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]

18911131431

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,810 ✭✭✭munchkin_utd


    According to this article, when the bridge was closed (2 weeks) for repairs, many trucks simply diverted to the small country roads causing mayhem for the local communities there <snip>
    no doubt the local communities were affected badly but on the face of it it's the case of a badly implemented diversion more than what a real HGV ban would look like.

    The diversion southbound should have been in place at Ardee sending people to the M1 (/free bridge across boyne at drogheda) but was instead only a last minute notice at Slane it seems.
    “There are HGVs and buses using Stackallen bridge as some people are not taking the official diversion from The Square at Slane to Navan and back to Balrath. This bridge is even less capable of taking this traffic than Slane bridge,” he said.
    simple solution, HGV ban on the back roads to Stackallen bridge leading off the main road so when a truck/ bus driver's sat nav tells them to go down a small road, they'll know its not suitable for them.


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


    its a simple reason why theres no traction on a truck ban.

    If the trucks are removed, then the danger is removed.
    If the danger is removed then the reason to have the by pass is removed.
    And then there's no chance of the bypass ever being built in the short or medium future if ever, not to mention theres no reason really to have the N2 as a primary route either (meaning then it'd be a regional road costing meath council money)

    so now the question is, how many lives will it take to be lost either force a bypass ahead OR a ban on trucks ?
    Because essentially its people's lives are being gambled by the locals and the council in the hope that a bypass gets through on the basis of previous lives lost.

    IMO, it's not just a question of trucks - no town or village should have a solid line (or lines in the case of Slane - N2 & N51) of traffic running through it. Slane is a very pretty village and should not be the focus of a major traffic interchange - so I'd wonder where's the heritage amid the official opponents to the Slane Bypass. The current bridge in Slane is very old and should not be subject to the abuse it gets today - that should only be for pedestrians, cyclists (and motor access to places in the immediate vicinity of the Boyne) - with the Bypass, the Boyne Bridge and its surrounds could become purely recreational with the potential for an attractive pedestrian stairway from the bridge towards the village - I believe a small road on Mill Hill would still be required for local access. Did ABP mention the character of Slane Village even once? - surely it should have been a consideration in the Ruling - to me, it seems to be all about protecting Newgrange or Knowth (which IMO there was never any danger to) according to UNESCO, and the M1 Toll - again, did ABP follow the proper procedures in making its decision?


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


    macgreine wrote: »
    I doubt if many people will be killed at Slane at least any more than in other places. The truth is that no one has been killed there since traffic calming measures were introduced in 2001. Its immoral to mis-use one's own dead to build a road that we cannot afford.
    Go back to the drawing board please Slane and start by the acceptance of sustainability.

    When it comes to sustainability, the problem is not with roads or railways etc, the problem is with current global economic practices. There's no solution to be found in simply building more infrastructure or not building any more infrastructure - the only solution is to be found in tearing up the current economic and social rulebook that has no place in the 21st century IMO.

    We need to start with the practices of built-obsolescence in manufacturing thereby drastically cutting down on waste and energy usage. We also need to address this whole thing of ownership and status which leads to unnecessary duplication and specification of goods - for example do we really need to have 2.0 litre engines in our cars - I have a 1.2 litre engine which suffices even on the motorway IMO. Do we all need big cars - after all, not all of us have families to look after. Is there a need for every individual house to have utilities such as washing machines (in this one out of many examples, we can all have a washing machine, but do we all really need to individually own one) which are often manufactured to low specs in terms of durability - should we not be aiming to share some of these utilities which would be made to last, thereby drastically cutting energy usage in manufacturing - hence, future housing developments should place a greater emphasis on communal facilities. Also, with the internet becoming more and more prevalent in our livelihoods, there has never been a greater opportunity to collectively share more resources - car pooling etc - I won't go into any further detail there.

    However, when the issue to sustainability comes up, the above will always be along the lines of the answer I'll give - I'm not interested in hearing that driving a car is not a good thing while far more errant practices go on - especially in manufacturing and uncontrolled property development. If the situation regarding Global Warming etc is so urgent, then surely the points I made above would be extremely pertinent by now.

    Regards!


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Slane Resident


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

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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 429 ✭✭johnners2981


    macgreine wrote: »
    I doubt if many people will be killed at Slane at least any more than in other places. The truth is that no one has been killed there since traffic calming measures were introduced in 2001. Its immoral to mis-use one's own dead to build a road that we cannot afford.
    Go back to the drawing board please Slane and start by the acceptance of sustainability.

    Saving lives? Meh. It's all about cutting 5 minutes off my journey. I'm devastated this didn't go ahead


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


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

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

    I presume that's from the inspector's report and if so, it looks to me like procedures were not followed correctly by ABP - if anyone can get their hands on the legislation governing ABP, there could well be a point of law favouring those backing the Slane Bypass - in short there could be a possible court case here - especially if ABP's findings directly contradict that of the inspector - after all, didn't ABP say that an alternative solution to the bypass was not sufficiently looked into by Meath CC / NRA - is this not a direct contradiction to the quote above??? Not enough evidence by MCC / NRA, but yet the above from within ABP itself! :rolleyes:

    Let's find out more!


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    The inspector said a lot of things about a HGV ban, including...
    Environmental Impact Assessment Process
    ...The discussion of alternatives is queried in that they deal with route alternatives only; there is no explanation as to why a dual carriageway has been selected, why a western route was not considered and why a HGV ban was not considered...

    Extent of Development
    ...The possibility of imposing a ban on heavy goods vehicles was discussed at length at the hearing. If the numbers of HGVs crossing Slane Bridge could be reduced to an acceptable level, then this would effectively be an alternative meriting further consideration. This option is not mentioned in the discussion of alternatives in the EIS but is referred to indirectly in that the opening of the M1 route at Drogheda, together with the traffic management and interim safety measures introduced at Slane Bridge, is stated to have dealt to some extent with the traffic safety and congestion problems in Slane. I see further consideration of the practicalities of the imposition of a ban on HGVs crossing Slane Bridge as reasonable, as part of the process of informing the Board on all aspects of the proposed development...

    (My underlining and bolding)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 51 ✭✭tuathal


    The Irish Times article from yesterday has a very significant statement in it from the NRA:
    "However, the National Roads Authority (NRA) said the board’s decision “rejects any proposed bypass of Slane and is focused on a traffic-management solution”. This was “disappointing especially for the people of Slane, but the NRA accepts the decision”.
    The NRA was told last year to finish planning on all current road schemes and it does not have a budget to prepare a new route."

    No matter which side of the bypass argument you are on, one thing is clear now - the NRA acccepts that there will be no bypass.

    That leaves only one option - a HGV ban of some kind. It would be good to see people taking that on board, and trying to find the best solution here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 420 ✭✭Green Diesel


    If planning had been granted, was the budget there to begin construction?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 51 ✭✭tuathal


    If planning had been granted, was the budget there to begin construction?

    No. There wasn't going be funding until at least 2016, according to the Minister. However, there was talk of him making funds available for land purchase, if permisison was granted, to get it "shovel-ready".


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


    monument wrote: »
    The inspector said a lot of things about a HGV ban, including...<snip>

    Many thanks for the link BTW - I'm browsing through the report ATM, but a complete reading of it will take some time though. I've just being reading the inspector's findings in relation to Visual Impact and Noise Impact (page 70-73) and he went into it in pretty deep detail - in the end, he concluded that the proposed development would be well within the bounds of acceptability regarding both Newgrange and Knowth in terms of Visual Impact and Noise Impact.

    Still reading...


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


    I've just read an interesting bit starting from page 86 (6.6.2 - Road Design Standard Alternatives). The following is my understanding of same:

    Basically, the inspector recommends that the Southern section of the bypass proceeds as the proposed Type 2 Dual (due to steep gradients), but that the Northern section is reduced to single carriageway in line with the N2 North of Slane - he also recommends retaining the design speed of 100kph (as the road would be rural) plus the roundabout junctions. However, he stated a possibility of investigation into making the roundabout exits, which lead into the village, more difficult to negotiate (I presume it's for traffic calming purposes).

    Regards!


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    1,260 HGVs which are travelling to local points not served by the M1, according to an NRA study.

    per hour/ per annum?

    on the n2 route or on the N51 or other roads?


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


    Now, this is very interesting...

    6.7.1 - Forms of Heavy Goods Vehicle Ban (Page 96) -

    This is my understanding of it:

    Options examined by the Inspector:

    1) Total Traffic Ban on Slane Bridge: Dismissed!

    2) Total HGV Ban on Slane Bridge: Dismissed!

    3) Total Southbound HGV Ban on Slane Bridge: Dismissed!

    4) Long Distance HGV Ban on Slane Bridge: No Satisfactory Non-tolled Alternative!

    Regarding a non-tolled alternative to the N2 through Slane - this is what the inspector had to say:
    <snip>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.

    Regards!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15 SlaneMan


    I have read the inspectors report (http://www.pleanala.ie/HA0026/HA0026.htm) and it is a mystery why the board decided to ignore their own inspector and decide to terminate the planning process for the bypass. They could have agreed with the inspector and asked for further information but they did not. It is not clear why they did this. Why would you stop a planning process that has been going on since 2005 instead of asking for whatever information is missing ? Very odd….

    As a result of this decision to refuse instead of asking for further information the entire process must be started over again. Meanwhile the citizens of Slane and those that pass through it must hope that no more accidents occur.

    The objectors did get their way I will admit. Interestingly though, we will now find out if the famous ‘silver bullet’ HGV ban will solve the problems as they have been lecturing us for the some time now.

    Just to jog our memory…. a while back ‘Anti-Coalition’ on political world who is probably a twin brother of ‘Tuathl’ on boards.ie who might even be related to a one time Trinity college serial objector said the following when challenged on how he would implement a HGV ban in Slane

    http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=9869&page=4

    “It would work very simply. A sign is put up one each end of Slane that says "No HGVs." Signs are also erected north and south of the village telling HGVs that they cannot pass through the village. The ban could be lifted at night, to allow for deliveries. All of the through-traffic would be diverted to the M1 motorway, which is just on the other side of Bru na Boinne.”

    Alas, the reality is a bit more complicated. Pages 96 to 103 of the ABP inspectors report (linked above) detail the challenge of a ban. The last few sentences state:

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

    Separately, there has already been a study of a HGV ban by the council and NRO. This is posted here
    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=363224650376652&set=o.286896560291&type=1&theater
    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=363224907043293&set=o.286896560291&type=1&theater
    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=363225077043276&set=o.286896560291&type=1&theater
    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=363225330376584&set=o.286896560291&type=1&theater
    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=363225613709889&set=o.286896560291&type=1&theater

    This HGV ban is a complete red herring. Fair dues to the objectors - somehow they managed to get the ABP board to see their point of view even though the inspector, who is a professional planner, disagreed. The dogs in the street know that a HGV ban will simply push the problem into some other unfortunate community.

    But hold on, why are we discussing a HGV ban at all? It is (we are told by ABP) because the bypass would be threat to Bru Na Boinne. Ok, what exactly is the ‘threat’?

    This
    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=102116906487429&set=o.286896560291&type=1&theater
    is a computer generated image of the view from Knowth before and after bridge is built. Can you see the bridge ?

    At the hearing the objectors asserted that the computer generated images were not enough. So, instead ABP asked the council to conduct a ‘balloon test’ where two large 5m balloons were flown at the height of both ends of the proposed bridge. This is what we all saw.

    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=207374749279664&set=o.286896560291&type=1&theater

    If the red arrows were not there would you be able to spot the balloons? No and that is because the new bridge will be a mile and a half from Knowth. In fact, the existing road and traffic is more visible from Knowth than the proposed new bridge and road. The reality is that the bypass and bridge will actually improve the view from Knowth as the traffic will be transferred to a new bridge much less visible in the view from Knowth.

    BTW, this picture was also taken from Knowth http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=207301729286966&set=o.286896560291&type=1&teater
    The house on the right is where the principal objector lives – overlooking the site of the new bridge. I will let you draw your own conclusions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15 SlaneMan


    macgreine stated

    "I doubt if many people will be killed at Slane at least any more than in other places. The truth is that no one has been killed there since traffic calming measures were introduced in 2001"

    Perhaps you should ask the people who were incredibly lucky to still be alive after the the nine car pile up in 2009 ?

    The reality is that accidents in Slane are no longer national news because they happen so frequently. Here is a sample of what has been happening since 2001:

    http://www.meathchronicle.ie/news/meatheast/articles/2011/02/23/4003291-litany-of-devastating-slane-bridge-accidents-recounted-at-oral-hearing/

    http://www.meathchronicle.ie/news/meatheast/articles/2008/09/24/31315-truck-driver034s-amazing-escape-after-slane-bridge-plunge/

    http://www.meathchronicle.ie/news/meatheast/articles/2009/06/03/40180-lorry-sheds-part-of-load-near-slane-bridge

    http://www.meathchronicle.ie/news/meatheast/articles/2010/12/08/4002025-slane-among-worst-affected-local-villages/

    http://www.meathchronicle.ie/news/meatheast/articles/2009/03/25/37513-speed-up-bypass-call-follows-ninecar-pileup/

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0323/rta1.html

    macgreine , would you prefer if we waited for more deaths before we address what is obviously an ongoing serious threat to public safety in Slane?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15 SlaneMan


    macgreine

    Here is one more for you

    http://www.meathchronicle.ie/news/meatheast/articles/2011/07/06/4005352-fire-service-tackle-truck-blaze-near-slane/

    What would have happened if the truck stopped in the middle of the village ? What would have happened if the truck contained dangerous chemicals ?

    Where else would thisd be permitted ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8 Rsc12


    Posted on FB:

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

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

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

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


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Rsc12 wrote: »
    Posted on FB:

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

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

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

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

    Perhaps he was commenting on the same survey that Slane Resident has seen:
    1,260 HGVs which are travelling to local points not served by the M1, according to an NRA study.

    NRA only deal in daily counts so that's a significant amount of HGVs going through a small village that don't appear to have an alternative route.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8 Rsc12


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


    Slane Bypass Oral Hearing - 18th Feb 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    PS: Didnt include the negatives and therefore fundamentally flawed.

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

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

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

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

    Deputy O Byrne to the stand: FG

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

    Shane Mc Entee to the stand: FG TD

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

    Mac Eochaidh ( Council for Mr Rodgers) :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Prof George Eoghan to the stand:

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

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

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

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

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

    PS then gave presentation Swans and Snails:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Q. Mr Baxter ( Owns Hill of Slane)

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

    Inspector: Do you own the buildings?

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

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

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

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

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

    K: Specific areas- east and west

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Inspector: Is towpath continuous?

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

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

    Q: Any comment about discovery of quartz on site?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


    Rsc12 wrote: »
    Ian Lumley concludes: Long conclusion very eloquent and to the point, some main points here-

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Just want to get this off my chest: There are no motorways designated as the M33 from Ardee or M2 going through Slane - the roads in question are all-purpose routes - same are designated as the N33 and N2 - the M2 is in fact an 8 mile stretch of motorway between Cherryhound (J2 North of the M50) and the Rath Roundabout (North of Ashbourne). IMO, these errors are inexcusable at this level.

    However, I do agree that the N2 and N3 should have been combined as one motorway which could have linked into the M50 at J5 near Finglas where the area is considerably less built up thereby giving rise to increased land availability for higher speed inter-motorway connectors. More pertinent nowadays, an N2 based motorway would probably have avoided the Tara area and Skryne Valley altogether. If the motorway was to proceed from Balrath towards the North of Navan and the South of Kells thereafter, the N51 could have been combined from Navan and routed directly towards the N52 via a short link road from the motorway. However, a bypass of Slane would still have been required in that case (for more local traffic as the ABP inspector agrees). For once, I concur with An Taisce that provision should be made for the restoration of the Boyne Navigation including the towpath.

    On the issue of necessity regarding N2 traffic through Slane Village, people do live in rural Meath and don't live a frugal existence - there seems to be a lot of arrogance (and ignorance for that matter) on the part of objectors towards the people of Meath - I would like to remind such people that this is Meath where people live and not Disneyland.

    Regards!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15 SlaneMan


    A few points:

    1.I am not a fan of politicians in general but Mr Hannigan has a very relevant CV for this case (from Wiki)

    “Hannigan was born in Drogheda, County Louth. He was educated at University College Dublinwith a degree in Civil Engineering, at the City University London with a Masters in Transport and at the University of London with a Masters in Finance.[4] “

    2. The HGV ban is BS. If you spend half an hour examining a map you can see for yourself that it just won’t work. Contrary to what some of the arrogant posters are saying here and in the letters page of the IT, people do live and do business between Ardee and the M50. Even if long distance HGVs were magically removed there would still be a huge safety problems with local HGVs and the many thousands cars that pass thru Slane every day. Fact: A major proportion of the accidents in Slane do not involve HGVs

    3. The core issue is BnB. There is no ‘damage’ to the site. The bridge is far off minor feature in the distance when seen from Knowth (one and half miles away). Fact: The new road/bridge will actually be less visible that the existing N2.

    If there is no damage to BNs then why are we having this endless debate about a totally impractical HGV ban that would not even solve the safety problems in Slane? MCC did look into it and quickly realized it was a dead end. They could have spent more money on even more studies but this would be a bit like having a study is determine if the sky is blue or red.

    There was more info produced at the Oral hearing which backed this up (see links above). Fair dues to the John Rogers legal people – they did exploit the law which says that alternatives must be looked at. Perhaps next time they will stop it because MCC did not look into the alternative of flying cars?

    Why did the ABP board ignore their own inspectors request for more info on the alternative of a HGV ban and instead bring the entire process to a halt thereby ensuring that the process has to start all over again? The reason given was that the request for extra information would have been unreasonable. This is either incompetence or something else. Any request for extra info would be minimal effort compared to the time spent so far on the proposal.


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


    SlaneMan wrote: »
    A few points:

    1.I am not a fan of politicians in general but Mr Hannigan has a very relevant CV for this case (from Wiki)

    “Hannigan was born in Drogheda, County Louth. He was educated at University College Dublinwith a degree in Civil Engineering, at the City University London with a Masters in Transport and at the University of London with a Masters in Finance.[4] “

    2. The HGV ban is BS. If you spend half an hour examining a map you can see for yourself that it just won’t work. Contrary to what some of the arrogant posters are saying here and in the letters page of the IT, people do live and do business between Ardee and the M50. Even if long distance HGVs were magically removed there would still be a huge safety problems with local HGVs and the many thousands cars that pass thru Slane every day. Fact: A major proportion of the accidents in Slane do not involve HGVs

    3. The core issue is BnB. There is no ‘damage’ to the site. The bridge is far off minor feature in the distance when seen from Knowth (one and half miles away). Fact: The new road/bridge will actually be less visible that the existing N2.

    If there is no damage to BNs then why are we having this endless debate about a totally impractical HGV ban that would not even solve the safety problems in Slane? MCC did look into it and quickly realized it was a dead end. They could have spent more money on even more studies but this would be a bit like having a study is determine if the sky is blue or red.

    There was more info produced at the Oral hearing which backed this up (see links above). Fair dues to the John Rogers legal people – they did exploit the law which says that alternatives must be looked at. Perhaps next time they will stop it because MCC did not look into the alternative of flying cars?

    Why did the ABP board ignore their own inspectors request for more info on the alternative of a HGV ban and instead bring the entire process to a halt thereby ensuring that the process has to start all over again? The reason given was that the request for extra information would have been unreasonable. This is either incompetence or something else. Any request for extra info would be minimal effort compared to the time spent so far on the proposal.

    What seems clear to me is that democracy was certainly not the winner regarding the ABP decision - it seems that foreign pen-pushers and narrow interests were put before the people - and that's despite the backing of FF, FG & Lab (all of which I normally have no time for) - there is a serious democratic deficit and IMO, the time has come for urgent legislation to restore the balance of power in this country! Maybe we should start a petition!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 51 ✭✭tuathal


    Reading the Inspector's Report is a fruitless exercise, as it is the Order of the Board that counts. Many decisions are made by the Board, contradicting the advice of the Inspector.

    Even if the Board had approved this bypass, it would have been at least six years before it would have been delivered - and there was still a need for an interim traffic management solution. Now there has to be a permanent one.

    If this is all aout saving lives, then what is everyone waiting for?


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


    tuathal wrote: »
    Reading the Inspector's Report is a fruitless exercise, as it is the Order of the Board that counts. Many decisions are made by the Board, contradicting the advice of the Inspector.<snip>

    ...which probably gives weight to the concept of legislative change - I'm reading the report in order to inform myself rather than coming to conclusions too quickly. What I'm trying to investigate now is the moral validity of ABP's decision among others - for example, the decision by ABP to uphold the routing of the M3 through the Tara/Skryne Valley would seem rather dodgy, especially when a Western route (on the Dunshaughlin to Navan section) would have seemed far less intrusive and far more beneficial to motorists in the context of the entire M3 scheme. Given the shorter route, there may have been more scope to extend the M3 beyond Kells with the same money - in other words, straightening out a 50km piece of string - of course, there was the N2 option that myself an anther poster mentioned regarding a new Navan motorway. Didn't the inspector recommend refusal of the now operational M3 too? - lovely road, but would have been far better on a Western route or the suggested route along part of the current N2. In short, is ABP functioning properly? - that for me is the most pertinent question now!

    Regards!


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,944 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    tuathal wrote: »
    Even if the Board had approved this bypass, it would have been at least six years before it would have been delivered
    What is your basis for this statement? It would have started next year.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,687 ✭✭✭✭jack presley


    spacetweek wrote: »
    tuathal wrote: »
    Even if the Board had approved this bypass, it would have been at least six years before it would have been delivered
    What is your basis for this statement? It would have started next year.

    Wasn't this one of the projects culled by Varadkar recently?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 51 ✭✭tuathal


    That's a very fascinating exercise Irish - but toally divorced from reality.

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

    The rest of us should untie and demand a study be done, by an independent transport consultancy, so that the best possible traffic management solution is put in pllace.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 51 ✭✭tuathal


    Wasn't this one of the projects culled by Varadkar recently?

    Technically, it was postponed. 2016 was the expected date of commencement of construction. The NRA said they didn't even have the money to buy the land, and get it shovel read. But Varadkar apparently promised that cash, if APB approved it. Now, it is dead in the water completely. The NRA has clearly stated it accepts the APB decision - and interprets the decision to say that no bypass proposal will be approved for Slane.

    A traffic management solution must be found.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,713 ✭✭✭SeanW


    An HGV ban won't solve the fundamental problems, as I understand them. It won't do anything about the fact that the N2 National Primary Road that faces some ridiculous inclines, a number of hairpin bends, and a 400 year old listed bridge that is totally incapable of dealing with 20th century traffic, let alone 21st century. The decision to scrap the bypass because some authorities didn't faff about with enough studies, or that it's "too close to a buffer zone" when the buffer zone is just that - a buffer - is both troubling and bizarre.

    An HGV ban will only send lorries down other roads. Even if we accept that with the M1 and N33, lorries using the N2 to get to Monaghan and Derry are "toll dodging," the probability that an HGV ban will force the affected lorries onto the Drogheda bypass is close to 0. More likely it will result in them going through Drogheda town or on local roads between Drogheda and Slane.


Advertisement