N2 - Slane Bypass [planning decision pending]

tuathal

To answer a couple of posters, I have read the Inspectors Report, and the Order. I agree they are difficult to digest, and indeed the Inspector does ask the council to come back with a new proposal. But the Inspectors Report is just that, and there have been numerous cases where the Board has acted against the advice of the Inspector. We could go on and on about that, but the reality is that the NRA has no money to make a new proposal, and also interprets the Order as being a block to any future bypass plan for the Slane area.

That only leaves two alternatives.

1. Do nothing.

2. Implement a HGV ban.

I would like to see them implement the HGV ban. Now, there are a lot of people on here who seem to have it all figured out, and are cock sure that it won't work. But what is the harm in testing it? That is the only way we will know for once and for all if it will work.

What is wrong with spending a small amount of money on developing the best HGV ban possible, if it has a chance of saving lives?

If it fails, then the case for the bypass is enhanced, and work should begin on a new route.

But to say it won't work, when there has been no definitive study, and no attempt to implement a trial version, makes no sense at all. Frankly, it smacks of some other agenda.

tuathal

MYOB wrote: »

Sounds like denial to me

Read your posts on the day of the rejection and see how few of them even resemble the reality of the report. You were lording it over, accusing people of being FF (still) and acting as if they'd decided it was running over the top of Newgrange.

Telling MCC to reconsider - and return showing there are no other routes that are suitable - isn't anywhere close to what you wanted, or what you seemed to believe the result was.

Ah I see what you mean. That is where the Order and the Report diverge. Reading the Inspectors Report, it does appear that the denial of permission is just a small blip in the process, and that MCC can come back with a few more reports, and all will be well.

The reason I was worked up was the response of the NRA, and their interpretation of the Order, which is a much more extreme position - that only a traffic management solution will be approved.

The end result goes further than I expected. I did feel that the route was too close to Newgrange, but that another route could be found. I am not anti-bypass, and I am definitely pro-HGV ban.

I love the village of Slane, and have done ever since I saw the Rolling Stones there in ... 1982 !? I love the heritage at Newgrange, and want it to keep its integrity, and I also abhor the HGVs rolling through the village, the way they do - avoiding the tolls and robbing the taxpayer, on top of endangering lives.

The fact that so many people refuse to even consider implementing a HGV ban is truly shocking to me, when there is such a dire and immediate threat to human life in Slane.

L1011

tuathal wrote: »

The fact that so many people refuse to even consider implementing a HGV ban is truly shocking to me, when there is such a dire and immediate threat to human life in Slane.

Consider it all you want, there is no alternative route. If trucks want to avoid the tolls - and "rob" a private firm as that toll has been run by the PPP that built the Dundalk Bypass since roughly 2005 - they go through Julianstown and Drogheda, not Slane.

Why you seem to think the result of the "consultation" MCC are undertaking will be anything other than "can't be done, apply again" astounds me.

If you feel the route is "too close" to Newgrange, maybe you can convince UNESCO to extend their standard boundaries. Its outside it, hence it is not too close.

spacetweek

Fundamentally the HGV ban wouldn't work because it is based on the false starting point that the big issue in Slane is trucks. It isn't, it's heavy traffic using a dangerous hill and bridge. The ban won't stop car traffic from passing along an unsuitable route.

Next steps: MCC conduct a study into the ban, it reveals that one would not be possible, the NRA resubmit planning permission for the bypass, permission is granted, bypass is built. Sadly, this will all take so long that it's likely the route could see a few fatalities and many serious injuries in the meantime.

tuathal

MYOB wrote: »

Consider it all you want, there is no alternative route. If trucks want to avoid the tolls - and "rob" a private firm as that toll has been run by the PPP that built the Dundalk Bypass since roughly 2005 - they go through Julianstown and Drogheda, not Slane.

Why you seem to think the result of the "consultation" MCC are undertaking will be anything other than "can't be done, apply again" astounds me.

If you feel the route is "too close" to Newgrange, maybe you can convince UNESCO to extend their standard boundaries. Its outside it, hence it is not too close.

You obviously don't know much about toll roads in Ireland. The State gets a share of the toll revenue. Normally, the contracts aren't published, so we don't know the exact terms of the agreement for the M1, but we do get indications from time to time.

Last June the Irish Times published an article about the cost of the M3 motorway, due to shadow tolling. It contained the following statement from the NRA:

The subvention on the M3 for October to December that year cost €547,000. Utilising the revenue from the M1 and M4 for the entire year still left a shortfall of €317,000.

So, it is clear that there is state income from the M1 toll -and income that is being lost due to the toll being avoided in Slane.

I agree with you that MCC is unlikely to give a thumbs up to the HGV ban, because the HGV ban will reduce traffic through the village, and undermine the economic argument for the bypass. That is why the study needs to be done independently. It may even require HGV bans in other villages as well, which would not be a bad thing. We paid billions for motorways, so why should secondary roads be bombarded unecessarily, when we don't now even have the money to maintain them?

I think pressure needs to be put on the Minister to ensure that a proper HGV study is done, and it will be pretty obvious if the MCC study is a whitewash.

Your view of the UNESCO boundary is simplistic. Yes, there is a case for extending it, and that was already under consideration by a review group, working on the management plan, before the route was published. The case was strenghtened by various discoveries of sites that were related to the main sites.

In Irish law, the definition of a national monument includes the "setting" of the monument - which extends well beyond the actual property line. That same principle applies here to the World Heritage Site.

MCC picked an independent heritage consultant, Dr Comer, from the US to evaluate the scheme.

His opinion was that "no other outcome (other than rejection of planning permission) was possible" on the basis of the application.

You can cry aout it all you like, but that was the correct decision. This is bourne out by the fact that MCC is not taking judicial review.

By the way. one not so obvious reason for the denial of planning permission is the concept of "cumulative effects", in the EIA Directive. Objectors argued that the bypass must be seen in the context of other developments in the area - the big one being the M1, which shaves the other side of the World Heritage Site. When that was built, the Site was not even mentioned in the EIS - and An Bord Pleanala gave permission on a flawed application. The Board clearly had egg on their face after that stroke by the NRA and MCC.

UNESCO came over on a fact finding mission afterwards, were appalled, and gave a damning report. The bypass would have been a step too far, and risked the Site losing its status as a UNESCO site.

tuathal

spacetweek wrote: »

Fundamentally the HGV ban wouldn't work because it is based on the false starting point that the big issue in Slane is trucks. It isn't, it's heavy traffic using a dangerous hill and bridge. The ban won't stop car traffic from passing along an unsuitable route.

Next steps: MCC conduct a study into the ban, it reveals that one would not be possible, the NRA resubmit planning permission for the bypass, permission is granted, bypass is built. Sadly, this will all take so long that it's likely the route could see a few fatalities and many serious injuries in the meantime.

1600 HGVs a day pass through Slane. I would have to disagree that banning them won't reduce problems.

In addition, it has always been envisaged that the HGV ban would work in conjunction with other traffic calming measures.

Again, if people are so concerned about safety, then why don't they pressure MCC to get a proper study done, and have a HGV ban implemented? That is the only way this argument is going to be resolved, for once and for all.

Instead, all I am hearing is a lot of moaning about a 'bad' decision, when it is obvious that the NRA and MCC completely screwed this up, and submitted a flawed appliction, costing millions of euros, and wasting years of work.

The study and ban would cost a tiny fraction of the cost of the bypass. So, why are so many people saying - 'do nothing' instead?

L1011

tuathal wrote: »

You obviously don't know much about toll roads in Ireland. The State gets a share of the toll revenue. Normally, the contracts aren't published, so we don't know the exact terms of the agreement for the M1, but we do get indications from time to time.

I know plenty about them. The income the state gets is a tiny fraction. Not enough to justify some hyperbole about "robbing the state". They get more from the VAT. Probably actually make more from the extra fuel duty from the extra fuel the trucks dodging the M1 toll - through Julianstown and Drogheda - use in the process.

tuathal wrote: »

I agree with you that MCC is unlikely to give a thumbs up to the HGV ban, because the HGV ban will reduce traffic through the village, and undermine the economic argument for the bypass.

That's not agreeing with me, thats pretending to agree with me.

A HGV ban cannot be implemented due to no alternative route - not due to it "undermining" anything.

tuathal wrote: »

That is why the study needs to be done independently. It may even require HGV bans in other villages as well, which would not be a bad thing. We paid billions for motorways, so why should secondary roads be bombarded unecessarily, when we don't now even have the money to maintain them?

A national primary road is not a 'secondary road'

If a report is done and states that a ban can't be done due to no alternative route, what are you going to pretend the report says then?

tuathal wrote: »

Your view of the UNESCO boundary is simplistic. Yes, there is a case for extending it, and that was already under consideration by a review group, working on the management plan, before the route was published. The case was strenghtened by various discoveries of sites that were related to the main sites.

If the case was strenghtened, why is it not being extended then?

tuathal wrote: »

In Irish law, the definition of a national monument includes the "setting" of the monument - which extends well beyond the actual property line. That same principle applies here to the World Heritage Site.

You've seen the balloon test photos I presume? It impacts not one bit on its "setting". Vehicles using it will be less visible than those on the N2.

tuathal wrote: »

You can cry aout it all you like, but that was the correct decision. This is bourne out by the fact that MCC is not taking judicial review.

Why would you take a judicial review when you can just reapply after showing there's no other suitable routes? You're really trying to invent a strawman here.

You're the one crying here - because the planning decision didn't agree with any of your claims at all.

tuathal wrote: »

UNESCO came over on a fact finding mission afterwards, were appalled, and gave a damning report. The bypass would have been a step too far, and risked the Site losing its status as a UNESCO site.

"risked" - as in, it wasn't actually going to lose it. Let UNESCO be appalled all the want - the bypass is not in their boundary zone.

L1011

tuathal wrote: »

The study and ban would cost a tiny fraction of the cost of the bypass. So, why are so many people saying - 'do nothing' instead?

You can't ban HGVs without somewhere for them to go. Why do you avoid dealing with this?

Due to ABP, money is now going to be wasted on a report saying exactly what we already know - that HGVs can't be banned without an alternative route - and the application will go back in supported by same.

You seem to believe that you can just ban HGVs from a national primary route and that they'll just magically disappear. They don't.

I live in a town that has a HGV ban and isn't on a national primary, secondary or indeed particularly important R road - yet the ban required a decade of planning; a new motorway junction; the upgrading of many other R roads and the comprehensive signing of the HGV routes around the town in all directions.

That was only possible *because* there was an alternative route - many of them, in fact. There isn't even one for Slane.

tuathal

MYOB wrote: »

I know plenty about them. The income the state gets is a tiny fraction. Not enough to justify some hyperbole about "robbing the state". They get more from the VAT. Probably actually make more from the extra fuel duty from the extra fuel the trucks dodging the M1 toll - through Julianstown and Drogheda - use in the process.

MYOB wrote: »

That's not agreeing with me, thats pretending to agree with me.
A HGV ban cannot be implemented due to no alternative route - not due to it "undermining" anything.

You keep using your conclusion as your argument. Your opinion is that there is no other route for north south HGVs. That is your opinion, and not based on any definitive study. You don't know exactly how many HGVs are cross-Border, Dublin to Belfast and other long distance routes - for which there is no alternative route needed.

MYOB wrote: »

If a report is done and states that a ban can't be done due to no alternative route, what are you going to pretend the report says then?

Given that a large proportion of HGV traffic is Dublin to Belfast, for which there is no alternative needed, then it is not a question of whether a ban will help, it is a question of how much it will help alleviate danger in Slane. There is really only one way to find that out - and that is to put in the ban. Why are you so against that, when it can only help, and not hurt the traffic situation in Slane?

MYOB wrote: »

If the case was strenghtened, why is it not being extended then?

Because it takes a long time. UNESCO only meets once a year, and the process is still under way. For some reason, I don't think it is a big concern for the current Government...any more than it was for the last...

MYOB wrote: »

You've seen the balloon test photos I presume? It impacts not one bit on its "setting". Vehicles using it will be less visible than those on the N2.

I think the massive bridge proposed, which was going to be highly visible - was of more concern than the cars themselves, which were of course going to be louder, since they were much closer.

MYOB wrote: »

Why would you take a judicial review when you can just reapply after showing there's no other suitable routes? You're really trying to invent a strawman here.

The cost of taking a judicial review is much much less than reapplying. If they were convinced of their case, they would be running into court, believe me.

MYOB wrote: »

You're the one crying here - because the planning decision didn't agree with any of your claims at all.

The Inspectors Report doesn't agree with all of my objections, but it does with most. And the Order does reflect my objection, so you are certainly grabbing at straws there

MYOB wrote: »

"risked" - as in, it wasn't actually going to lose it. Let UNESCO be appalled all the want - the bypass is not in their boundary zone.

I said risked losing its status. This whole exercise has been a risk assessment process. The other main risk was that it would be too significant an impact on the environment, when other alternatives were available.

MCC won't be able to prove that the HGV ban won't work without actually putting it in and trying it. If they think the Board is simply going to fall for another of their self-serving reports, I think they are about to waste a few more million of our taxpayers' money, and risk more lives in the process.

But obviously you are OK with that.

L1011

tuathal wrote: »

You keep using your conclusion as your argument. Your opinion is that there is no other route for north south HGVs. That is your opinion, and not based on any definitive study. You don't know exactly how many HGVs are cross-Border, Dublin to Belfast and other long distance routes - for which there is no alternative route needed.

There is no other route north-south for *any* vehicles.

Dublin-Belfast traffic is not going to divert through Slane to avoid a toll when Julianstown & Drogheda would be far quicker, shorter and fuel efficient. Suggesting that is another hilariously poor attempt at inventing a strawman on your part.

tuathal wrote: »

Given that a large proportion of HGV traffic is Dublin to Belfast, for which there is no alternative needed, then it is not a question of whether a ban will help, it is a question of how much it will help alleviate danger in Slane. There is really only one way to find that out - and that is to put in the ban. Why are you so against that, when it can only help, and not hurt the traffic situation in Slane?

There won't be a ban because there *can't* be a ban. Stop using strawmen.

tuathal wrote: »

Because it takes a long time. UNESCO only meets once a year, and the process is still under way. For some reason, I don't think it is a big concern for the current Government...any more than it was for the last...

It was far more than a year ago that this issue was being churned over.

Area won't be extended, bypass won't be in area, issue is moot. Stop trying to claw on to it.

tuathal wrote: »

I think the massive bridge proposed, which was going to be highly visible - was of more concern than the cars themselves, which were of course going to be louder, since they were much closer.

Clearly you didn't actually read the report then. It won't be any more visible than the current road.

Also, a 2+2 bridge is actually smaller than many single carriageway bridges built recently. "Massive" = hyperbole, again.

tuathal wrote: »

The cost of taking a judicial review is much much less than reapplying. If they were convinced of their case, they would be running into court, believe me.

There's nothing to take a judicial review *on*. The order was to go back and prove its required. As always, you're inventing strawmen.

tuathal wrote: »

The Inspectors Report doesn't agree with all of my objections, but it does with most. And the Order does reflect my objection, so you are certainly grabbing at straws there

You spent the day of the decision trying to claim a complete victory when neither agrees with you even close to fully.

tuathal wrote: »

I said risked losing its status. This whole exercise has been a risk assessment process. The other main risk was that it would be too significant an impact on the environment, when other alternatives were available.

And its not going to lose its status when the bypass is built, I can guarantee you that.

tuathal wrote: »

MCC won't be able to prove that the HGV ban won't work without actually putting it in and trying it. If they think the Board is simply going to fall for another of their self-serving reports, I think they are about to waste a few more million of our taxpayers' money, and risk more lives in the process.

They are never going to put a ban in place. "putting it in and trying it" isn't an option as there is no alternative route. Its obvious its unworkable to anyone with a modicum of cop-on and any report on it will state this.

This is like suggesting we should try to push the sea back by shouting at it, to be sure it won't work.

munchkin_utd

MYOB wrote: »

That was only possible *because* there was an alternative route - many of them, in fact. There isn't even one for Slane.

There is an alternative for long distance HGV traffic - the tolled M1 or untolled old N1.
Should any truck wander off the M50 onto the M2/N2 they can go via the R150 and Dulleek to Drogheda which isnt much of a diversion.

For local HGV traffic, the odd milk lorry or whatever, you could implement an exemption enforced through permits.

the number of HGVs would go from 1600 a day to barely a fraction of that.
Meaning the risk of anyone getting injuired or killed by a hgv also drops to a fraction of what it was before.

L1011

munchkin_utd wrote: »

There is an alternative for long distance HGV traffic - the tolled M1 or untolled old N1.
Should any truck wander off the M50 onto the M2/N2 they can go via the R150 and Dulleek to Drogheda which isnt much of a diversion.

For local HGV traffic, the odd milk lorry or whatever, you could implement an exemption enforced through permits.

the number of HGVs would go from 1600 a day to barely a fraction of that.
Meaning the risk of anyone getting injuired or killed by a hgv also drops to a fraction of what it was before.

The M1 or the R132 are not alternatives for going from Ardee to Finglas.

Not is going over to Duleek "not much" of a diversion.

Alternative routes for HGV bans have to be sensible, not miles out of the way like what you're suggesting.

munchkin_utd

MYOB wrote: »

The M1 or the R132 are not alternatives for going from Ardee to Finglas.

Not is going over to Duleek "not much" of a diversion.

Alternative routes for HGV bans have to be sensible, not miles out of the way like what you're suggesting.

Finglas to Ardee is 43.9miles via Duleek compared to 40.7miles direct via Slane. (according to google maps)

That is not a massive diversion

L1011

Just one example. Many others involve similar, or far longer, diversions and a lot of assumptions appear to be being made that traffic "should" be on the M1 when its not serving that route at all.

An "alternative route" that is nearly 30km to get around, side to side, is not in any way acceptable for a HGV ban.

munchkin_utd

MYOB wrote: »

Just one example. Many others involve similar, or far longer, diversions and a lot of assumptions appear to be being made that traffic "should" be on the M1 when its not serving that route at all.

An "alternative route" that is nearly 30km to get around, side to side, is not in any way acceptable for a HGV ban.

couldnt possibly agree.

Where is the magic source of trucks that travel from the wilderness south of Slane to the Wilderness north of Slane?
Theres no industry or anything else that would require large loads over this short distance, probably with the exception of trucks carrying agri products and milk - so just exempt them.

The germans have a great saying, "for every rule there there's its exeptions" and this is no exception to the possibility of implementing selected exceptions!

L1011

I wouldn't call Ashbourne, Ardee, etc "wilderness".

The nearest bridges either side are far too far away for any form of HGV ban to be implemented.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

Just one example. Many others involve similar, or far longer, diversions and a lot of assumptions appear to be being made that traffic "should" be on the M1 when its not serving that route at all.

An "alternative route" that is nearly 30km to get around, side to side, is not in any way acceptable for a HGV ban.

Go on, give us some examples.

How long does it take to get around the Dublin HGV ban?

L1011

monument wrote: »

Go on, give us some examples.

How long does it take to get around the Dublin HGV ban?

Significantly less than a 30km round trip from edge to edge; its also not a 24hr ban and was not put in place without ensuring there was a suitable and free route out (the DPT) for the vast, vast majority of the banned traffic. The Dublin HGV ban could only be compared to Slane if, amazingly, Slane had a bypass.

The worst diversion around my town's HGV ban adds 5km edge to edge.

antoobrien

monument wrote: »

Go on, give us some examples.

How long does it take to get around the Dublin HGV ban?

Apples and oranges. They had a tunnel built especially for them - and are helped to keep it free from non HGV traffic by extortionately high prices at peak times.

lucernarian

munchkin_utd wrote: »

couldnt possibly agree.

Where is the magic source of trucks that travel from the wilderness south of Slane to the Wilderness north of Slane?
Theres no industry or anything else that would require large loads over this short distance, probably with the exception of trucks carrying agri products and milk - so just exempt them.

The germans have a great saying, "for every rule there there's its exeptions" and this is no exception to the possibility of implementing selected exceptions!

Eh, the Roadstone quarry?? There are also haulage companies based in the area, particularly in Collon, Co. Louth (and perhaps they could be shifted off to the M1, legal issues notwithstanding).

munchkin_utd

MYOB wrote: »

I wouldn't call Ashbourne, Ardee, etc "wilderness".

The nearest bridges either side are far too far away for any form of HGV ban to be implemented.

nope, but between these 2 towns is nothing but wilderness.
No industry and definitely no daily source of 100s of not 1000s of tonnes of produce that has no option except to be moved over Slane bridge.

what is being moved across slane bridge are products coming from outside the area heading to outside the area, i.e. trucks that will suffer very little if send the 3miles extra via Drogheda.
Things like industrial quantities of Bitumen or artics full of reams of paper and Northern registered trucks on long distance journeys.

I took a virtual spin on the road north of Slane via google maps and aside from a slurry tanker behind a tractor, all vehicles bigger than a small panel van are not on local business.
Heres the streetviews of the vehicles I've seen so far and all could be diverted via Drogheda
http://maps.google.de/maps?saddr=finglas&daddr=ardee&hl=de&ll=53.723428,-6.523647&spn=0.040069,0.111494&sll=53.63395,-6.37112&sspn=0.642463,1.783905&geocode=FV3gLgMdDrGf_ynhDZrlChJnSDEA45bxrMcAGA%3BFfTRNQMdIzKc_ym1-5TyWkpnSDEg1DGXqccACg&doflg=ptm&mra=luc&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=53.723712,-6.523404&panoid=uXR-2rsf34m73NH_mFu38g&cbp=12,4.33,,1,1.91
http://maps.google.de/maps?saddr=finglas&daddr=ardee&hl=de&ll=53.7281,-6.517038&spn=0.040065,0.111494&sll=53.63395,-6.37112&sspn=0.642463,1.783905&geocode=FV3gLgMdDrGf_ynhDZrlChJnSDEA45bxrMcAGA%3BFfTRNQMdIzKc_ym1-5TyWkpnSDEg1DGXqccACg&doflg=ptm&mra=luc&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=53.728013,-6.517157&panoid=MNFU8up5k3IITA5JlMFJAQ&cbp=12,266.22,,0,15
http://maps.google.de/maps?saddr=finglas&daddr=ardee&hl=de&ll=53.728455,-6.516438&spn=0.040064,0.111494&sll=53.63395,-6.37112&sspn=0.642463,1.783905&geocode=FV3gLgMdDrGf_ynhDZrlChJnSDEA45bxrMcAGA%3BFfTRNQMdIzKc_ym1-5TyWkpnSDEg1DGXqccACg&doflg=ptm&mra=luc&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=53.728235,-6.516812&panoid=UraCMsjH0QeTZQTK90hzXQ&cbp=12,308.06,,0,10.21
http://maps.google.de/maps?saddr=finglas&daddr=ardee&hl=de&ll=53.737188,-6.511717&spn=0.040056,0.111494&sll=53.63395,-6.37112&sspn=0.642463,1.783905&geocode=FV3gLgMdDrGf_ynhDZrlChJnSDEA45bxrMcAGA%3BFfTRNQMdIzKc_ym1-5TyWkpnSDEg1DGXqccACg&doflg=ptm&mra=luc&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=53.737116,-6.511798&panoid=c4aBTTbka37uHgmDAYmxMw&cbp=12,142.16,,0,14.56
http://maps.google.de/maps?saddr=finglas&daddr=ardee&hl=de&ll=53.743584,-6.506996&spn=0.04005,0.111494&sll=53.63395,-6.37112&sspn=0.642463,1.783905&geocode=FV3gLgMdDrGf_ynhDZrlChJnSDEA45bxrMcAGA%3BFfTRNQMdIzKc_ym1-5TyWkpnSDEg1DGXqccACg&doflg=ptm&mra=luc&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=53.743691,-6.506893&panoid=u3s596rGKkFT7AQ52OHwnA&cbp=12,217.38,,1,6.03
http://maps.google.de/maps?saddr=finglas&daddr=ardee&hl=de&ll=53.743432,-6.507082&spn=0.04005,0.111494&sll=53.63395,-6.37112&sspn=0.642463,1.783905&geocode=FV3gLgMdDrGf_ynhDZrlChJnSDEA45bxrMcAGA%3BFfTRNQMdIzKc_ym1-5TyWkpnSDEg1DGXqccACg&doflg=ptm&mra=luc&t=h&z=14&layer=c&cbll=53.743888,-6.506743&panoid=HM7w51rGSigy033zi1BHqQ&cbp=12,327.23,,0,6.41

monument

MYOB wrote: »

Significantly less than a 30km round trip from edge to edge; its also not a 24hr ban and was not put in place without ensuring there was a suitable and free route out (the DPT) for the vast, vast majority of the banned traffic. The Dublin HGV ban could only be compared to Slane if, amazingly, Slane had a bypass.

The worst diversion around my town's HGV ban adds 5km edge to edge.

antoobrien wrote: »

Apples and oranges. They had a tunnel built especially for them - and are helped to keep it free from non HGV traffic by extortionately high prices at peak times.

The port tunnel does not allow for HGV traffic to get from one side of the other of the ban area -- see map here.

Here's a journey which takes 26km around the ban area -- link to google maps. I'm sure I could find more.

For the vast, vast majority of HGVs Slane does have a bypass, two of them -- the M1 and M3. Many trucks are already using the M1 and M3 as a bypass and others can too.

HGVs have to pay a toll using the Westlink, unless something has changed recently?

The two of you are showing that you don't know what your are talking about.

lucernarian

munchkin utd, considering Panda are a local waste disposal company with offices in Drogheda and there's a trailer loaded with hay bales in another photo (yes trucks with NI regs can also be found on business in the Republic), the second and fifth photos could easily depict trucks destined for somewhere in the area. Notwithstanding that, there's been a clear need shown in this thread and in the ABP inspector's report for an origin/destination study and popping up some very speculative choices for photographs based on Google maps is a worthless endeavour tbh. It doesn't even serve as a rough guide with 6 photos selected by someone with considerable bias and not even a mention of how many trucks were "checked" for their likely destination!

I have to say, your knowledge of what does and doesn't operate in the area seems quite limited and in any case is fundamentally irrelevant to the engineering issue at hand. My main problem with the HGV ban being an issue is that when the ban is in place, there STILL needs to be a new bridge built!

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

For the vast, vast majority of HGVs Slane does have a bypass, two of them -- the M1 and M3. Many trucks are already using the M1 and M3 as a bypass and others can too.

With respect, where has that been demonstrated? All that can be demonstrated so far is that there is business activity in the area such that the proportion is non negligible. (I.e. more than one or two a day). There's no basis for anything beyond that until a detailed study is carried out. Anything else is futile speculation.

L1011

monument wrote: »

Here's a journey which takes 26km around the ban area -- link to google maps. I'm sure I could find more.

Far less likely journey than needing to get from one side of Slane to the other. Not comparable.

monument wrote: »

HGVs have to pay a toll using the Westlink, unless something has changed recently?

HGVs are not banned from the toll-free alternatives. Also, the Westlink never exited untolled.

monument wrote: »

The two of you are showing that you don't know what your are talking about.

Erm. No. You're showing that you don't know anything about HGV traffic on the N2, though.

If HGV traffic is going to avoid the M1 or M3 tolls, they're going to use the R132 and R147 - NOT divert on to the N2.

antoobrien

munchkin_utd wrote: »

nope, but between these 2 towns is nothing but wilderness.
No industry and definitely no daily source of 100s of not 1000s of tonnes of produce that has no option except to be moved over Slane bridge.

I suspected there was a lot of google maps & streetview work going on here, which is of absolutely no relevance because it captures a single snapshot of the road route (and the objects on/around it) at a particular time. Hell if you look at this streetview location would you take it for a road that carries 36k+ vehicles in a day?

So let's look at something concrete and relevant - the inspectors report:

from page 94

6.7 Alternatives without Bypass Construction
The alternatives discussed above are all orientated to the construction of a bypass around Slane, whether it be to the west or east of the village. It would be fair to state that there is a consensus that the current traffic situation is intolerable so that the Do Nothing or Do Minimum scenarios are not acceptable. Insofar as there might be an alternative not involving the construction of a bypass, this essentially would comprise the retention of the existing bridge for limited use, together with the diversion of most or all of the heavy goods traffic from the bridge to other routes, expressed as a HGV ban. Having regard to the need to outline alternatives considered as part of the environmental impact assessment process, it is appropriate as part of this assessment that alternatives other than those incorporating the construction of a bypass ought to
__________________________________________________________________________________
PL17.HA0026/KA0015 An Bord Pleanála Page 95 of 124
be examined in some detail, essentially with regard to their feasibility and their likely effectiveness in solving the traffic problems in Slane. If these problems could be solved without necessitating the construction of a new element of infrastructure, then the consideration of such alternatives is clearly relevant to this assessment.

The feasibility of imposing such a ban was the subject of extensive discussions and reports involving the members of Meath County Council, the officials of Meath County Council, the National Roads Authority and the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Transport. Details of these discussions and reports were made available in material submitted during the course of the hearing and it is clear that the officials of the Council came to the conclusion that the imposition of a HGV ban on the bridge would not have been a satisfactory solution to the safety and traffic problems in Slane

From page 97

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.

Now the inspector here comes to an interesting conclusion, that after a fall of when the tolled road opened traffic started coming back to the untolled road because of toll dodging. This does not take into account the fact that there may have been new business in the area. 2003-2009 was the height of house & road building ffs, if it was the same as the rest of the country the N2 should have been busy with HGVs.

The view also goes against the evidence provided by other tolled roads in Ireland. The tolled section of the M6 in Galway has apparently taken traffic off the old N6 in 2011, indicating a drop in toll dodging.

antoobrien

monument wrote: »

The port tunnel does not allow for HGV traffic to get from one side of the other of the ban area -- see map here.

Here's a journey which takes 26km around the ban area -- link to google maps. I'm sure I could find more.

For the vast, vast majority of HGVs Slane does have a bypass, two of them -- the M1 and M3. Many trucks are already using the M1 and M3 as a bypass and others can too.

HGVs have to pay a toll using the Westlink, unless something has changed recently?

The two of you are showing that you don't know what your are talking about.

God I love the maps warrior brigade, so deluded.

from talking to a truck driver he said that the enforced HGV ban was a godsend because it saves him diesel & time from not being stopped every km or so on the N4 into Dublin and every few hundred meters on the keys. So yeah the 26km diversion (part of which I take to get to Artane from the N4) in conjunction with the Port tunnel does allow them to avoid the area in question.

Come to think of it, despite the fact that I live nearer to the N11 that the M50, I'd never consider using the N11 to get to south Dublin, despite the M50 being about 22km longer for me and supposedly cheaper because I'm avoiding tolls.

Interestingly google maps is predicting the two town bound routes being 10 minutes longer in current traffic. I wonder what that'll be like at 5.30 or 6.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

monument wrote: »

Here's a journey which takes 26km around the ban area -- link to google maps. I'm sure I could find more.

Far less likely journey than needing to get from one side of Slane to the other. Not comparable.

Why is it? Just because you say so?

And there's loads of others points on the north and south side with about the same kind of trips or longer.

MYOB wrote: »

monument wrote: »

HGVs have to pay a toll using the Westlink, unless something has changed recently?

HGVs are not banned from the toll-free alternatives. Also, the Westlink never exited untolled.

What toll-free alternatives are you talking about?

MYOB wrote: »

monument wrote: »

The two of you are showing that you don't know what your are talking about.

Erm. No. You're showing that you don't know anything about HGV traffic on the N2, though.

If HGV traffic is going to avoid the M1 or M3 tolls, they're going to use the R132 and R147 - NOT divert on to the N2.

Let's not get away from my valid point -- The points you made were factually incorrect and I've backed that up.

L1011

monument wrote: »

And there's loads of others points on the north and south side with about the same kind of trips or longer.

You selecting a route (that isn't the most direct by any means) from two random points is not comparable to being unable to cross a river for a 30km round trip.
Edge to edge of the Dublin HGV ban is *far* less than 30km. You aren't going to find a single routing through it that's made 30km longer.

monument wrote: »

What toll-free alternatives are you talking about?

All routes used to cross the Liffey in west Dublin prior to the M50 being built. Which are available to cars *and* HGVs.

monument wrote: »

Let's not get away from my valid point -- The points you made were factually incorrect and I've backed that up.

Nothing I said was factually incorrect. Selective "backing up" on your part is the lie here.

To add - the entire area inside the Dublin 5-axle ban is regional roads; Slane is a National Primary

The Dublin 5-axle ban still allows vehicles of a weight, size and handling characteristics which are not suited for Slane - which would almost inevitable get a 5 tonne ban instead.

The two are completely incomparable.

JupiterKid

tuathal wrote:

By the way. one not so obvious reason for the denial of planning permission is the concept of "cumulative effects", in the EIA Directive. Objectors argued that the bypass must be seen in the context of other developments in the area - the big one being the M1, which shaves the other side of the World Heritage Site. When that was built, the Site was not even mentioned in the EIS - and An Bord Pleanala gave permission on a flawed application. The Board clearly had egg on their face after that stroke by the NRA and MCC.

UNESCO came over on a fact finding mission afterwards, were appalled, and gave a damning report. The bypass would have been a step too far, and risked the Site losing its status as a UNESCO site.

Well, where was the M1 motorway bridge over the river Boyne to be sited otherwise? Or perhaps it shouldn't have been built at all according to your logic.

Your point about both the almost 10 year old existing M1 Drogheda bypass/Boyne bridge and the proposed N2 Slane bypass acting in concert to "threaten" the Bru Na Boinne site IMO thinly veils your clear contempt for roads and the need for them. That seems to be the real agenda here.