N2 - Slane Bypass [planning decision pending]

L1011

monument wrote: »

The N2 can be downgraded if that makes you feel any better.

Or we can wait a few years -- the Dublin ban area included national roads for what, six years?

The N2 isn't going to be downgraded through Slane - until there's a bypass. The Dublin downgrade was only done once there was a bypass of the entire city, including a port access route.

The N2 is a through route at Slane. Once again, you're trying to compare unlike situations.

monument wrote: »

[1] Three ton ban applies to that section of the SCR

Seeing as its part of one of the escape routes from the start of the signing of the 5-axle ban (Johns Road West), I think you may have the wrong section of the SCR. If not, DCC have got some incredibly bad information on their site, particularly as they show ban-area entry points for permit-holding vehicles along there (http://www.dublincity.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/map_hgv_restricted_zone.pdf)... also, your link doesn't work.

monument wrote: »

The route Google suggests starts to look ok.

Come in the former N7 then. The route Google "suggested" (with your helpful placing of a route marker) is still an unrealistic route chosen to try and buffer a weak argument. An argument made even weaker, seeing as a delivery vehicle to an inner suburban shopping centre is unlikely to be a 5-axle vehicle to begin with.

monument wrote: »

If such a poor route which takes HGVs so far out of the way is an alternative for Dublin, then something like it or better is ok for Slane?

There is nothing even vaguely comparable for Slane. The nearest edge-to-edge diversionary route is 30km across lethal rural roads.

monument wrote: »

Yes, you have been wrong. Wrong about the SCR, wrong about Islandbridge (which I forgot is also in the ban area), etc

Islandbridge was one of a number of routes I mentioned as being where all traffic went before the M50 - that is all.

monument wrote: »

Go on, forget the rules and try to attack me, because you're not doing very well defending all of the flaws in your arguments.

You're the one who's spent posts after posts claiming I'm wrong, when I haven't been. You're the one attacking, and providing a brutally flawed argument - not me.

Using rolleyes and claiming "wrong" repeatedly when you are the one who is wrong is about the worst form of debate possible.

If you think calling you a single issue pusher is an attack, you may want to make posts that aren't just obviously anti-motorised-traffic on here, as that is all I have ever seen you do on this forum. A statement of fact is not an attack.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

The N2 isn't going to be downgraded through Slane - until there's a bypass. The Dublin downgrade was only done once there was a bypass of the entire city, including a port access route.

The N2 is a through route at Slane. Once again, you're trying to compare unlike situations.

M1 and M3 can and do act as a wider area bypass, just like the M50 acts as a very wide area bypass.

MYOB wrote: »

Seeing as its part of one of the escape routes from the start of the signing of the 5-axle ban (Johns Road West), I think you may have the wrong section of the SCR. If not, DCC have got some incredibly bad information on their site, particularly as they show ban-area entry points for permit-holding vehicles along there (http://www.dublincity.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/map_hgv_restricted_zone.pdf)... also, your link doesn't work.

Their map might not be clear, but there are no escape route where the N4 meets the SCR, just the turn back the junction allows. The ban has to be seen in the context of the 3-ton no entry streets/road restrictions.

MYOB wrote: »

Come in the former N7 then. The route Google "suggested" (with your helpful placing of a route marker) is still an unrealistic route chosen to try and buffer a weak argument. An argument made even weaker, seeing as a delivery vehicle to an inner suburban shopping centre is unlikely to be a 5-axle vehicle to begin with.

Try pushing the way-point back north of the Westlink -- the route stays the same!

I never said the Swan shopping centre, but the area -- which is just one example area... I can fine areas which would make the distance over 30km if you want? And I've seen deliveries been made to smaller inner suburban shopping centres by 5-axle vehicles.

MYOB wrote: »

Islandbridge was one of a number of routes I mentioned as being where all traffic went before the M50 - that is all.

...

You're the one who's spent posts after posts claiming I'm wrong, when I haven't been. You're the one attacking, and providing a brutally flawed argument - not me.

Using rolleyes and claiming "wrong" repeatedly when you are the one who is wrong is about the worst form of debate possible.

"Trucks did, and can still, cross the Liffey at Chapelizod, Lucan, Islandbridge..."

Your full quote is here.

MYOB wrote: »

If you think calling you a single issue pusher is an attack, you may want to make posts that aren't just obviously anti-motorised-traffic on here, as that is all I have ever seen you do on this forum.

You're attacking the poster rather than the points, that's what I mean when I say attack. ...At this stage surely you know that's against the rules on boards?

L1011

I'm not even going to bother. Still fiddling around trying to claim apples equal oranges and looking for tiny holes.

monument

You already said "I'm not going to even argue this with you any more" and my reply to that stands: You're not going to argue because you're clearly wrong on many points. But hey, talk to you some other time when you can again tell me black is white and white is black.

MYOB wrote: »

I'm not even going to bother. Still fiddling around trying to claim apples equal oranges and looking for tiny holes.

You call them "tiny holes" but you know there are major flaws with your argument, but you want to hold on to the HGVs in Slane as banning them weakens the case for a bypass.

And no -- I'm not a zealot anti-motorist, there has and was a good case for bypasses in many cases around the country. I just don't see a strong case when the M1 and M3 are so close by and the detour isn't long at all.

SeanW

monument wrote: »

Why should it have to be?

If I understand some other posters correctly, e.g. Save Newgrange brigade, an HGV ban is viewed as a replacement for, not an accompliment to, a bypass.

This is unprecedented in Irish history.

In Dublin going from the southside to the northside or to the port is tolled at the Westlink. This is a completely new and much longer route for traffic that used to be able to use the N4 and the quays etc to the port.

False. The Westlink toll is only legal in the firstplace because it was a totally new road that was tolled, other Liffey crossings in the area (which do exist) are themselves the alternative, just as they are also the alternative for Learner drivers, mopeds, etc.

When I lived in Dublin I dodged the M50 toll a few times, not a great idea unless you know what your doing but it can be done, as there are several free Liffey crossings as well as some N3-N4 routes that do not involve crossing the Liffey at all.

So the West Link has alternatives and the City Centre HGV ban required the Dublin Port tunnel.

There is no precedent for an HGV ban without a bypass.

It would massively reduce the safety issue which is the core fundamental problem.

The fundamental problem is that the road is crap and totally unsuited for use as a National Primary Road. Heck, from what I understand, most Tertiary roads are better than the N2 through Slane.

That can only be rectified by constructing a bypass.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

If I understand some other posters correctly, e.g. Save Newgrange brigade, an HGV ban is viewed as a replacement for, not an accompliment to, a bypass.

This is unprecedented in Irish history.

So what? The M1 and M3 are so close they can be used as bypasses -- maybe unlike them I'd even suggest road upgrades to help this.

Precedented can also be changed.

SeanW wrote: »

False. The Westlink toll is only legal in the firstplace because it was a totally new road that was tolled, other Liffey crossings in the area (which do exist) are themselves the alternative, just as they are also the alternative for Learner drivers, mopeds, etc.

Learning drivers, mopeds etc are allowed in the park, the 5-axil the ban area, and on roads with weight restrictions.

SeanW

monument wrote: »

So what? The M1 and M3 are so close they can be used as bypasses -- maybe unlike them I'd even suggest road upgrades to help this.

The M1 is tolled, with an alternative route through Drogheda town that is, to my mind, totally unacceptable even as is at present. M3 is too far away and it's also riddled with tolls.

Precedented can also be changed.

IANAL, but precedent in this case is probably derived from law.

Learning drivers, mopeds etc are allowed in the park, the 5-axil the ban area, and on roads with weight restrictions.

There are a number of feasible alternative routes that I tried when I was in Dublin and I'm pretty sure at least one of them allows lorries. If there wasn't, the West Link couldn't legally toll lorries, just as the DPT cannot.

The City Centre HGV ban rests on the existance of the Dublin Port Tunnel being toll free for lorries, and it also rests of the propriety and legality of the West Link toll which had already been established.

The City Centre HGV ban is not a precedent for Slane.

Also, I'd like to ask you one question:
Do you favour, or oppose, an N2 bypass for Slane? Why, or why not?

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

So what? The M1 and M3 are so close they can be used as bypasses -- maybe unlike them I'd even suggest road upgrades to help this.

Precedented can also be changed.

You made this point earlier but this is being made on the back of not even knowing how much traffic would use that bridge if a ban was enforced and if there would need to be local exemptions etc. It seems to me that the bridge is not even suitable for any regular motorised transport. If there were less than 800 vehicles likely to use the bridge per day after HGV bans and so on then the existing arrangement could work. But more than that will still be too much on such a decrepit bridge!

Slane Resident

It never ceases to amaze me that the people who claim to know best how to solve the Slane situation, contradicting the opinions of local people and road engineers, have no problem admitting they know nothing about the area. Google maps? Give me a break.

L1011

monument wrote: »

You already said "I'm not going to even argue this with you any more" and my reply to that stands: You're not going to argue because you're clearly wrong on many points. But hey, talk to you some other time when you can again tell me black is white and white is black.

I don't see the point of ever debating with someone who jumps with joy claiming a victory when someone else gets fed up with dealing with them.

monument wrote: »

but you want to hold on to the HGVs in Slane as banning them weakens the case for a bypass.

There is never going to be a HGV ban without a bypass. Face it.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

The M1 is tolled, with an alternative route through Drogheda town that is, to my mind, totally unacceptable even as is at present. M3 is too far away and it's also riddled with tolls.

No matter what way you want to dress it up a tolled route (the M50) is the main alternative to the city ban area!

SeanW wrote: »

IANAL, but precedent in this case is probably derived from law.

No, it's not. Provide proof if it is.

SeanW wrote: »

There are a number of feasible alternative routes that I tried when I was in Dublin and I'm pretty sure at least one of them allows lorries. If there wasn't, the West Link couldn't legally toll lorries, just as the DPT cannot.

The City Centre HGV ban rests on the existance of the Dublin Port Tunnel being toll free for lorries, and it also rests of the propriety and legality of the West Link toll which had already been established.

The DPT and Eastlink were concessions within a plan which forced a lot of traffic by the Westlink.

SeanW wrote: »

Do you favour, or oppose, an N2 bypass for Slane? Why, or why not?

I'm not strictly against a bypass, but like the inspector's report, I'd question the need for the higher spec version the NRA were pushing.

MYOB wrote: »

I don't see the point of ever debating with someone who jumps with joy claiming a victory when someone else gets fed up with dealing with them.

There is never going to be a HGV ban without a bypass. Face it.

You're back again?! I'm not jumping with joy or claiming victory.

MYOB wrote: »

There is never going to be a HGV ban without a bypass. Face it.

Bypass for HGVs = M1 and M3.

Slane Resident wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me that the people who claim to know best how to solve the Slane situation, contradicting the opinions of local people and road engineers, have no problem admitting they know nothing about the area. Google maps? Give me a break.

I'm just after giving you post the 'thanks' -- it's so funny. Why can't you deal with points rather than attacking people?

L1011

monument wrote: »

I'm not strictly against a bypass, but like the inspector's report, I'd question the need for the higher spec version the NRA were pushing.

Higher spec? Do you actually know what the current valid road specifications in Ireland are? Because if you did, you'd know that there is no lower spec available. Even if the road was pointlessly reduced to being single carriageway, more land and a larger bridge would be needed - and its the bridge that everyone seems to be claiming is "massive".

A Type 2 DC has a narrower (17.9M) land take than a Type 1 SC (18.3M). Type 2 and 3 SC are below the standard required for the traffic figures.

I'm not even going to dignify your other attempts to rehash the same ground with a response.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

Higher spec? Do you actually know what the current valid road specifications in Ireland are? Because if you did, you'd know that there is no lower spec available. Even if the road was pointlessly reduced to being single carriageway, more land and a larger bridge would be needed - and its the bridge that everyone seems to be claiming is "massive".

A Type 2 DC has a narrower (17.9M) land take than a Type 1 SC (18.3M). Type 2 and 3 SC are below the standard required for the traffic figures.

From the inspector's report:

The reality is that the projected traffic volumes on the Slane Bypass in the EIS are on the margin between those appropriate to a single carriageway road and those appropriate to a type 2 dual carriageway.

MYOB wrote: »

I'm not even going to dignify your other attempts to rehash the same ground with a response.

I thought you said you were going to stop talking to me ages ago?

L1011

monument wrote: »

From the inspector's report:

The reality is that the projected traffic volumes on the Slane Bypass in the EIS are on the margin between those appropriate to a single carriageway road and those appropriate to a type 2 dual carriageway.

The single in question in that report is the Type 1 Single that is of a larger profile than a Type 2 Dual.

Will you read my posts in future before trying to (pathetically) "prove me wrong"?

monument

MYOB wrote: »

The single in question in that report is the Type 1 Single that is of a larger profile than a Type 2 Dual.

Will you read my posts in future before trying to (pathetically) "prove me wrong"?

I'm talking about what the NRA proposed and what the ABP inspector said, I don't feel any need to prove you wrong and you have said a number of times that you don't want to debate with me.

It's more than just about the profile and land take.

L1011

monument wrote: »

I'm talking about what the NRA proposed and what the ABP inspector said, I don't feel any need to prove you wrong and you have said a number of times that you don't want to debate with me.

It's more than just about the profile and land take.

The ABP inspector said that the decision was marginal between a DC and a *larger profile* SC. Where does that suggest that the NRA went for a higher spec as you claim?

monument

MYOB wrote: »

monument wrote: »

I'm talking about what the NRA proposed and what the ABP inspector said, I don't feel any need to prove you wrong and you have said a number of times that you don't want to debate with me.

It's more than just about the profile and land take.

The ABP inspector said that the decision was marginal between a DC and a *larger profile* SC. Where does that suggest that the NRA went for a higher spec as you claim?

DC is a large spec road than a SC.

L1011

monument wrote: »

DC is a large spec road than a SC.

So you'd prefer if they built a wider, more expensive and less safe road scheme then?

monument

MYOB wrote: »

monument wrote: »

DC is a large spec road than a SC.

So you'd prefer if they built a wider, more expensive and less safe road scheme then?

To what end does this logic go to? Bring up every N road to motorway standard?

L1011

monument wrote: »

To what end does this logic go to? Bring up every N road to motorway standard?

You could answer the question

You said you'd prefer a bypass of a lower spec.

The only lower spec that can take the traffic levels is dearer, wider and less safe.

Do you actually prefer that?


Motorway specifications are not cheaper and narrower profile than what was proposed so I don't see why you're trying to bring that in.

Ronnie Binge

MYOB wrote: »

You could answer the question

You said you'd prefer a bypass of a lower spec.

The only lower spec that can take the traffic levels is dearer, wider and less safe.

Do you actually prefer that?


Motorway specifications are not cheaper and narrower profile than what was proposed so I don't see why you're trying to bring that in.

What would CRH plc want? That, for any infrastructural investment, is the only question that matters.

L1011

Ronnie Binge wrote: »

What would CRH plc want? That, for any infrastructural investment, is the only question that matters.

antoobrien

Ronnie Binge wrote: »

What would CRH plc want? That, for any infrastructural investment, is the only question that matters.

Wtf does that have to do whether a road is safer or not?

monument

MYOB wrote: »

monument wrote: »

To what end does this logic go to? Bring up every N road to motorway standard?

You could answer the question

You said you'd prefer a bypass of a lower spec.

The only lower spec that can take the traffic levels is dearer, wider and less safe.

Do you actually prefer that?


Motorway specifications are not cheaper and narrower profile than what was proposed so I don't see why you're trying to bring that in.

DC can be generally safer than SC, that does not mean it always is. It can change on a case by case bases -- the diffrence can be very little safety wise, and cost has to be looked at the context of the possabe cost of lost revenue and/or subventions to the M1 and M3 tolls.

For this bypass and only this bypass, do you have [a] a safety audit showning the likely safety diffrence between DC and SC (with extras on the hill, as the inspector mentioned) for all types of road users, [b.] the cost estimates of both options, and [c] the estmated likely land take?

If not you have nothing to back up what you are saying in relation to this project.

Zubeneschamali

monument wrote: »

DC can be generally safer than SC, that does not mean it always is. It can change on a case by case bases -- the diffrence can be very little safety wise

You are just making stuff up.

monument

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are just making stuff up.

Prove it!

Slane Resident

monument wrote: »

Prove it!

Don't be ridiculous, it's up to you to prove your assertions. How can you prove somebody is making something up? If I say I saw Santa flying up the N2 this morning, how is anyone to prove otherwise? If you're making an assertion, back it up with facts, otherwise prepare to have it treated as conjecture.

monument

Slane Resident wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous, it's up to you to prove your assertions. How can you prove somebody is making something up? If I say I saw Santa flying up the N2 this morning, how is anyone to prove otherwise? If you're making an assertion, back it up with facts, otherwise prepare to have it treated as conjecture.

Please don't be ridiculous by calling what I'm saying ridiculous.

There is no peer reviewed evidence out there in the world that would ever make the claim that DC is always safer than SC. It's just not the way evidence based research works. Even if research talks in general terms -- that can never be applied to all projects. And if the research says that X DC road in X location is safer than X SC road, that only applies to those cases, no other ones. Every project is different, and that's why safety audits etc have to be done for each case.

In any case, if there was a burden to back anything up, MYOB made the first assertion, so the burden would be on him to back it up first.

L1011

you've now reached the level of being comical. Opposition doesn't mean you have to drop to nonsense.

You're not going to find any case anywhere where a single carriageway is safer than a dual.

The land take, road profile and costs are public knowledge. Just use the NRA website.

antoobrien

monument wrote: »

Prove it!

Looking at this map of road deaths it would appear, despite the higher levels of traffic on multi lane roads, that between 2005 & 2009 there were more people killed on single lane roads than multi lane roads.

Therefore it's a safe assumption that a proper dc (not a 2+1) is safer than a s2