N2 - Slane Bypass [planning decision pending]

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

We don't need to go into the legality of a HGV ban again. It seems increasingly evident that a HGV ban just wouldn't work anyway. That in itself is enough to justify the construction of new bridge as the only acceptable remedial action.

ssh don't say that, it'll upset the anti bypass crew.

monument wrote: »

The largest and most apparent danger is the HGVs at Slane because of all the factors all in one: (1) the large village setting, (2) the village centre with shops on the steep hill, (3) a cross roads part of the way down the hill, (4) the sharp turns into the bridge, one right at the end of the steep hill, and the narrow bridge.

Not even half of these factors together are not mirrored at the other bridge crossings.

This might sound like a further "attack" on someone with a different opinion but when hypocritical suppositions are being made by yourself, it really becomes frustrating.

Aside from the disingenuous wording of "bridge crossings" as opposed to "alternative routes", you don't even recognise the obvious dangers of *any* traffic using the Oldbridge crossing near Drogheda. If you had any experience of these places or even an interest in using google streetview, you wouldn't make such absurd conclusions. Immediately preceding Oldbridge on the southern side is a very sharp right turn which is also at a steep ascending gradient, immediately adjacent to a canal with very limited barrier protection. To compound it, 300 metres before this, lies a canal crossing which is perpendicular to the canal and the road leading to and from the bridge. It's extremely difficult for anything more than a small two-axle truck to make the turns required and that's assuming the entire area of the road pavement can be used. It's also assuming that the larger vehicles in question do not use Oldbridge itself nearby, which has a 3 tonne limit. The clue's in the name.

The situation at Stackallen is better but that's not saying much. Road pavement width is more or less continuous at about 4 metres from the N51 to its end at a t-junction with another local road. The bends on the approaches to the bridge are not so severe as to limit many types of vehicle but no consideration could be given to pedestrian or cyclist safety on the bridge or the stone-walled approaches either. The bridge is also of considerable vintage and may not be able to physically handle all of the vehicles so diverted.

Before we consider the suggestion of traffic lights, let us remind ourselves of the approach roads, the stone walls approaching the bridge and the properties and farmyard nearby which would all pose significant problems in its widening. And the remaining distance that one must travel on country roads to get back to the Dublin side of the N2 will also need to be addressed in some manner. It's likely safer than the bridge of Slane in isolation but the longer distance travelled over inadequate roads for much of the distance would mitigate against this. It also doesn't solve the problem posed by car traffic using Slane bridge in an environment where mixed use with cyclists and pedestrians can be expected. By the way, of course there's a structural problem in widening a reasonably long stone bridge! It could be cheaper to just knock it and build a new one. Cue justifable outrage at the destruction of aesthetically significant sites and/or parts of an area's heritage.

The M1 bridge would not cater for all truck users or destinations (45% is the cited figure) and this means more trucks going through large urban areas in Drogheda or Navan if bans are slapped on Slane and Stackallen. This then leaves a lot of unanswered questions like assessing the increased risk of the alternative routes (particularly the N51's safety issues near Oldbridge in Co. Louth). Or the issue of enforcement, when a truck driver is presented with up to a 20km diversion...

Monument.

Firstly, I have never accused you of being anti-bypass in general. You do, however, seem to be anti-this specific bypass. Perhaps a clue is in the name?

Secondly, there are 46 pages in this thread. Anything I've raised has been gone over and gone over, ad nauseum. If you haven't read the entire of the thread, then perhaps you might like to before accusing me of "shadow-boxing".

"The bypass obsessed seem very scared of any intern measures even -- the idea that intern measures are likely to save life and make Slane more liveable is what scares them".

Can we just examine this statement for a minute?

What "interim" (I presume you mean "interim") measures do you believe the pro-bypass people are "scared of"? A HGV ban? Speaking for myself, only because I won't campaign for something which will cause deaths elsewhere.

The closure of Slane bridge last year for a period of weeks led to a huge increase in HGV accidents elsewhere in the county and a couple of very serious incidents including a lorry turning over into a front garden. I'm not going to campaign for a measure and then shrug my shoulders when I hear someone's been killed probably as a result of that action. I don't have that thick a neck - unlike many campaigners who are happy to put out all kinds of falsehoods about the N2 bypass (such as it being 500 metres from Newgrange, for example) and don't seem to see that this involves real lives, and real deaths.

If there was a safe alternative solution to the bypass, do you not think those of us who have to bring our children to school every day along the N2 would take it? The mothers who were involved in the March 2009 accident, some of them with small pre-school children in their car, who now have to do that run every day while looking into their mirrors hoping not to see a runaway lorry coming at them; do you think they're holding out for some principle? Seriously, stop and think about that for a second. There's no political agenda here. We just simply refuse to shove our hazards onto someone else. If you can show me a safe alternative - not a made-up knee-jerk one which ignores the facts - then I'm more than prepared to go with it. But here's the thing. I was at just about every day of the oral hearing. I've listened to the experts, from both sides. I've read the reports, from both sides. The HGV ban will not work. The new study confirms that. There is no alternative. Snapping your fingers and wishing there was doesn't make it happen.

I know people, local people, who have been campaigning for something to be done on this road since the death of David Garvey in 2001. I marched after David Garvey was killed. The people behind Bypass Slane and Slane Bridge Action Group are ordinary people, not political people. I know them, they're my neighbours. My kids go to school with their kids, and one was a teacher in the school. They're not activists. They're people who have been involved in serious accidents, who have come across the scenes of serious accidents, who dread crossing the bridge every day because of accidents. I have a sister who won't visit me because of the bridge. I don't think you have any idea what it's like to live here, and to make out that there's some nefarious political motivation behind this, rather than the deaths of 23 people who should not have died, is a very narrow-minded and callous way of thinking. Sometimes things are as simple as they seem.

So here's the facts. Slane has one of the most dangerous roads in the country. It has a uniquely hazardous layout for a national route. The N2 through Slane is quite simply not fit for purpose. HGV surveys have shown that 1600 truck movements daily pass over a medieval bridge. Those same surveys have shown that only 16% of those truck movements could be rerouted. The bypass is relatively cheap. It will not infringe on heritage sites. It will dramatically improve road safety. Safety experts have said that rerouting the 1600 truck movements over smaller rural roads will increase hazards elsewhere. The ordinary people in Slane have said they don't want to shove their problems onto another community, and in my opinion we should be commended for that. Everybody, every single person with the exception possibly of Vincent Salafia whom I didn't hear speak, who attended the oral hearing, for both sides - from Douglas Comer, the US heritage expert, the archaeologists, the road safety people, the engineers, An Taisce, etc. - every one of them agreed that the situation was untenable, something that we in Slane well know. Those are the facts. Blue-sky thinking and wishing that a ban coulda woulda shoulda work doesn't make it happen.

And this: "the idea that intern measures are likely to save life and make Slane more liveable is what scares them".

I'm not even going to respond to this. Except to say how dare you.

what would a coordinated HGV ban across the region entail?

Build another bridge alongside then.

you could build another bridge about 1km away, a higher one, so without the steep slopes on either side.