Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
12-03-2012, 15:01   #346
monument
Moderator
 
monument's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,762
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.
monument is offline  
Advertisement
12-03-2012, 15:08   #347
Irish and Proud
Closed Account
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuathal View Post
That's a very fascinating exercise Irish - but toally divorced from reality.

Meanwhile the HGVs will keep rolling through Slane - endangering lives, and ruing the fabric of the town.

The rest of us should untie and demand a study be done, by an independent transport consultancy, so that the best possible traffic management solution is put in pllace.
+ 1/2 - in that I half agree with the above!

I've warmed to the idea of a traffic management study, but that study needs to encompass all Boyne crossings East of Navan. As of now, there are just 4 crossings between the Athlumney Road Bridge in Navan and the Bridge of Peace in Drogheda - they are: M1 Toll, Oldbridge, N2 Slane and Ardmulchan (near Yellow Furze). There are also the 3 road bridges in Drogheda, all of which are located in the centre of the town. As there's an EU directive AFAIK stating that there must be a reasonable alternative to any toll road, the alternatives to the M1 for HGVs are either right through the towns of Navan/Drogheda or over the bridges at Slane/Oldbridge/Ardmulchan. Both Oldbridge and Ardmulchan would IMO be totally unsuitable for HGVs, so if long distance HGVs are to be kept away from towns where they shouldn't be, that leaves only one alternative and that is Slane. Now, where do we go from here - well here's my concept:

With a HGV Ban on all existing bridges East of Navan bar the M1 Toll (as a medium to long term solution), the following would be the likely options for an alternative route:

1) R132 Drogheda Eastern Bypass and Julianstown Bypass;

2) N2 Slane Eastern Bypass;

3) N2 Slane Western Bypass;

4) R147 Navan Eastern Bypass and Dunshaughlin Bypass;

5) M1 - Renegotiate tolling operation with toll operators.

The 5th option could turn out to be very expensive for the taxpayer with nothing in return over the remaining life of the M1 Toll concession. The other 4 options would take more time, but a long distance HGV ban could be implemented in Slane for the short to medium term while a Boyne Valley traffic study is carried out - something has to be done in the medium to long term.

Regards!
Irish and Proud is offline  
12-03-2012, 15:15   #348
Irish and Proud
Closed Account
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by monument View Post
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.
He also concluded in his report that any outright HGV ban was unworkable (it was dismissed in fact) while even a long distance HGV ban was deemed undesirable in the current circumstances given the resulting impact on other communities.

Please refer to my post in relation to this matter!

Regards!

Last edited by Irish and Proud; 12-03-2012 at 15:20. Reason: Link Insertion
Irish and Proud is offline  
12-03-2012, 15:24   #349
Slane Resident
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by monument View Post
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.
Slane Resident is offline  
12-03-2012, 15:33   #350
antoobrien
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Galway
Posts: 5,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by spacetweek View Post
We may be forced to build roads like in this map.
Strikes me that the eastern route in question would have more of an effect on Knowth than the current proposal as it would bring traffic closer, possibly close enough to be audible.
antoobrien is offline  
Advertisement
12-03-2012, 16:00   #351
monument
Moderator
 
monument's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish and Proud View Post
He also concluded in his report that any outright HGV ban was unworkable (it was dismissed in fact) while even a long distance HGV ban was deemed undesirable in the current circumstances given the resulting impact on other communities.
The inspector does not use the words unworkable, or undesirable.

His concluding recommendations also include for surveys to be conducted to see where the HGV and other traffic is going to and from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slane Resident View Post
You're either skimming the report or misrepresenting it.
No, he said "why a HGV ban was not considered" -- you should note that when ABP says considered, they mean fully considering. Not the half arsed attempts where were attempted.

A key bit of what you quoted:

...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.

And this is key:

Further consideration of the alternative of a permanent HGV ban is in any case relevant to this assessment.

As for where he says:

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.

Practice can change. The world moves on.


Stackallen bridge... 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.

This is an easy one: Put also look at putting in the other restrictions and how viable that is!

And another key bit:

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.
monument is offline  
12-03-2012, 16:14   #352
monument
Moderator
 
monument's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,762
It's worth pointing out that I am not strictly against a bypass but [a] along with what the inspector questioned on why only a larger spec road was looked at, I think the NRA could well be over engineering the bypass, as they have done in many cases with other projects, and [b] people have to deal with the reality that more has to be done between now and the undefined date in the future when funding for the bypass becomes available.
monument is offline  
12-03-2012, 16:19   #353
antoobrien
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Galway
Posts: 5,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by monument View Post
It's worth pointing out that I am not strictly against a bypass but [a] along with what the inspector questioned on why only a larger spec road was looked at, I think the NRA could well be over engineering the bypass, as they have done in many cases with other projects, and [b] people have to deal with the reality that more has to be done between now and the undefined date in the future when funding for the bypass becomes available.
Due to the proximity to the world heritage site some future proofing is required, so it's easy to see why an over-engineered bypass would be a good idea here. You really don't want them to have to go back and do it all again in 20 years - the M50 springs to mind - and create more disturbance than the current plan calls for (which is supposed to be minimal).
antoobrien is offline  
12-03-2012, 16:48   #354
monument
Moderator
 
monument's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoobrien View Post
Due to the proximity to the world heritage site some future proofing is required, so it's easy to see why an over-engineered bypass would be a good idea here. You really don't want them to have to go back and do it all again in 20 years - the M50 springs to mind - and create more disturbance than the current plan calls for (which is supposed to be minimal).
I would love to see the NRA produce a report which supports the idea traffic will rise that much in the next 20 years and beyond. It would be comic, or tragic, to read it in 20 years from now.

Even if you were to fully support the idea that car is king (which I don't), over-engineering has proven to be problematic in having anything left over for providing a good overall road network (not just a good national one).
monument is offline  
Advertisement
12-03-2012, 16:51   #355
antoobrien
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Galway
Posts: 5,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by monument View Post
I would love to see the NRA produce a report which supports the idea traffic will rise that much in the next 20 years and beyond. It would be comic, or tragic, to read it in 20 years from now.

Even if you were to fully support the idea that car is king (which I don't), over-engineering has proven to be problematic in having anything left over for providing a good overall road network (not just a good national one).
I agree that constant over engineering is a bad idea but then the policy of providing "just enough" has been more disastrous. It would be farcical in this case due to the proximity to the monuments in question.

Overengineering a project should only be used in certain cases, I believe that this is one of them due to the concerns outlined.
antoobrien is offline  
12-03-2012, 17:00   #356
monument
Moderator
 
monument's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by antoobrien View Post
I agree that constant over engineering is a bad idea but then the policy of providing "just enough" has been more disastrous. It would be farcical in this case due to the proximity to the monuments in question.

Overengineering a project should only be used in certain cases, I believe that this is one of them due to the concerns outlined.
Fair enough.

I don't think we are going to agree but my argument would be the most of the national upgraded in recent years was over engineered (debate on such more suited to another thread or discussions in threads which have already happened).
monument is offline  
12-03-2012, 17:49   #357
lucernarian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by monument View Post
Fair enough.

I don't think we are going to agree but my argument would be the most of the national upgraded in recent years was over engineered (debate on such more suited to another thread or discussions in threads which have already happened).
I'm not sure what your point is regarding the Slane bypass but would you be of the persuasion that ANY bypass would be an overengineered solution?? You say earlier that you're not automatically opposed to a Slane bypass but reading your comments on the suitability of a HGV ban subsequently don't really substantiate the earlier remark.
lucernarian is offline  
12-03-2012, 17:58   #358
monument
Moderator
 
monument's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by To_be_confirmed View Post
I'm not sure what your point is regarding the Slane bypass but would you be of the persuasion that ANY bypass would be an overengineered solution?? You say earlier that you're not automatically opposed to a Slane bypass but reading your comments on the suitability of a HGV ban subsequently don't really substantiate the earlier remark.
No, I'm not saying any bypass would equal over engineering.
monument is offline  
12-03-2012, 18:20   #359
Slane Resident
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 111
Very selective quoting, Monument.

I can do it too, look:

Stackallen bridge is unsuitable for use by heavy vehicles and might also need to have traffic restrictions imposed on it.

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.

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.

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.


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.


The information available indicates that there is a high level of local HGV traffic which can not readily be diverted to other routes.

A ban on HGV traffic ... would undoubtedly contribute to an easing of the safety and traffic problems in Slane... 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

I consider that there is a material degree of doubt ... 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.
Slane Resident is offline  
12-03-2012, 19:09   #360
monument
Moderator
 
monument's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slane Resident View Post
Very selective quoting, Monument.

I can do it too, look:
Look, it's simple, if the inspector was convinced that a HGV ban could not work he would not be using ABP's legal powers to ask for traffic surveys and other details to be conducted for the reason of finding out if it can work.
monument is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet