N2 - Slane Bypass [planning decision pending]

monument · 27-12-2012 12:20pm

MYOB wrote: »

All those are irrelevant unless your incorrect claims about precedent on relation to the m50 were true. That is where the debate ended and remains ended. The westlink did not replace a road and you cannot change history to make it so.

There will never be a ban without a bypass in slane. You are doing nothing other than causing a pointless distraction by claiming so.

No, all of those are not irrelevant, those points demolish what had been central parts of your argument. Until you change the goal posts again and again...

Your new central piller of your argument is that it's different because the M50 did not replace a road? And you some-how think this makes a noteworthy difference between Slane and the Dublin City HGV ban?

And we're still waiting for some kind of legal backing to your general claims -- you have yet to provide a link or any other evidence. Even if there was something the courts can take into account of the safety critical issues on Slane hill.

MYOB wrote: »

There will never be a ban without a bypass in slane.

There will never be and there can't be are two different things -- you've yet to go any decent way to prove the latter.

L1011 · 27-12-2012 5:49pm

monument wrote: »

Your new central piller of your argument is that it's different because the M50 did not replace a road? And you some-how think this makes a noteworthy difference between Slane and the Dublin City HGV ban?

This has always been the central pillar of my argument. You are the one attempting to drag it off in twenty directions.

All HGV bans to date have required extensive, toll-free alternatives put in place. The Westlink is separate, and most importantly, it did not replace any road. The pre-existing routes still exist.

monument wrote: »

There will never be and there can't be are two different things -- you've yet to go any decent way to prove the latter.

In this case, its one and the same. The requirements for a HGV ban require the bypass - this is undeniable. Except to you, it appears.

What happened to your circular and contradictory argument of "a bypass will cause toll dodging!" "let HGVs go free on the tolls!" by the way?

monument · 27-12-2012 8:55pm

MYOB wrote: »

This has always been the central pillar of my argument. You are the one attempting to drag it off in twenty directions.

It's not my fault if you perceive me responding directly to your points as "attempting to drag it off in twenty directions".

MYOB wrote: »

All HGV bans to date have required extensive, toll-free alternatives put in place. The Westlink is separate, and most importantly, it did not replace any road. The pre-existing routes still exist.

The M50 HGV route, which includes Westlink, replaced the former N4 (including the quays) and other city centre routes as a HGV route to Dublin Port.

MYOB wrote: »

In this case, its one and the same. The requirements for a HGV ban require the bypass - this is undeniable. Except to you, it appears

If it is so undeniable, why can't you back your claims up with links? Seems a bit strange for something so undeniable.

Forgetting the Westlink for a second, you also seem to think "what has been done to date" equals a "requirement" but you have not proven such a link. Just because something has been done before does not make it a requirement for future projects -- unless there's a court judgment you can point to?

MYOB wrote: »

What happened to your circular and contradictory argument of "a bypass will cause toll dodging!" "let HGVs go free on the tolls!" by the way?

My suggestion of at least paying for local HGV traffic (if not all HGV traffic) is not at all a "circular and contradictory argument".

Indeed, paying for tolls / not having tolls for HGVs is exactly what Dublin City Council does in order to keep as many HGVs as possible out of areas with more chances of conflicts with other road users, and away from more heavily populated areas.

It could be looked at in the context of also removing HGVs from Drogheda's streets too.

L1011 · 27-12-2012 11:14pm

monument wrote: »

It's not my fault if you perceive me responding directly to your points as "attempting to drag it off in twenty directions".

That is not what you're doing.

monument wrote: »

The M50 HGV route, which includes Westlink, replaced the former N4 (including the quays) and other city centre routes as a HGV route to Dublin Port.

The DPT and toll-free traffic on the Eastlink replaced the quays. The Westlink already existed and replaced no roads.

monument wrote: »

If it is so undeniable, why can't you back your claims up with links? Seems a bit strange for something so undeniable.

You are the one making the point contrary to all evidence on the ground, not me.

monument wrote: »

Forgetting the Westlink for a second, you also seem to think "what has been done to date" equals a "requirement" but you have not proven such a link. Just because something has been done before does not make it a requirement for future projects -- unless there's a court judgment you can point to?

If you weren't absolutely relying on a false idea of the DPT/Dublin HGV ban being precedence, you might have a point - but you are, so you don't.

The various Roads Acts do not allow for extinguishing access without a suitable alternative, anyway.

monument wrote: »

My suggestion of at least paying for local HGV traffic (if not all HGV traffic) is not at all a "circular and contradictory argument".

Indeed, paying for tolls / not having tolls for HGVs is exactly what Dublin City Council does in order to keep as many HGVs as possible out of areas with more chances of conflicts with other road users, and away from more heavily populated areas.

It could be looked at in the context of also removing HGVs from Drogheda's streets too.

It is circular and contradictory as your initial complaint was that an upgraded N2 would remove toll payments and hence VAT from the state... that you can't see you are contradicting yourself is hilarious, or it would be if the issue wasn't so serious.

You are convinced that a HGV ban can be imposed and are unwilling to consider alternatives. You're not going to change your position so why do you continue trying to force people to debate with you?

monument · 28-12-2012 1:03am

MYOB wrote: »

That is not what you're doing.

Sure it is. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

MYOB wrote: »

The DPT and toll-free traffic on the Eastlink replaced the quays. The Westlink already existed and replaced no roads.

How does HGV traffic from the N4 etc get to the port?

Via the Westlink.

That's a toll on the replacment route! Just to be clear: from the N4 to the port there was no toll before the ban but after the ban there's a toll on the replacement route.

MYOB wrote: »

You are the one making the point contrary to all evidence on the ground, not me.

What does "evidence on the ground" mean? Some kind of evidence you can't link to is it?

MYOB wrote: »

If you weren't absolutely relying on a false idea of the DPT/Dublin HGV ban being precedence, you might have a point - but you are, so you don't.

My point would also seem to apply to my examples, just as much as your example. Again: Just because something was done before does not by its self make a requirement.

And, also, there's no way I'm "absolutely relying" on anything: I'm not convinced you need a toll free alternative, but at the same time that does NOT rule out HGV tolls been removed or paid for. You might remove tolls for tolls for HGVs to be reasonable or practical without having any legal obligation to remove the tolls.

MYOB wrote: »

The various Roads Acts do not allow for extinguishing access without a suitable alternative, anyway.

As I've already shown, there are diversion distances as long with the Dublin City ban as those which would be created by a Slane ban. I've offered to find other Dublin example trips as long already but you did not seem interisted.

MYOB wrote: »

It is circular and contradictory as your initial complaint was that an upgraded N2 would remove toll payments and hence VAT from the state... that you can't see you are contradicting yourself is hilarious, or it would be if the issue wasn't so serious.

I did not recall the issue being my "initial complaint", but it has been a while since i started posting on this thread so I went and had a quick search back over my post and found this:

"...and cost has to be looked at the context of the possabe cost of lost revenue and/or subventions to the M1 and M3 tolls..."

A few points:

A. That was a fairly netrual point on the wider cost considerations.

B. Even if it was my "initial complaint" -- which it was not -- it was a comment on all tolls. You can remove HGV tolls without removing all tolls.

C. Just because I said there are cost considerations does not mean something is or is not worth doing. I'm just saying, "there are wider considerations".

D. Maybe it's worth saying again: Even if I share some of the concerns ABP stated it has, I'm not against the genral idea of a bypass.

MYOB wrote: »

You are convinced that a HGV ban can be imposed and are unwilling to consider alternatives.

Like ABP, I'm at least convinced that the a ban has not been explored enough.

I've already gone further in saying a ban before the bypass (rightly or wrongly) goes against the self interist of a lot of powerful groups of people, so they will do their upmost to never allow it happen in that order. That's the main reason a ban before the bypass isn't likely a runner. There's no legal or practical reasoning -- none at least you're willing to back up to date.

MYOB wrote: »

You're not going to change your position so why do you continue trying to force people to debate with you?

Nobody is forcing you to debate with me. But your inability to link to apprent points of law is shocking.

L1011 · 28-12-2012 1:20am

For the very last time - the Westlink toll cannot be used in any comparison as it did not replace any roads. The ways that traffic crossed the Liffey at that point prior to 1988 still exist. This is why, under law, the Westlink was allowed to be constructed.

If you are going to continue using this as the crux of an argument, you may as well admit you've run out of points. And if you can't see that its the crux of your argument, well, you may want to re-evaluate where you're coming from as it is your sole point.

monument · 28-12-2012 11:08am

Why can't you provide links to back up your position?

MYOB wrote: »

For the very last time - the Westlink toll cannot be used in any comparison as it did not replace any roads. The ways that traffic crossed the Liffey at that point prior to 1988 still exist. This is why, under law, the Westlink was allowed to be constructed.

Nobody is suggesting any new toll.

You can't seem to accept that after the Dublin City HGV ban a tolled route (the M50 via the Westlink) replaced a non-tolled route (the quays etc). That's what is key here.

That happened in 2007, when the Westlink and the quays were already in place. No reasonable alternative was provided.

MYOB wrote: »

If you are going to continue using this as the crux of an argument, you may as well admit you've run out of points. And if you can't see that its the crux of your argument, well, you may want to re-evaluate where you're coming from as it is your sole point.

As per my last post:

And, also, there's no way I'm "absolutely relying" on anything: I'm not convinced you need a toll free alternative, but at the same time that does not rule out HGV tolls been removed or paid for. You might remove tolls for tolls for HGVs to be reasonable or practical without having any legal obligation to remove the tolls.

L1011 · 28-12-2012 3:07pm

The Dublin City HGV ban was put in place after a massive infrastructure project (the DPT) and toll-free movements being provided on the Eastlink.

Why do you keep rabbiting on about a nearly 20 year old toll elsewhere?

monument · 28-12-2012 4:24pm

MYOB wrote: »

The Dublin City HGV ban was put in place after a massive infrastructure project (the DPT) and toll-free movements being provided on the Eastlink.

Why do you keep rabbiting on about a nearly 20 year old toll elsewhere?

It's still a toll which has to be paid by many HGV users who could use the quays before the ban for free.

Isn't the Drogheda Bypass toll nearly ten years old now? Is 20 years some kind of important mark to be reached? After 20 years of a toll being in place is it ok to put a HGV ban in place and force HGVs into tolls (or massive unsuitable diversions)?

And still no sign of links to back up your genral assertion that a toll-free route must be provided for HGVs....

L1011 · 28-12-2012 4:33pm

No, 20 years was just a comment on how old you were digging.

The M50 Westlink did not replace any road hence no toll-free alternative had to be provided. This is the critical issue you keep ignoring.

It isn't possible to provide links to common law - that is where the concept of extinguishing access and allowing turnpikes (tolls) comes from. This isn't a legal system where everything has to be based on statute. You cannot force traffic over a toll - and the DPT/Dublin HGV ban does not force traffic over a toll, much as you keep insisting it does.

monument · 28-12-2012 7:48pm

MYOB wrote: »

No, 20 years was just a comment on how old you were digging.

The M50 Westlink did not replace any road hence no toll-free alternative had to be provided. This is the critical issue you keep ignoring.

Because it is irrelevant how old a tolled route is or how it did not replace another road (or at least you have yet to show any relevance).

The "critical issue" is that the Dublin HGV ban has forced HGV traffic into a tolled road. There's no reasonable alternative route between the N4 and the Port Tunnel which HGV are allowed on. That's something you keep ignoring -- I'll gadly repeat this in bold if it helps?

MYOB wrote: »

It isn't possible to provide links to common law - that is where the concept of extinguishing access and allowing turnpikes (tolls) comes from. This isn't a legal system where everything has to be based on statute. You cannot force traffic over a toll - and the DPT/Dublin HGV ban does not force traffic over a toll, much as you keep insisting it does.

That may be where the concept comes from, but as with other areas of law, common law is superseded by written laws.

In any case, people will still write about and take records of common law. All I can find is refrences of providing toll-free routes as being "practice" rather than been needed by any type of law.

For example: The ABP inspector's report states:

" 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 26th 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."

Note: According to Meath County Council, and not disputed by the NRA, it's only "a matter of practice" and not a matter of law.

Do you actually have anything to back up what you are saying? Or are we getting into the realms of "Freeman"?

L1011 · 28-12-2012 9:54pm

monument wrote: »

Because it is irrelevant how old a tolled route is or how it did not replace another road (or at least you have yet to show any relevance).

In your little world, perhaps. The fact of the matter is that the M50 Westlink did not replace or close access to any routes.

The Dublin HGV ban does not force traffic on to any toll roads as alternatives exist - whether you want to admit that or continue with your one little shred or not.

monument wrote: »

The "critical issue" is that the Dublin HGV ban has forced HGV traffic into a tolled road. There's no reasonable alternative route between the N4 and the Port Tunnel which HGV are allowed on. That's something you keep ignoring -- I'll gadly repeat this in bold if it helps?

All routes which existed before the M50 Westlink opened still exist. I have ignored nothing - unlike you.

monument wrote: »

Note: According to Meath County Council, and not disputed by the NRA, it's only "a matter of practice" and not a matter of law.

Now you're changing who said what. Those words are of the ABP inspector and not a quote from MCC. You're also ignoring (again...) that the ABP inspector admits that there's no suitable alternative for N2 HGV traffic. Ergo - no ban without a bypass.

Why are you still bothering with this? Absolutely nobody other than you thinks a ban can be imposed without a bypass, and you are never going to convince anyone.

monument · 29-12-2012 2:28am

MYOB wrote: »

In your little world, perhaps. The fact of the matter is that the M50 Westlink did not replace or close access to any routes.

The Dublin City HGV ban did and that's the important point here, and you know it...

MYOB wrote: »

The Dublin HGV ban does not force traffic on to any toll roads as alternatives exist - whether you want to admit that or continue with your one little shred or not.

What route does HGV traffic to/from Liffey Valley to Dublin Port go on which has no toll? Before they HGV ban there was the N4 and the quays.

MYOB wrote: »

All routes which existed before the M50 Westlink opened still exist. I have ignored nothing - unlike you.

You're now trying to claim HGVs can use the quays unrestricted? They could before but can't now.

MYOB wrote: »

Now you're changing who said what. Those words are of the ABP inspector and not a quote from MCC.

You have two options:

1. You're trying to claim ABP's paraphrasing of MCC's phrasing in their letter to the NRA was so wrong it's notworthy to the discussion.

2. You're nitpicking / being pandantic / distracting from the debate.

MYOB wrote: »

You're also ignoring (again...) that the ABP inspector admits that there's no suitable alternative for N2 HGV traffic. Ergo - no ban without a bypass.

No, I made sure I quoted the bit saying there's no suitable alternative. Which includes this stinger of a line:

"...the N2 is not a satisfactory alternative to the M1 for HGV traffic..."

A main part of this debate is if there's a need for an untolled alternative. As already mentioned, ABP looked into the issue and just told it is just practice, rather than a requirement.

MYOB wrote: »

Why are you still bothering with this? Absolutely nobody other than you thinks a ban can be imposed without a bypass, and you are never going to convince anyone.

I'm bother because people are making claims which they can't back up on matters which affects people.

I care about evidence and things like the balance of probabilities. I don't have much time for following (or not following) the popular view just because it is popular and/or other people are hard or impossible to convince.

There's a long history of popular views running counter to hard evidence.

For example, there's a long list of health scares where vaccines of different types were avoided by people on mass when the evidence not only never supported such avoidance but showed clearly the vaccines worked. These people were sure they were right and it was very hard or impossible to convince them otherwise.

Just because a view is popular or strongly held does not make it right.

L1011 · 29-12-2012 3:45am

monument wrote: »

The Dublin City HGV ban did and that's the important point here, and you know it...

Any routes closed were provided with alternatives, without any traffic being forced to use toll roads.

monument wrote: »

What route does HGV traffic to/from Liffey Valley to Dublin Port go on which has no toll? Before they HGV ban there was the N4 and the quays.

All routes in West Dublin across the Liffey which were available before the M50 Westlink still exist. These are the legally valid toll-free alternative for the Westlink. I'm not debating this any further with you as you refuse to accept reality.

monument wrote: »

You're now trying to claim HGVs can use the quays unrestricted? They could before but can't now.

They were given a multi-million euro, toll-free alternative route as well as tolling lifted on the Eastlink.

monument wrote: »

You have two options:

1. You're trying to claim ABP's paraphrasing of MCC's phrasing in their letter to the NRA was so wrong it's notworthy to the discussion.

2. You're nitpicking / being pandantic / distracting from the debate.

Its entirely unworthy. It in no way, shape or form denies that a toll-free alternative must be provided. You're grabbing on one interpretation of one word. Gives you two tiny shreds to cling to rather than one.

monument wrote: »

No, I made sure I quoted the bit saying there's no suitable alternative. Which includes this stinger of a line:

"...the N2 is not a satisfactory alternative to the M1 for HGV traffic..."

How you can try claim that as a "stinger" amazes me. That is the inspector recognising that HGV traffic from the M1 wouldn't be using the N2 anyway - something you claimed they were when you claimed there was a risk to the exchequer.

monument wrote: »

A main part of this debate is if there's a need for an untolled alternative. As already mentioned, ABP looked into the issue and just told it is just practice, rather than a requirement.

They were never told it was not a requirement. You paraphrased that in to your interpretation and now you're claiming it to be fact.

monument wrote: »

I'm bother because people are making claims which they can't back up on matters which affects people.

I care about evidence and things like the balance of probabilities. I don't have much time for following (or not following) the popular view just because it is popular and/or other people are hard or impossible to convince.

There's a long history of popular views running counter to hard evidence.

For example, there's a long list of health scares where vaccines of different types were avoided by people on mass when the evidence not only never supported such avoidance but showed clearly the vaccines worked. These people were sure they were right and it was very hard or impossible to convince them otherwise.

Just because a view is popular or strongly held does not make it right.

If you actually cared about balance of probabilities, you wouldn't be persuing a completely unrealistic HGV ban, as on balance of probabilities - it cannot and more importantly will not happen.

On balance of probabilities, someone else is going to die on the bridge while people (including ABP) are pissing around with what is needed - which is a replacement bridge. A bridge without a bypass, which isn't realistically possible, would be required even if there was a HGV ban, even if the road was detrunked, even if the town was restricted to residents only.

WHY are you so opposed to a bypass that you're trying to distract people with a ridiculous sideshow?

monument · 29-12-2012 1:19pm

MYOB wrote: »

All routes in West Dublin across the Liffey which were available before the M50 Westlink still exist. These are the legally valid toll-free alternative for the Westlink. I'm not debating this any further with you as you refuse to accept reality.

Why can't you name any routes?

Anybody who knows the area knows why -- there's very limied amount of crossings and no suitable routes for HGVs. Otherwise why can't you name a route?

MYOB wrote: »

They were given a multi-million euro, toll-free alternative route as well as tolling lifted on the Eastlink.

On a route that includes the Westlink toll and no reasonable alternatives for HGVs.

MYOB wrote: »

Its entirely unworthy. It in no way, shape or form denies that a toll-free alternative must be provided. You're grabbing on one interpretation of one word. Gives you two tiny shreds to cling to rather than one.

"It appears as a matter of practice that tolled roads in general have non-tolled alternatives"

It's not one word but a whole phrase in a sentence. What are you tring to claim it means?

MYOB wrote: »

How you can try claim that as a "stinger" amazes me. That is the inspector recognising that HGV traffic from the M1 wouldn't be using the N2 anyway - something you claimed they were when you claimed there was a risk to the exchequer.

It's a stinger because of what else the inspector says. He says the opposite of your claim "that HGV traffic from the M1 wouldn't be using the N2 anyway".

The inspector says:

"There is a widely held perception that these figures include a high proportion of HGVs travelling along the N2 for the sole purpose of avoiding the toll on the M1 at Drogheda. This perception appears to be shared by all parties, though the extent of the diversion is not clear. The vehicles in question are comprised in three main components. There are those travelling between East Ulster, including Dundalk, and the Dublin area. Those should use the M1 but some, travelling in a southbound direction, turn off the M1 at Junction 12 near Dunleer on to the R169, which in turn feeds in to the N2 north of Collon."

And he says:

"The record of traffic flows on the N2 over the past decade sheds some light on this pattern of movement. Following the opening of the M1 in 2003 there was a dramatic fall in traffic flows on the N2 but in the subsequent years there has been a significant compensating rise in flows, greater than that on the road network in general. The implications of this are that a large proportion of the HGV traffic crossing Slane bridge could be diverted on to the M1 and that this could go some way towards solving the traffic problems in Slane"

And:

"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."

He calls for further info as that might tell if such diversions would notably lower the risks in Slane.

MYOB wrote: »

They were never told it was not a requirement. You paraphrased that in to your interpretation and now you're claiming it to be fact.

So you're trying to claim there's a chance ABP were told its a legal requirement, but the inspector did not think to include that on his indepth discussion on the subject of a ban?

You'd think that fir MCC, the NRA etc something like that would be hard not to mention to ABP and even harder for the inspector not to mention in his report?

MYOB wrote: »

If you actually cared about balance of probabilities, you wouldn't be persuing a completely unrealistic HGV ban, as on balance of probabilities - it cannot and more importantly will not happen.

It's becoming clearer to me from this discussion that there's no legal bar to a HGV ban of the kind the ABP inspector points to, and little or no practical reasons not to do it.

MYOB wrote: »

On balance of probabilities, someone else is going to die on the bridge while people (including ABP) are pissing around with what is needed - which is a replacement bridge. A bridge without a bypass, which isn't realistically possible, would be required even if there was a HGV ban, even if the road was detrunked, even if the town was restricted to residents only.

On balance of probabilities a bypass or any new bridge is far more unlikely in the short or medium term.

A HGV ban only needs support. There's no overriding legal or practical reasons not to implement a ban as talked about by the inspector.

MYOB wrote: »

WHY are you so opposed to a bypass that you're trying to distract people with a ridiculous sideshow

As stated a few times in the thread: I'm not opposed to the idea of a bypass.

L1011 · 29-12-2012 4:04pm

monument wrote: »

Why can't you name any routes?

Anybody who knows the area knows why -- there's very limied amount of crossings and no suitable routes for HGVs. Otherwise why can't you name a route?

On a route that includes the Westlink toll and no reasonable alternatives for HGVs.

Not discussing this with you any further - as this was done to death. The Westlink replaced no routes.

monument wrote: »

"It appears as a matter of practice that tolled roads in general have non-tolled alternatives"

It's not one word but a whole phrase in a sentence. What are you tring to claim it means?

It means exactly what it says - and no more. That sentence does not mean "there is no legal requirement" which is what you are wishing it to mean.

monument wrote: »

It's a stinger because of what else the inspector says. He says the opposite of your claim "that HGV traffic from the M1 wouldn't be using the N2 anyway".

He claims that traffic on the N2 reduced when the toll opened, for starters.

And again, you can't force traffic on to a tolled road.

monument wrote: »

He calls for further info as that might tell if such diversions would notably lower the risks in Slane.

Nothing is going to lower the risk to an acceptable level other than a new bridge

monument wrote: »

So you're trying to claim there's a chance ABP were told its a legal requirement, but the inspector did not think to include that on his indepth discussion on the subject of a ban?

Stop twisting what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that you have absolutely zero proof they were told it wasn't a legal requirement - you're just relying on a single word.

monument wrote: »

It's becoming clearer to me from this discussion that there's no legal bar to a HGV ban of the kind the ABP inspector points to, and little or no practical reasons not to do it.

Only because this was your pre-set position that you are never, ever going to change.

monument wrote: »

On balance of probabilities a bypass or any new bridge is far more unlikely in the short or medium term.

If the attempts to delay it by gibbering about impossible options are dropped, its far more likely it'll come in to the near term again.

monument wrote: »

A HGV ban only needs support. There's no overriding legal or practical reasons not to implement a ban as talked about by the inspector.

In your personal, pre-set and biased opinion.

If any attempt is made to put a ban in place, it'll go to court. There'll be many more years of delay before the decision is made.

monument wrote: »

As stated a few times in the thread: I'm not opposed to the idea of a bypass.

Its pretty damn obvious that you are - or else you wouldn't be supporting such a ridiculous attempt to stave it off for a few years and hope it gets forgotten about.

But then again, you're against all road projects, as is obvious from your posting history on this forum + C&T. Right down to complaining about money being spent on roads when it could have been spent on completely unscoped and unplanned projects that you had dreamed up...

I am not responding to you on this, or any other road topic again until it becomes obvious that you've dealt with your massive bias issue. In this case, you are placing your anti-roads desire over the lives of others, which is reprehensible.

monument · 29-12-2012 7:29pm

MYOB wrote: »

Not discussing this with you any further - as this was done to death

It's up to you if you discuss it further or not.

I'd agreed it's all done to death, it makes me wonder even more why are you still making claims you can't back up.

MYOB wrote: »

The Westlink replaced no routes.

Since the HGV ban, the Westlink is now part of the only suitable route from the N4 area and south of it to the port. You're tying to claim there's another way but you -- somehow -- can't name it.

That's key.

MYOB wrote: »

And again, you can't force traffic on to a tolled road.

Still waiting for you to back that up. Any decent source would be a good starting point.

What you have said to date is on par with the stuff the Freemen of the Land come out with... Are you a Freeman?

MYOB wrote: »

It means exactly what it says - and no more. That sentence does not mean "there is no legal requirement" which is what you are wishing it to mean....

Stop twisting what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that you have absolutely zero proof they were told it wasn't a legal requirement - you're just relying on a single word.

It was such a central issue for the inspertor, so why would the NRA, MCC, or anybody else not tell him that it was a legal requirement?

It seems untenable.

MYOB wrote: »

Only because this was your pre-set position that you are never, ever going to change.

No, because you're doing your best to avoid answering simple questions.

MYOB wrote: »

In your personal, pre-set and biased opinion.

If the attempts to delay it by gibbering about impossible options are dropped, its far more likely it'll come in to the near term again.

Well you have yet to back up your views on why a HGV ban can't be put in place.

It's got to the stage ABP will have to get their questions answered first.

MYOB wrote: »

If any attempt is made to put a ban in place, it'll go to court. There'll be many more years of delay before the decision is made.

You or anybody else will need a legal bases to go to court.

In any case: It'll still be many more years before a bypass has any chance given funding issues, and unanswered questions asked by ABP.

MYOB wrote: »

But then again, you're against all road projects... (Blah, blah, blah, blah)

Back to your nonsence of attacking the poster rather dealing with the points. But I'll reply anyway for clarity...

No, I'm not against all road projects.

I'm not against the idea of a bypass at Slane, I'm generally very supportive of bypasses, I think a motorway network was needed (that does not preclude me from also thinking SOME of the network built was over kill), and there's still road upgrades needed around the country.

MYOB wrote: »

I am not responding to you on this, or any other road topic again until ....

Great, that's again up to your self. I'll still respond to you but I'll try to leave out the claims and counter claims of reprehensibility.

Irish and Proud · 29-12-2012 8:59pm

What we need in this country is co-operation between the various interests regarding transport, not competition. There are clear ways that all modes of transport can be accommodated for, and I mean properly accommodated for, while looking after our environment. In the case of Slane, a bypass is needed as is a more suitable route for cyclists etc. I used to cycle years ago and would very much appreciate an alternative to the steep gradients approaching Slane Bridge. I didn't actually cycle in Slane, but by a lot of experience on the bike (used to cycle for miles in the country), I can't imagine that the current set-up is cycle friendly. I would suggest a 4 metre greenway running parallel to the bypass road. Such a greenway should circumnavigate the proposed N2/N51 roundabout with priority over the traffic entering the village.

Now, whether or not we need a 4 lane bypass is another story - but if a parallel greenway was constructed, we could get away with a 1+1 on the bridge with overtaking lanes thereafter. This to me would be sustainable and realistic solution that would be good for everybody. Regarding the save Newgrange nonsense, how about saving Slane and it's heritage - a truck ban won't work - just look at a map covering the Boyne Valley (Drogheda, Slane, Navan etc). One thing I would say though is that with the Slane Bypass in place, trucks should be banned from using any urban or minor rural crossing of the Boyne (in the said area) unless very locally based.

BTW, I saw a specific anti-cycling website in the UK - more of the usual partisan BS. So now we have cycle bashing, auto bashing, rail bashing - it's funny really as a former cyclist that now drives and regularly uses the train and having recently thought my nephew to cycle - I really don't see myself fitting in.

SeanW · 30-12-2012 3:58am

monument wrote: »

Since the HGV ban, the Westlink is now part of the only suitable route from the N4 area and south of it to the port. You're tying to claim there's another way but you -- somehow -- can't name it.

That's key.

False, and you've been contradicted on this before: there are a number of Regional links between the N3 and the N4 for those not wishing to use the Westlink, hence the required alternatives are there.

https://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.359916,-6.446201&spn=0.002404,0.004823&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=53.359819,-6.446163&panoid=9GchVF8yTzUEDLZ9woTqRw&cbp=12,350.22,,0,5.61

What you have said to date is on par with the stuff the Freemen of the Land come out with... Are you a Freeman?

If lorries could be forced onto a toll road there would be a rake of towns that have HGV bans that currently do not. Including:

Lucan
Clonard
Abbyleix
Julianstown
Drogheda

Enfield, off the M4 has an HGV ban, but only because it has an inner bypass built before the M4. Maynooth also has an HGV ban, but the M4 is free past it.

This was all explained to you before.

I'm not against the idea of a bypass at Slane

That's bizarre because you used to be very anti-bypass, it was clear from previous posts that you were a member of Save Newgrange and you stated very clearly that you felt a bypass would be bad because it would come within X km of a 10km buffer zone around Newgrange.

You were also very explicit in your condemntation of the people of Slane on a number of occasions, making comments about them that were both too numerous and below-the-belt to be worth repeating.

Chris_5339762 · 30-12-2012 11:52am

SANITY says there should be a Slane bypass, not anything to do with cyclists/HGVs/etc. The current situation is complete madness and a lot of people need to wake up to the fact that the town needs a bypass urgently. It needs to be suitable as well, to prevent too much M1 toll dodging.

monument · 30-12-2012 12:36pm

SeanW wrote: »

False, and you've been contradicted on this before: there are a number of Regional links between the N3 and the N4 for those not wishing to use the Westlink, hence the required alternatives are there.

https://maps.google.ie/?ll=53.359916,-6.446201&spn=0.002404,0.004823&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=53.359819,-6.446163&panoid=9GchVF8yTzUEDLZ9woTqRw&cbp=12,350.22,,0,5.61

So, on a trip to the port from everywhere south of the Westlink, the R121 or the R149 counts as a reasonable alternative for HGVs, both distance wise and the quality of the roads?

If thst's the case there's a wide scope for planning a ban around Slane.

SeanW wrote: »

If lorries could be forced onto a toll road there would be a rake of towns that have HGV bans that currently do not. Including:
Lucan

Clonard

Abbyleix

Julianstown

Drogheda

Enfield, off the M4 has an HGV ban, but only because it has an inner bypass built before the M4. Maynooth also has an HGV ban, but the M4 is free past it.

You're still at the level of Freeman legal knowhow.

Just because bans are not in place does not mean they can't be.

SeanW wrote: »

FalseThis was all explained to you before.

And you were told before how you were wrong.

SeanW wrote: »

That's bizarre because you used to be very anti-bypass, it was clear from previous posts that you were a member of Save Newgrange and you stated very clearly that you felt a bypass would be bad because it would come within X km of a 10km buffer zone around Newgrange....

It just shows how much nonsence you are talking --

1. You're calling something I've already said a number of times on the thread "bizarre", while at the same time...

2. You're making up nonsense about me being a member of a group I've no connection with etc

Attacking the poster rather than dealing with points is getting tiresome, but it's a nice distraction for you as you can't deal with the points raised. Well, you try to deal with the points using Freeman-level legal knowhow (ie making stuff up).

SeanW · 30-12-2012 3:26pm

monument wrote: »

So, on a trip to the port from everywhere south of the Westlink, the R121 or the R149 counts as a reasonable alternative for HGVs, both distance wise and the quality of the roads?

Yes, the standards, as I understand, are very low.

If thst's the case there's a wide scope for planning a ban around Slane.

Lucan bridge is less than 4km from the Westlink. Any diversion around Slane would push traffic a much, much longer way around/

You're still at the level of Freeman legal knowhow.

I am not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be one.

Just because bans are not in place does not mean they can't be.

Then explain why these towns do not have HGV bans?

2. You're making up nonsense about me being a member of a group I've no connection with etc

Attacking the poster rather than dealing with points is getting tiresome, but it's a nice distraction for you as you can't deal with the points raised. Well, you try to deal with the points using Freeman-level legal knowhow (ie making stuff up).

My apologies, I just re-read the thread and I realised that the positions I had attributed to you (at least the most egregious of them) were actually those of tuathal, another user.

My mistake

monument · 30-12-2012 4:38pm

SeanW wrote: »

Yes, the standards, as I understand, are very low.

Lucan bridge is less than 4km from the Westlink. Any diversion around Slane would push traffic a much, much longer way around/

Going around takes much longer and the HGV ban area is so wide it forces diversions much longer than 4km.

The kind of ban I support would be something along the lines of what the ABP inspector describes around page 97 of his report. Focused on long distances travel and minimising risks for local truck movements. Taking out a large percentage of trucks alone lowers risk -- as seen in Dublin where permit holders are allowed inside the ban area -- and the traffic calming seems to have also done it bit so-far by lowering the frequency of incidents. Even with a bypass in place some HGVs will need to travel into the village.

As the inspector says, for long distance HGV traffic pushing trucks towards the M1 would not add much to their journeys.

SeanW wrote: »

I am not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to be one.

Then explain why these towns do not have HGV bans?

Before Dublin's ban was put in place there were many saying it was not legal and would not hold up to legal chalanges. The issue of many trucks being pushed towards the Westlink toll was a central one for some.

There could be many reasons why those places don't have bans - maybe including not having a road like the M1 so close by as a route for longer distance HGV trips.

Maybe those towns don't have problems like Slane does -- or like Dublin City did before its ban.

A lot of towns and villages still need bypasses and many may also be safer and better places with HGV bans -- but bypasses and bans are not needed everywhere, and, indeed, both measures may not be practical everywhere.

SeanW wrote: »

My apologies, I just re-read the thread and I realised that the positions I had attributed to you (at least the most egregious of them) were actually those of tuathal, another user.

My mistake

Thanks.

SeanW · 31-12-2012 4:22pm

Going around takes much longer and the HGV ban area is so wide it forces diversions much longer than 4km.

The point is twofold:

The alternative for traffic not wishing to use the Westlink exists. It's not great but its there.
The M50 did not replace any roads when it was built so no alternative had to be designated. This is different to the interurban motorways (especially tolled) where the old road becomes a numbered Regional (such as R148 for the old N4 etc) none of that was needed for the N50.

My understanding is that the legality of the quays lorry ban rests on the legality of the alternate route, including the provision of a toll free alternative for the tolled parts, which is there by virtue of the fact that the M50 didn't replace any road and the nearest Liffey crossing is free and unrestricted.

As the inspector says, for long distance HGV traffic pushing trucks towards the M1 would not add much to their journeys.

The towns of Drogheda and Julianstown, from what I've read, are already choked with toll-dodging traffic. If we accept, for the sake of this argument, that a lot of traffic on the N2 through Slane is going between Dublin and Monaghan, Derry or Donegal, and thusly could be rerouted M1 N33 N2, then all you're doing is shifting a problem from Slane to Drogheda/Julianstown.

As for local traffic, remember while the roads in Slane are bad, the roads in the vicinity, including all the Boyne crossings in a radius of ~10km, are as bad or worse.

Maybe those towns don't have problems like Slane does

They do: Drogheda and Julianstown off the M1 are choked with toll dodgers. The people running Enfield saw fit to impose a 3 ton ban in the town (inside the inner bypass, now part of the R148 that they got before the M4) but Clonard was not so lucky. Maynooth also has an HGV ban on the R148 but the M4 past there is free.

As I said, I am not a lawyer, I go by what I see on the ground and what I have seen, especially along the M4 corridor I am most familiar with, is that you can't just slap down tolls, HGV bans or Motorway Regulation Orders without having an alternative route.

lucernarian · 31-12-2012 4:53pm

monument wrote:

Going around takes much longer and the HGV ban area is so wide it forces diversions much longer than 4km.

The kind of ban I support would be something along the lines of what the ABP inspector describes around page 97 of his report. Focused on long distances travel and minimising risks for local truck movements. Taking out a large percentage of trucks alone lowers risk -- as seen in Dublin where permit holders are allowed inside the ban area -- and the traffic calming seems to have also done it bit so-far by lowering the frequency of incidents. Even with a bypass in place some HGVs will need to travel into the village.

As the inspector says, for long distance HGV traffic pushing trucks towards the M1 would not add much to their journeys.

Now, a situation where any trucks are using that almost-medieval bridge would still be an unacceptable outcome. This is the key point in this thread - that even if a HGV ban could or should be imposed for some of the truck traffic, there is still a definite need for a bypass of Slane as outlined by Meath and the NRA. I support efforts to get a HGV ban in place, if it were legally possible and did not put lives in danger somewhere else. But that would never change how Slane bridge is inherently unsafe to all forms of motorised traffic (and therefore other road users like pedestrians and cyclists) and that a new bridge crossing in the vicinity of the village is needed.

monument · 31-12-2012 5:19pm

SeanW wrote: »

The point is twofold:
The alternative for traffic not wishing to use the Westlink exists. It's not great but its there.

The M50 did not replace any roads when it was built so no alternative had to be designated. This is different to the interurban motorways (especially tolled) where the old road becomes a numbered Regional (such as R148 for the old N4 etc) none of that was needed for the N50.

My understanding is that the legality of the quays lorry ban rests on the legality of the alternate route, including the provision of a toll free alternative for the tolled parts, which is there by virtue of the fact that the M50 didn't replace any road and the nearest Liffey crossing is free and unrestricted.

If there's no limit on the quality or length of the diversion then it seems everything goes... any distance and any quality?

SeanW wrote: »

The towns of Drogheda and Julianstown, from what I've read, are already choked with toll-dodging traffic. If we accept, for the sake of this argument, that a lot of traffic on the N2 through Slane is going between Dublin and Monaghan, Derry or Donegal, and thusly could be rerouted M1 N33 N2, then all you're doing is shifting a problem from Slane to Drogheda/Julianstown.

I've already suggested:

A HGV ban could be put in place in both Slane and Drogheda, or
The M1 Drogheda toll could be removed for HGVs.

SeanW wrote: »

As for local traffic, remember while the roads in Slane are bad, the roads in the vicinity, including all the Boyne crossings in a radius of ~10km, are as bad or worse.

Local traffic can be managed as the inspector talking about, but with the Dublin ban you're taking distances many times larger than 10km detours to get to the port from the south / south west of Dublin.

SeanW wrote: »

As I said, I am not a lawyer, I go by what I see on the ground and what I have seen, especially along the M4 corridor I am most familiar with, is that you can't just slap down tolls, HGV bans or Motorway Regulation Orders without having an alternative route.

If we're taking that approach: Going by what I seen on the ground before the Dublin ban was in place I could have said it was legally imposable -- others did!

As the Office of the Ombudsman will contest -- the state often does not get it right when it comes to legal issues and often it will come down to a political rather than a legal point.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Now, a situation where any trucks are using that almost-medieval bridge would still be an unacceptable outcome. This is the key point in this thread - that even if a HGV ban could or should be imposed for some of the truck traffic, there is still a definite need for a bypass of Slane as outlined by Meath and the NRA. I support efforts to get a HGV ban in place, if it were legally possible and did not put lives in danger somewhere else. But that would never change how Slane bridge is inherently unsafe to all forms of motorised traffic (and therefore other road users like pedestrians and cyclists) and that a new bridge crossing in the vicinity of the village is needed.

Removing most higher risk vehicles would lower the risk in the short term while there's no chance of a bypass.

Slane Resident · 01-01-2013 12:07am

The HGV traffic currently using the N2 which could potentially be rerouted to the M1 was 16% maximum. What do you propose to do with the remaining 84%?

monument · 01-01-2013 12:09am

Slane Resident wrote: »

The HGV traffic currently using the N2 which could potentially be rerouted to the M1 was 16% maximum.

The ABP inspector does not seem convinced of that.

Slane Resident · 01-01-2013 1:25am

There was an issue raised as to the sufficiency of the traffic survey; he asked for a comprehensive survey to lay doubts to rest. The new survey had similar findings. Have you read it?

monument · 01-01-2013 12:17pm

Aecom estmated using traffic counts that "...45% of goods vehicles crossing Slane Bridge are longer distance movements that could be encouraged to transfer to the M1."

http://www.meath.ie/media/Media,50775,en.pdf#page42

Slane Resident · 01-01-2013 9:04pm

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.

monument · 01-01-2013 9:07pm

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."

Slane Resident · 01-01-2013 9:28pm

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.

monument · 01-01-2013 9:38pm

Slane Resident wrote: »

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?

Slane Resident · 01-01-2013 10:04pm

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.

monument · 01-01-2013 10:16pm

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.

Slane Resident · 01-01-2013 11:00pm

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. "

monument · 01-01-2013 11:28pm

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.

Slane Resident · 01-01-2013 11:35pm

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.

monument · 01-01-2013 11:43pm

Slane Resident wrote: »

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.

Slane Resident · 01-01-2013 11:57pm

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.

monument · 02-01-2013 1:13am

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...

Slane Resident wrote: »

Your quoted paragraph actually backs up my argument.

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

Slane Resident wrote: »

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?

Slane Resident · 02-01-2013 10:30am

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.

Slane Resident · 02-01-2013 10:53am

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.

SeanW · 02-01-2013 11:58am

Slane Resident wrote: »

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.

lucernarian · 02-01-2013 12:14pm

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.

monument · 02-01-2013 1:13pm

Slane Resident wrote: »

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.

Slane Resident wrote: »

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.

Slane Resident wrote: »

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.

Slane Resident wrote: »

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.

Slane Resident wrote: »

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.

Slane Resident wrote: »

"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.

Slane Resident wrote: »

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.

lucernarian · 13-01-2013 2:31pm

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...

SeanW · 13-01-2013 2:49pm

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

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.

monument · 13-01-2013 2:53pm

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

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.

N2 - Slane Bypass [planning decision pending]

Comments