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

N2 - Slane Bypass [planning decision pending]

1192022242531

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Slane Resident


    That is in the event of a HGV ban in Slane, which will result in diversion of goods vehicles onto unsuitable roads. It does not suggest the M1 is a simple alternative - it states that 20% of HGVs could use the M1, with a further 25% potentially being potentially rerouted the M1 if a Slane ban was in place. Of course if the N2 is closed to them, 25% may take an alternate route, even if its out of their way, or if they have to travel unsuitable minor routes to get there. That's not the same as suggesting that 45% of HGV users could simply reroute.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    I'll quote it again: "...45% of goods vehicles crossing Slane Bridge are longer distance movements that could be encouraged to transfer to the M1."


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Slane Resident


    You can quote it as often as you like, it won't change what's written in the report which you yourself linked. have you not read past the introductory paragraphs, or are you being deliberately disingenuous like so many other opponents to the bypass? if so, in light if the seriousness of the situation illustrated by yet another death in Slane in the past month, I would suggest you rethink.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    You can quote it as often as you like, it won't change what's written in the report which you yourself linked. have you not read past the introductory paragraphs, or are you being deliberately disingenuous like so many other opponents to the bypass? if so, in light if the seriousness of the situation illustrated by yet another death in Slane in the past month, I would suggest you rethink.

    Yes, I have read past the intro. The quote is from page 21 of the PDF, marked as "Page 18".

    In light of the death... I'm not going to play that game... but I will say to lower risk as soon as possible, I would suggest you are the one who needs to rethink -- a HGV has some chance in the short term, a bypass does not.

    Why are you against a HGV ban?


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Slane Resident


    I'm not against a HGV ban. I think it would be a great idea - if it didn't move the risks to smaller villages on minor roads. most people in Slane were in favour of a ban until further investigation showed we'd be moving the accidents elsewhere, as was demonstrated during the bridge closure last year.

    This has been done to death exhaustively, but ignored by opponents to the ban who regard it as a panacea which they can use to oppose the bypass, because let's face it - opposing a bypass which will save lives doesn't paint you in a good light - while simultaneously ignoring the fact that without an alternate route it is simply unworkable.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    The HGV ban is not simply unworkable and even the Aecom report, which had a half-hearted scope, shows that it is workable.

    Actually looking what the ABP inspector suggested would be a great start.


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Slane Resident


    monument wrote: »
    The HGV ban is not simply unworkable and even the Aecom report, which had a half-hearted scope, shows that it is workable.

    Actually looking what the ABP inspector suggested would be a great start.

    Good idea. Here's what he said:

    "__________________________________________________________________________________

    PL17.HA0026/KA0015 An Bord Pleanála Page 110 of 124

    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. "


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    1. In this context he is talking about a HGV ban as a replacement of a bypass (" which would not necessitate the construction of a major element of infrastructure") -- I'm talking about a HGV ban as a short to mid term way to limit safety-critical issues in a time when there's no chance of a bypass.

    2. Read all of what he says and stop relying on just part of the summery. He does not rule out a HGV ban.


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Slane Resident


    I have read all the documentation on the Slane bypass exhaustively, and attended the entire oral hearing, save two days. I'm not the one cherry picking. The above is from the conclusion. You can't get more definitive than that - even if it doesn't accord with what you want it to say.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    I have read all the documentation on the Slane bypass exhaustively, and attended the entire oral hearing, save two days. I'm not the one cherry picking. The above is from the conclusion. You can't get more definitive than that - even if it doesn't accord with what you want it to say.

    The paragraph directly after the one you quoted:
    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.

    As I said: He did not rule out a HGV ban. Selective quoting won't work.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Slane Resident


    Are you confused? I didn't say he ruled out a ban - I said he asked for further clarification of the HGV traffic survey. He also raised concerns as to the impact on minor roads in the local area (my quoted paragraph) AND wondered whether even if diverting the HGV traffic would make a significant difference to Slane's problems (your paragraph). Your quoted paragraph actually backs up my argument.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Yes, I am confused. But that's to be expected when only a few posts ago you were trying to make out that I had not read past the intro when I was quoting from page 22 of the report in question.

    Let's rewind for a second...
    Your quoted paragraph actually backs up my argument.

    It's not clear what your argument is, so could you please enlighten me?

    I'm not the one cherry picking. The above is from the conclusion. You can't get more definitive than that - even if it doesn't accord with what you want it to say.

    What exactly am I "cherry picking"?

    What does the report say that "doesn't accord" with what I'm saying?


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Slane Resident


    I thought my argument was quite clear - a HGV ban won't work. However, since you seem to be having some difficulty following - to put it quite simply:

    1. A HGV ban won't work without an alternate route.
    2. Accidents will be passed on to surrounding areas as high volumes of traffic travel unsuitable minor roads, as was seen during the recent bridge closure.
    3. The ABP Inspector has doubts as to whether, even if a ban is put in place, it will make sufficient difference to accident rates in Slane.
    4. The medieval bridge, designed for horses, crossing the river is not fit for purpose.
    5. Slane has the only national route in Europe with such a significant accident rate on a one mile stretch.
    6. Slane has the steepest gradient of any national road in the country, followed by an almost perpendicular turn, over a narrow stone bridge, with another sharp turn at the other side. A HGV ban won't change that.
    6. Faffing about pretending that there are alternate solutions won't work. iIt's been gone over and gone over ad nauseum. There is no magic route which will suddenly enable all traffic to travel the M1, accessing the villages which they want to access, safely. It was discussed, and dismissed, at the oral hearing. The dangers to surrounding villages was noted. This isn't just my interpretation, although anyone who lives in the area would see it as obvious. That's the difficulty though - people who don't live in the area and aren't familiar with the local road network believe they know better than locals, than engineers, than the NRA, than the ABP inspector.


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Slane Resident


    monument wrote: »
    Yes, I am confused. But that's to be expected when only a few posts ago you were trying to make out that I had not read past the intro when I was quoting from page 22 of the report in question.


    Firstly, I think you'll find you're quoting from page 18. "Table 5.4 demonstrated a total of 272 Goods Vehicles using Slane as an alternative to avoid the M1. The analysis suggests that such traffic represents only about 20% of the total commercial traffic crossing Slane Bridge. When including the 373 vehicles that could be encouraged to divert onto the M1, this suggests that 45% of goods vehicles crossing Slane Bridge are longer distance movements that could be encouraged to transfer to the M1."

    So, 20% of HGVs using the bridge were toll-dodgers. Not far off the 16% in the other survey, taking into account seasonal variances.

    That leaves 80%.

    Of those, the AECOM report states that a further 25% "could be encouraged to transfer to the M1".

    However, if you read into the meat of the report, where they actually start testing the various scenarios, you will see that "Option 1 has a significant positive impact upon Slane, albeit with some impact on local roads which may require some mitigation measures." "Option 2 therefore has a similar impact upon Slane Bridge as Option 1, but has a greater impact upon the road network to the north of Slane particularly along N2 and R169. This option does lead to higher level of rerouting via the N52 and R162 a result of the restriction on the north-west movement through Slane Village." "As with previous scenarios, scenario 3 has a significant positive impact upon Slane as traffic is reassigned to a number of local roads which may require some mitigation measures. The 62% increase in commercial vehicle traffic past Duleek on the R152 is noted, and will comprise a mixture of vehicles of varying sizes."

    And so on and so forth. Impact on minor roads in the area. As discussed at the oral hearing. Increased risk to road users elsewhere.

    Oh, and what's the result of this transference of risk? For option 1 a "Slight reduction in accident costs due to reassignment of larger vehicles to M1. Benefits exceed negative impacts on local roads". All other scenarios, increase in accident costs due to more mileage travelled. So only one scenario leads to a decrease in accidents, and that's only a slight reduction. And the benefits may exceed the negative impacts on local roads, but that's not good enough. "The risk of increased traffic volumes using the R152 and R153 has already been noted in the analysis. It is likely that some road safety mitigation works might become necessary prior to implementation of restrictions through Slane, such that the impact on these diversion routes can be managed. This could comprise local junction treatment/speed limit or streetscape. improvements, or potentially further restrictions on HGV activity. More detailed analysis is necessary to understand the extent of mitigation measures that might arise out of the solution."

    I'm not prepared to campaign for something that will reduce the accident rate by 50% but move those accidents to Stackallen, for example. That's not good enough. It's bad enough hearing of accidents on the N2 while knowing we're trying our best. If we back a HGV ban and a child is killed elsewhere by a lorry overturning into his garden, as nearly happened during the bridge closure, I don't want to know the lorries wouldn't have been travelling that road if I, and others, hasn't campaigned for it. I note the brass necks and lack of conscience of those who can ignore the risks to road users and lie and manipulate facts without a care for people such as Jimmy Gargan, but I'm afraid I haven't got to that level of equanimity yet.

    Slane pensioners spoke at the oral hearing of their fears of crossing the road. They weren't listened to either. You can shrug off the "deaths" comments, but that, after all, is what this is about. David Garvey and Jimmy Gargan and the 21 others, and the future ones too. It was said at the oral hearing that the only relevant figure was 23 - the next person to die. We now know that was Jimmy, God rest him. So now we can wonder who's 24. I have young children. Don't tell me the deaths aren't relevant and you're not going to "play that game". It's not a game - not if you live in Slane.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,628 ✭✭✭SeanW


    That's the difficulty though - people who don't live in the area and aren't familiar with the local road network believe they know better than locals, than engineers, than the NRA, than the ABP inspector.
    Thing is, even to those of us not local to the area, half an hour on Google Maps should make it abundantly clear to anyone that a bypass is desperately needed as a matter of high urgency.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    I would love to at least see agreement where while a HGV ban in tandem with free use of the M1 for affected trucks should be implemented if possible, it would not change the fact that a new and safer bridge crossing of the boyne in the vicinity of Slane is still urgently required.

    I.e. we still need a bypass no matter how successful a HGV ban might be. That bridge is not even good enough for cars as far as I'm concerned.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    You can shrug off the "deaths" comments, but that, after all, is what this is about. David Garvey and Jimmy Gargan and the 21 others, and the future ones too. It was said at the oral hearing that the only relevant figure was 23 - the next person to die. We now know that was Jimmy, God rest him. So now we can wonder who's 24. I have young children. Don't tell me the deaths aren't relevant and you're not going to "play that game". It's not a game - not if you live in Slane.

    I'm not shrugging off comments about deaths and nobody said deaths are not relevant.

    It would develop into a sick game of blame if I followed you down the path of saying opponents to my views can be blamed for deaths -- nobody has an exclusive right to that argument.

    A HGV ban is all about reducing risk to reduce the chances of injury and death.

    I thought my argument was quite clear - a HGV ban won't work. However, since you seem to be having some difficulty following - to put it quite simply:

    1. A HGV ban won't work without an alternate route.
    2. Accidents will be passed on to surrounding areas as high volumes of traffic travel unsuitable minor roads, as was seen during the recent bridge closure.
    3. The ABP Inspector has doubts as to whether, even if a ban is put in place, it will make sufficient difference to accident rates in Slane.
    4. The medieval bridge, designed for horses, crossing the river is not fit for purpose.
    5. Slane has the only national route in Europe with such a significant accident rate on a one mile stretch.
    6. Slane has the steepest gradient of any national road in the country, followed by an almost perpendicular turn, over a narrow stone bridge, with another sharp turn at the other side. A HGV ban won't change that.
    6. Faffing about pretending that there are alternate solutions won't work. iIt's been gone over and gone over ad nauseum. There is no magic route which will suddenly enable all traffic to travel the M1, accessing the villages which they want to access, safely. It was discussed, and dismissed, at the oral hearing. The dangers to surrounding villages was noted. This isn't just my interpretation, although anyone who lives in the area would see it as obvious. That's the difficulty though - people who don't live in the area and aren't familiar with the local road network believe they know better than locals, than engineers, than the NRA, than the ABP inspector.

    This has all been dealt with in details, so I'll just recap quickly:

    1. If "without an alternate route" means "without a bypass" -- you're wrong.
    2. Temporary local diversions for road works cannot be compared to a planned HGV ban which starts to push traffic towards the motorways at the early possible stage (ie the M50 etc).
    3. I've pointing this out many times as well.
    4. Most of the bridges in the cities and towns of Ireland are "medieval bridge, designed for horses".
    5 & 6. Diverting HGVs should help, and the road can be reclassified with the aim of signed diversions and a reduction of general traffic.
    6 (your second 6). "It was discussed, and dismissed, at the oral hearing" -- that was not a conclusion of the oral hearing. As for the ABP inspector -- my opinion is largely, but not fully, based around what he said. What he said is not in line with your set-in-stone view that a ban is not possible.



    Firstly, I think you'll find you're quoting from page 18.

    As already mentioned page 21 of the PDF file. It's not a point that matters.

    The point that matters is that you continue to take nonsense about other people not having read this and that when they have. And when it was shown that I had read beyond the intro, you could not have not backed down on just that -- you just had to just dig in deeper!

    I don't mind as it is clear you could not help your self as your so entrenched in your views.

    Oh, and what's the result of this transference of risk? For option 1 a "Slight reduction in accident costs due to reassignment of larger vehicles to M1. Benefits exceed negative impacts on local roads". All other scenarios, increase in accident costs due to more mileage travelled.

    And estimated increase, not an actual increase.

    Based on a one-size-fits-all model that says regional roads are less safe than national ones, when we know the main road in Slane has far greater safety issues than many of the regional roads around it.

    Traffic engineers have a history of standing by models even there's gaping flaws.

    So only one scenario leads to a decrease in accidents, and that's only a slight reduction. And the benefits may exceed the negative impacts on local roads, but that's not good enough.

    You wanted to get emotive and into the blame game, so let's get emotive:

    So, what you're saying is you're not interest in saving life until you get a bypass? You don't care about the life that could be saved by a HGV ban in the short to mid term while there's little to no chance of a bypass?

    To be clear: I think you do care about life. But I'm just showing how your sick blame game turns out -- nobody has an exclusive on blame.

    "The risk of increased traffic volumes using the R152 and R153 has already been noted in the analysis. It is likely that some road safety mitigation works might become necessary prior to implementation of restrictions through Slane, such that the impact on these diversion routes can be managed. This could comprise local junction treatment/speed limit or streetscape. improvements, or potentially further restrictions on HGV activity. More detailed analysis is necessary to understand the extent of mitigation measures that might arise out of the solution."

    As I've stated already -- HGV ban diversions should not be done in the same way as temporary road work diversions. Here Aecom go into how you lower risk on the other routes.

    I'm not prepared to campaign for something that will reduce the accident rate by 50% but move thoe accidents to Stackallen,

    There's no question of "move those accidents" to Stackallen.

    The Slane level of and type accidents won't happen there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    monument wrote:
    There's no question of "move those accidents" to Stackallen.

    The Slane level of and type accidents won't happen there.
    I feel I should point out that not all accidents on or near Slane Bridge were due to trucks having inadequate braking and then running into the back of a car and so on. I can't see what reason you would have to say that there is no question of moving these accidents to Stackallen, beyond lowering the level of accidents. The surrounding roads have lower capacity after all. It would take quite the crystal ball to make a fair and honest prediction like "the Slane type of accidents won't happen there". To talk of "types" is more than a little vague.
    monument wrote:
    Based on a one-size-fits-all model that says regional roads are less safe than national ones, when we know the main road in Slane has far greater safety issues than many of the regional roads around it.
    This seems almost spurious to me. Again, I don't know what exactly you mean when you say "around" it, but firstly the N2 excepting Slane Bridge itself would be of the highest standard of the roads leading into Slane by far. With the regional road to Kells, starting just outside Slane, probably the worst. The N2 is comparable to a WS2 leading in and out of Slane, with climing lanes used to the north. The next-nearest regional road of relevance, the R168, is in better condition than the road to Kells via Kilberry but there are a number of reasons for the lower accident rate and would need careful study.



    Anyway, the HGV ban discussion is interesting and useful though the issue of legality of said ban in utilising toll routes as an alternative, should have been established conclusively by now. I hope everyone here at least agrees that a new bridge crossing is necessary and vital no matter what happens with a HGV ban proposal...


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,628 ✭✭✭SeanW


    I hope everyone here at least agrees that a new bridge crossing is necessary and vital no matter what happens with a HGV ban proposal...
    That's just it: some people, i.e. the Save Newgrange brigade (tuathal earlier on in this thread) were very explicit in stating that things like HGV bans were an alternative to a bypass. Later on the response from other quarters has been somewhat more ambiguous, but while I would take the view that the bypass is needed as matter of the highest possible urgency (and I take that view given that I have recent experience of my town being basically given back to its people with a bypass for a much smaller problem), I do not think that this view is universal.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    I feel I should point out that not all accidents on or near Slane Bridge were due to trucks having inadequate braking and then running into the back of a car and so on. I can't see what reason you would have to say that there is no question of moving these accidents to Stackallen, beyond lowering the level of accidents. The surrounding roads have lower capacity after all. It would take quite the crystal ball to make a fair and honest prediction like "the Slane type of accidents won't happen there". To talk of "types" is more than a little vague.


    This seems almost spurious to me. Again, I don't know what exactly you mean when you say "around" it, but firstly the N2 excepting Slane Bridge itself would be of the highest standard of the roads leading into Slane by far. With the regional road to Kells, starting just outside Slane, probably the worst. The N2 is comparable to a WS2 leading in and out of Slane, with climing lanes used to the north. The next-nearest regional road of relevance, the R168, is in better condition than the road to Kells via Kilberry but there are a number of reasons for the lower accident rate and would need careful study.



    Anyway, the HGV ban discussion is interesting and useful though the issue of legality of said ban in utilising toll routes as an alternative, should have been established conclusively by now. I hope everyone here at least agrees that a new bridge crossing is necessary and vital no matter what happens with a HGV ban proposal...

    For "the Slane type of accidents" collectlly, as I put it, to happen elsewhere you'd need the same profile as Slane -- ie large village on a long, steep hill, with around the same volumes of HGV traffic etc.

    It's that mix which has lead to high levels of incidents.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,628 ✭✭✭SeanW


    There is serious ideological opposition to a bypass for Slane.
    monument wrote: »
    But than again some people in Slane and beyond want the M1 and M3 to be state secrets or maybe just invisible.
    tuathal wrote: »
    But I have to say, from a personal point of view (edit: Tuathal is part of the anti-bypass movement in some capacity, likely Save Newgrange /edit), I have never met a nastier group of people in my life. Time and again people tried to reason with them, and offered to co-operate on finding a solution that met everyone's needs. Instead, nothing came back but personall abuse, false accusations and aggresive behaviour.

    The people of Slane, belonging to that lynch mob, got what they deserve.
    Gee, I wonder why. With the benefit of hindsight, if someone had come to Longford and said "ye don't need a bypass, we can dick around with traffic restrictons and that will solve all your problems" I'd have ****ed them into the Camlin river and told them to swim back to their hippy commune or Dublin 4 or wherever they came from. Save Newgrange etcs. position would be infantile and bizarre if it were not so serious.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    SeanW wrote: »
    There is serious ideological opposition to a bypass for Slane.

    Well done Sean. Back to your usual self of attacking posters rather than posts, and all you can drag up from me is a quote related to using a HGV ban as a solution.

    A quote you're using out of context!

    If there was ever an ideologue around these parts it's you.

    SeanW wrote: »
    Gee, I wonder why. With the benefit of hindsight, if someone had come to Longford and said "ye don't need a bypass, we can dick around with traffic restrictons and that will solve all your problems" I'd have ****ed them into the Camlin river and told them to swim back to their hippy commune or Dublin 4 or wherever they came from. Save Newgrange etcs. position would be infantile and bizarre if it were not so serious.

    I never realised there was a road like the M1 passing within 10km of one side of Longford and a road like the M3 passing within 15km of the other side!

    Can you tell me where these hidden motorways are? They'd be really handy getting home to Mayo!

    :confused: :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,628 ✭✭✭SeanW


    I was primarily attacking tuathal, he and everyone else in Save Newgrange has been the most vociferous in presenting an HGV ban as an alternative to a bypass. As for you, I am not satisfied that you disagree with that, nor that you share the view that a bypass is needed as a matter of the highest urgency.
    If there was ever an ideologue around these parts it's you.
    Having witnessed what happened here in Longford when the N5 bypass opened, I may be best suited to understand the concerns of the people of Slane. The town used to be choked with traffic and HGVs were part of the towns 'furniture.' The transition was literally as noticeable as the difference between night and day. This town was basically given back to its local people, and I think the same should happen to Slane. ASAP. And I make no apologies for making that view abundantly clear.
    Can you tell me where these hidden motorways are? They'd be really handy getting home to Mayo!
    Well, the M6 is only 30 km away and I read some people from Southern Mayo use the N60, N61 and M6 from Athlone to get to Dublin in preference to the N5 - by Save Newgrange standards that would make it a perfect alternative route! Heck, the N61 even crosses the N5 at Tulsk!

    But you're right, there are very serious differences between Longford and Slane that make any attempt at comparison ludicrous.
    1. The N5 only ever sent 5000 vehicles per day through Longford. The N2 sends 10000 through Slane.
    2. The existing road network inside Longford town is dramatically better than that of Slane. It was much, much better able to handle a given volume of pre-bypass traffic than Slanes roads are, in a manner that was much more conducive to satisfying the interests of all concerned.
    3. Even if there was an overwhelmingly good reason not to build a bypass on a new alignment (which there is in NEITHER case), there were existing roads that could have been upgraded, perhaps with short new alignments. Chiefly the Lisbrack road (L1001), which had seen use as an unofficial bypass for cars. Slane has nothing of the sort.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    I live in a town which has little chance of being bypassed any time soon and has heavy HGV traffic. I cycle to work, shopping and to my son's creche on the road most heavily trafficked with HGVs.

    There's no way I have some kind of ideological opposition to bypasses in general or one at Slane.

    I completely disagree that HGV ban a long-term alternative to a bypass, but it is true that I don't share idea that it is needed at the "highest urgency". If there was truly such an urgency based on safety there'd be a long-distance HGV ban in place long before now: We won't agree on this point and there's no point going around in circles yet another time.

    SeanW wrote: »
    I was primarily attacking tuathal,

    He or she has not posted here in nine months. Well done.

    SeanW wrote: »
    Well, the M6 is only 30 km away and I read some people from Southern Mayo use the N60, N61 and M6 from Athlone to get to Dublin in preference to the N5 - by Save Newgrange standards that would make it a perfect alternative route! Heck, the N61 even crosses the N5 at Tulsk!

    30km = three times the distance of between the M1 and Slane and twice the distance between Slane and the M3, and Longford has no alternative the other side. Even if the N3 north of Longford was motorway it would be 40km away.

    Nobody is making those type of arguments and the distances are quite larger than others have suggested for Slane. So, you're making up nonsensical and trying to claim others support them.

    Along with dragging up posts from somebody who has not posted in nine months, this is all desperate stuff.


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Slane Resident


    You persist in dragging up these motorways as if they have any relevance. The M1 and M3 would be relevant if their termination was Slane. There are any amount of motorways in Dublin - does that mean we don't need to build more? It's the final destination that counts, not the random villages on the way. HGVs will continue to use the N2 because the M1 and M3 do not go where they want to end up. You do understand that a road to Galway, a road to Kerry and a road to Donegal can all start in the same place, but that doesn't mean they're interchangeable, right?


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    You persist in dragging up these motorways as if they have any relevance. The M1 and M3 would be relevant if their termination was Slane. There are any amount of motorways in Dublin - does that mean we don't need to build more? It's the final destination that counts, not the random villages on the way. HGVs will continue to use the N2 because the M1 and M3 do not go where they want to end up. You do understand that a road to Galway, a road to Kerry and a road to Donegal can all start in the same place, but that doesn't mean they're interchangeable, right?

    I'll quote it once again: "...45% of goods vehicles crossing Slane Bridge are longer distance movements that could be encouraged to transfer to the M1." And that's says nothing of some of the regional goods vehicles which could pushed to do the same.

    All of this was mentioned before. This is going around in circles

    Let's just agree to agree to disagree.


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Slane Resident


    You raised this point a page previously. I answered it:

    "That is in the event of a HGV ban in Slane, which will result in diversion of goods vehicles onto unsuitable roads. It does not suggest the M1 is a simple alternative - it states that 20% of HGVs could use the M1, with a further 25% potentially being potentially rerouted the M1 if a Slane ban was in place. Of course if the N2 is closed to them, 25% may take an alternate route, even if its out of their way, or if they have to travel unsuitable minor routes to get there. That's not the same as suggesting that 45% of HGV users could simply reroute."

    You didn't deal with what I stated, just repeated as you're doing now. Going around in circles is inevitable if you persist in ignoring discussion by just reiterating your point ad infinitum. But you're a lone voice here, and it's very obvious why. The situation is untenable.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,071 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    You raised this point a page previously. I answered it:

    "That is in the event of a HGV ban in Slane, which will result in diversion of goods vehicles onto unsuitable roads. It does not suggest the M1 is a simple alternative - it states that 20% of HGVs could use the M1, with a further 25% potentially being potentially rerouted the M1 if a Slane ban was in place. Of course if the N2 is closed to them, 25% may take an alternate route, even if its out of their way, or if they have to travel unsuitable minor routes to get there. That's not the same as suggesting that 45% of HGV users could simply reroute."

    You didn't deal with what I stated, just repeated as you're doing now. Going around in circles is inevitable if you persist in ignoring discussion by just reiterating your point ad infinitum. But you're a lone voice here, and it's very obvious why. The situation is untenable.

    Your point has been replied to before. That's why we're going round and round.

    Again: Nobody is suggesting it's a "simple alternative" where 45% of HGV users "could simply reroute." It would be planned in detail, and it could involve large scale downgrading of the N2 and, at the least, large-scale sign post changes from the M50 to well north of Slane. Regardless of what approch is taken, I agree it would not be a simple rerouting, but still not near impossible as you're trying to make it seem.

    And the inspector was referring to 45% without a bypass -- why would that much traffic divert to the M1 if a bypass was in place???

    You don't like my responces, but it's not true to say I have not responded.

    You're not even going to agree to dissagree -- that's saying something! And you wonder why I'm the only one still bothering here?!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Slane Resident


    From the Bypass Slane page:

    "Today (20th/2nd/2013) members of the Bypass Slane Campaign group attended the monthly meeting of the Slane Electoral Area Councillors. At this meeting a motion was passed rescinding the Councillors’ 2009 motion calling for a ban on HGVs through Slane. The motion was rescinded in view of the recent traffic management studies undertaken by Meath County Council since the Slane bypass was refused. It is clear from these studies that a ban on HGVs through Slane will not work, as it would provide only minimal safety benefits for the village and cause road safety issues elsewhere, through risk transference to Kentstown and Duleek. We call on the Councillors to table a motion for a new application for the Slane bypass to be submitted to An Bord Pleanála as a matter of urgency.

    History: In April 2009, a motion calling for a ban on HGVs through Slane was unanimously passed by Meath Councillors directly after, and in response to, an horrific pile-up in the centre of Slane village in March of that year. It was a genuine and heart-felt, if somewhat naïve, attempt by Councillors to respond to the danger presented by the N2 through Slane, a danger successive governments had largely ignored for years. It is clear that the Councillors never intended for a ban on HGVs to be an alternative to a bypass for Slane, but objectors focused on this motion to argue against the need for a new road for the village. At the Oral Hearing in 2011, Fine Gael Councillor, Anne Dillon-Gallagher clarified the Councillors’ position when questioned by Mr Colm O’hEochaigh, SC for Mr John Rogers (objecting), she advised that it was never the Councillors’ position that a ban would replace a bypass. However, the motion proved unhelpful and caused sufficient confusion to contribute towards a refusal of the planning application."


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    From the Bypass Slane page:

    "Today (20th/2nd/2013) members of the Bypass Slane Campaign group attended the monthly meeting of the Slane Electoral Area Councillors. At this meeting a motion was passed rescinding the Councillors’ 2009 motion calling for a ban on HGVs through Slane. The motion was rescinded in view of the recent traffic management studies undertaken by Meath County Council since the Slane bypass was refused. It is clear from these studies that a ban on HGVs through Slane will not work, as it would provide only minimal safety benefits for the village and cause road safety issues elsewhere, through risk transference to Kentstown and Duleek. We call on the Councillors to table a motion for a new application for the Slane bypass to be submitted to An Bord Pleanála as a matter of urgency.

    History: In April 2009, a motion calling for a ban on HGVs through Slane was unanimously passed by Meath Councillors directly after, and in response to, an horrific pile-up in the centre of Slane village in March of that year. It was a genuine and heart-felt, if somewhat naïve, attempt by Councillors to respond to the danger presented by the N2 through Slane, a danger successive governments had largely ignored for years. It is clear that the Councillors never intended for a ban on HGVs to be an alternative to a bypass for Slane, but objectors focused on this motion to argue against the need for a new road for the village. At the Oral Hearing in 2011, Fine Gael Councillor, Anne Dillon-Gallagher clarified the Councillors’ position when questioned by Mr Colm O’hEochaigh, SC for Mr John Rogers (objecting), she advised that it was never the Councillors’ position that a ban would replace a bypass. However, the motion proved unhelpful and caused sufficient confusion to contribute towards a refusal of the planning application."

    Well that nails the anti bypass argument. This road must now proceed for the sake of Slane and it's surrounding community.

    I must say that the ethos of responsibility apparent in Slane is a model for the country as a whole and makes me very proud to be from Meath. I so like the way in which the Slane residents want their traffic problem dealt with locally rather than shoving the traffic problems onto other communities like Duleek by way of the HGV ban. I also like their concern for the surrounding rural areas. Certain small minded communities (NIMBYism) in other parts of the country who seemingly have no concern for anyone outside their patch should take note.


Advertisement