactory solution to the safety and traffic problems in Slane. Two particular questions arise from this material, which are relevant to the consideration of alternatives in the current case". (page 95)

You're either skimming the report or misrepresenting it.

He then states:

"The first question is whether the practicalities or logistics of the imposition of such a ban have been fully examined by the Council. The initiative for the ban appears to have arisen from a resolution of the members on 6 th April, 2009. Some investigations were then carried out and contact was made with the National Roads Authority. Two particular reports were submitted to the Council. The first report by Eugene Cummins, Director of Infrastructure, dated 6 th July, 2009, dealt with a ban along with several other control measures, such as traffic calming and a 30 km/h speed limit on part of the N2. I would comment at this stage that some of these measures have been implemented but that, while having had some effect, they are not regarded as adequate in dealing with the basic safety and traffic problems in Slane. In relation to the ban, this report drew attention to the practical problems of implementing a ban and its implications for road users in general. Following further correspondence the NRA indicated that they would contribute €10,000 to a study to give effect to the ban. No such study was carried out, though a further report by Maura Daly, Executive Engineer, submitted to the Council on 31 st August, 2009, analysed the implications of various types of ban but acknowledged that no origin/destination survey had been done."

"The second question, which has a degree of inter-relationship with the first, is whether the ban as proposed was intended as a permanent or interim solution to the safety and traffic problems in Slane. Referring to the resolution passed on 6 th April, 2009, I infer that this resolution arose from concerns of residents of Slane and that those residents sought at all stages to advance the construction of the bypass as a permanent solution to the problems in Slane. At the same time an estimate was given of the period of time likely to be taken up in the approval procedure, the provision of funding and the actual construction of the bypass. It was clear that this process would take several years at least, whereas the ban was perceived as an effective interim measure which could have been implemented immediately. The case against the bypass relies in contrast on the provision of a permanent HGV ban on Slane bridge, which could have more lasting effects and more significant implications for the broader road network and road users in general than that proposed in 2009. Further consideration of the alternative of a permanent HGV ban is in any case relevant to this assessment."

He then moves on (page 96 now) to examine the forms a HGV ban would take - either a ban on all traffic over the bridge which he concluded would divert all traffic to Stackallen Abridge which itself is in poor condition and he states " Such a solution needs no further consideration. "

Secondly he considers closing the bridge to HGV traffic. he says a total ban would cause problems for Slane businesses and wonders if a permit system could be introduced. he mentions the heavy local industries such as Grasslands and Roadstone and states "The closure of the N2 to HGVs would have serious effects on the operation of these enterprises and would involve lengthy detours, as Stackallen bridge is unsuitable for use by heavy vehicles and might also need to have traffic restrictions imposed on it. In addition there are movements of goods vehicles involved in deliveries to and from businesses in Slane. A total HGV ban would clearly be an unsatisfactory solution and would have a detrimental effect on the local economy. No further consideration need be given to it. "

The third option was diversion of HGVs onto other routes and he concludes (page 97) "That would at least remove the hazard of trucks going out of control on the hill down to the bridge but would not solve the problem of HGVs diverting to unsuitable alternative routes."

And lastly, the M1:

"

That leaves consideration of a solution in which the longer distance through movements of HGVs would be banned, with limited exceptions allowed for traffic movements having an origin or destination in or near Slane and for which a diversion would be particularly onerous. Details of the implications and effects of such a scheme are further considered under the following subheadings. A basic component of any HGV ban is that the longer distance traffic would be obliged to use the M1 motorway in substitution for the N2. It is suggested in the letter of 26 th August, 2009 to the NRA from Eugene Cummins, Director of Infrastructure, Meath County Council, that the availability of a non-tolled alternative for HGVs is an issue associated with a ban. It appears as a matter of practice that tolled roads in general have non-tolled alternatives but, apart from the fact that the N2 is not a satisfactory alternative to the M1 for HGV traffic, it is clear in this case that no other satisfactory alternative for such traffic exists. "

he then states subsequently on page 98, referring to the NRA study which had some unmatched number plate recognition that "I have little doubt that a substantial proportion of HGV flows could be diverted from the N2 to the M1 without resulting in an unreasonable degree of inconvenience or additional journey time for those affected. These figures are not helpful in determining what that proportion would be and, even with the diversion of a substantial proportion of HGV traffic from the N2, there is a likelihood that this proportion would fall short of what might be expected and that a significant residual volume of HGV traffic would continue to flow through Slane. "

with regard to implementing a ban he stated:

"It can readily be accepted that the implementation of a partial or total ban on HGV traffic through Slane would not merely require the erection of a few advance warning signs on the approaches to the bridge. " (Nod to Tuathal/Anti-Coalition/Vincent Salafia there).

he speaks about how a ban might be implemented (barrier system, tolling the bridge, etc).

He then states (page 101):

It is clear that a significant proportion of the traffic passing through Slane, particularly the HGV traffic, does not need to use that route and should be capable of being diverted to other routes. Any such diversion would have a beneficial effect on traffic conditions in Slane but a partial diversion may be unlikely to improve these conditions sufficiently to achieve a satisfactory resolution of the current problems in Slane. The basic question that arises is what extent of diversion is required to achieve a satisfactory resolution of the problems, a question I put to the hearing. In this context I would accept that the bypass would divert in the order of 95% of the traffic off the bridge. I consider that a very substantial diversion of traffic is necessary to achieve satisfactory results. I do not consider that a 50% diversion, for example, would be sufficient; the perception, and probably the reality, of hazardous conditions would in my opinion remain. I further consider that an effective diversion should comprise a far higher proportion of the HGV traffic. It is difficult to identify the precise proportion which would give a satisfactory outcome and this is not something that lends itself to a scientific assessment. Instead it is a deeply entrenched problem and the nature of the hazardous conditions on the approaches to the bridge is such that there would be likely to be a significant residual hazard in the absence of anything other than a drastic reduction in HGV volumes. Nothing other than such a reduction in HGV volumes would reassure the community that their safety concerns were being addressed".

Accepting that this information is not complete, I consider that there is a material degree of doubt, having regard to that information and to the pattern of uses in Slane and along the N2, that the diversion to other routes of a proportion of the HGV traffic sufficient to achieve a satisfactory resolution of the existing traffic and safety problems in Slane could be achieved by means of a HGV ban.

That paragraph needs to be read twice, or at least I needed to read it twice. He's stating that there is a doubt that the HGV ban would work, not the opposite which it can appear to mean at a quick glance.

HIs final paragraphs relating to the HGV ban are :

"Some diversion of traffic could also occur to the R132 road (the former N1) through Drogheda and to Stackallen bridge. The former could occur if traffic diverted to the M1 corridor used the main road through Drogheda in order to avoid the toll on the M1. There appears to be some restraint on access to Drogheda for HGVs but it is not clear how well this works and, even if the effects of additional diverted traffic would tend to be absorbed into the greater traffic volumes in Drogheda, such additional traffic movements would scarcely be welcomed there. The latter (Stackallen bridge) is a viable alternative to the N2 and is not far upstream from Slane so that it could be an attractive toll-free alternative to the M1 that would not require a particularly long detour. The occasional extent of congestion on the N2 arising from high levels of car traffic could also be a factor in such diversion. Stackallen bridge and approaches are of a very poor standard and these are linked to the main road network by minor country roads but the bridge is not subject to a weight limit. The route over this bridge is signposted at present only as a local road but, in the absence of a further control system, there appears to be a likelihood that a significant volume of traffic, including HGV traffic, would use this route as an alternative to the N2.

While it is clear that the N2 road in Slane is being used by a significant volume of HGV traffic not needing to use this route and while the imposition of a HGV ban should succeed in removing a significant volume of these vehicles from the N2 in Slane, there are some possible shortcomings in this proposal. The information available indicates that there is a high level of local HGV traffic which can not readily be diverted to other routes. It is far from clear therefore that the volume of vehicle movements that could be diverted in this way would be sufficient to reduce traffic volumes in Slane to a level at which the existing hazardous conditions could be taken to have been satisfactorily resolved. Furthermore there appears to be a likelihood that a significant proportion of the diverted vehicles would divert not to the M1 motorway but to other roads unsuitable to carry additional volumes of HGV traffic. "

Here's his conclusion in relation to the HGV ban:

A ban on HGV traffic over Slane bridge has been proposed as an alternative to a bypass, which would not necessitate the construction of a major element of infrastructure. This would undoubtedly contribute to an easing of the safety and traffic problems in Slane but I consider that, to be satisfactory, a very high proportion of this HGV traffic would have to be permanently diverted from Slane, leaving such diverted traffic to be accommodated elsewhere on the road network. The fundamental problem in this regard is that the road network along the lower reaches of the Boyne between Navan and Drogheda is inherently flawed in so far as the only crossing points along a stretch of some 22 kilometres comprise three bridges, all on the record of protected structures and all unsuitable to carry heavy goods traffic. The effective removal of the N2 bridge from this network would confine suitable river crossing points to the town of Navan, the town of Drogheda and the M1 motorway. The former two are in congested urban areas and the latter is subject to a toll, set at a high level for repeated short journeys. Whether diverted HGV traffic would actually use these routes is not certain.

The information available is insufficient to establish that the proportion of the HGV traffic that could be diverted from the N2 would provide the level of relief necessary to deal adequately with the traffic and safety problems in Slane and it fails to establish that significant traffic generating enterprises in Slane and along the N2 corridor would not be excessively inconvenienced. I consider therefore that the appropriate course of action is to have a detailed origin / destination survey carried out, to be achieved through a request for further information. I note also that there is no mechanism available to the Board to have a HGV ban implemented other than by refusing to approve the development, leaving this matter to be dealt with by other agencies.