N2 - Slane Bypass [planning decision pending]

L1011

also the m1 toll is unsubvented, the m3 has a max agreed in the contract and anyone who wishes to avoid those tolls *already does* via the r132/r147. Single or dual, bypass or none will have no impact on this. Just an attempt at a distraction.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

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.

I'm not doing your research for you. If you have a point you can back up, then do so. And the NRA have been told no by ABP a few times now after they put forward over-specified projects.

Apparently, or according to you at least, we reached the point of there been no point debating with me ages ago -- but yet here we are. And you think that makes me look comical! :rolleyes:

antoobrien wrote: »

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

It's really not a safe assumption.

The only thing that can be compared here is a newly designed and build SC road around Slane with the details the ABP inspector mentioned, and a the DC road put forward for the same location.

There's also a host of problems with relying on that map -- the main one being the incomplete data. None of total deaths for the years match the garda totals and that's before even mentioning injuries.

L1011

i don't need to research something i already know, amazingly. Its you who's refusing to look up something that challenges your incredibly singular viewpoint.

You're also the one making the off the wall and unverified claims, not me.

In addition to ignoring that your preferred spec is actually higher, you're now inventing a clause that didn't exist in the planning decision.

veryangryman

Single carriageway=chance of head on collision are much, much higher than DCs

Only when a muppet goes on the wrong lane of a DC can this happen.

Anyone with half a brain knows that a head on collision is far more likely to result in death than rear ending, veering off the road etc on a DC. Even with those possibilities, they all still exist on Single Carriageways.

Those who think Single Carriageways are safer should be put off the road (and the forum to be quite honest)

monument

MYOB wrote: »

i don't need to research something i already know, amazingly. Its you who's refusing to look up something that challenges your incredibly singular viewpoint.

Can you try to make a point without adding in a personal attack?

MYOB wrote: »

You're also the one making the off the wall and unverified claims, not me.

What unverified claims?

MYOB wrote: »

In addition to ignoring that your preferred spec is actually higher, you're now inventing a clause that didn't exist in the planning decision.

Please quote where I invented "a clause that didn't exist in the planning decision"!

Are you able to do that?

veryangryman wrote: »

Single carriageway=chance of head on collision are much, much higher than DCs

Only when a muppet goes on the wrong lane of a DC can this happen.

Anyone with half a brain knows that a head on collision is far more likely to result in death than rear ending, veering off the road etc on a DC. Even with those possibilities, they all still exist on Single Carriageways.

Those who think Single Carriageways are safer should be put off the road (and the forum to be quite honest)

Great because I never said SCs are safer.

veryangryman

monument wrote: »

Great because I never said SCs are safer.

Youve mentioned that its not fully proven that DCs are necessarily safer. Common sense is all im asking for. Is it too much?

And nobody has insulted you on the thread either. PI is that way --->

monument

veryangryman wrote: »

Youve mentioned that its not fully proven that DCs are necessarily safer. Common sense is all im asking for. Is it too much?

Yes, it can never be proven that DCs are safer. Sure it can be said that said that DCs can be generally safer -- this is something I've already said.

Common sense and road safety don't match a lot of the time, and not at all when you're talking about degrees of safety.

veryangryman wrote: »

And nobody has insulted you on the thread either. PI is that way --->

No, nobody has insulted me. But MYOB just does not seem to be able to post much without making personal attacks.

L1011

unverified claims - that single carriageway roads can be safer. Claims that go against all standard knowledge and research need verification

invented clause - bringing a spectre of abp rejecting due to scale when that never existed for this scheme.

If you consider being told you have a singular viewpoint is a personal attack, you've never seen a personal attack.

I'm on mobile so i can't quote but i trust you can remember what you wrote yourself.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

unverified claims - that single carriageway roads can be safer. Claims that go against all standard knowledge and research need verification

Saying 'DC is generally but not always safer' is not the same thing as saying 'SC can be safer'. The latter is a generalisation, while the former is an attempt to avoid generalisations.

MYOB wrote: »

invented clause - bringing a spectre of abp rejecting due to scale when that never existed for this scheme.

Quote where I said this. Please.

You can't because I never did.

MYOB wrote: »

If you consider being told you have a singular viewpoint is a personal attack, you've never seen a personal attack.

The rule on here, that you know well, is that you attack the ball not the man.

MYOB wrote: »

I'm on mobile so i can't quote but i trust you can remember what you wrote yourself.

You're incorrectly paraphrasing what I've said.

L1011

monument wrote: »

Saying 'DC is generally but not always safer' is not the same thing as saying 'SC can be safer'. The latter is a generalisation, while the former is an attempt to avoid generalisations.

2+3 != 3+2?

Same thing. You're making an unverified claim.

monument wrote: »

Quote where I said this. Please.

You can't because I never did.

"And the NRA have been told no by ABP a few times now after they put forward over-specified projects."

Can you not remember what you've posted? You are quite deliberately raising a spectre of something that did not happen and is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

monument wrote: »

The rule on here, that you know well, is that you attack the ball not the man.

My post stands - if you think that's an attack, you don't know what an attack is.

monument wrote: »

You're incorrectly paraphrasing what I've said.

You're trying to weasel away from what you said. Major difference.


Provide some proof that DCs are "not always" safer than SCs, go read the NRA specifications and come back. And then answer the question - why are you proposing the NRA should built a dearer, wider profile, less safe scheme?

You still haven't answered this - you've just tried to work around the question to no success.

JupiterKid

This thread is just turning into a spat between posters who, on the one hand, won't see any merit in a bypass for Slane whatsoever and the other who are pro-bypass.:( It doesn't really seem to be going anywhere constructive.

I have a question - the existing bridge at Slane is the best part of half a millennium old and is clearly unfit for carrying cars and busses let alone HGVs. Is it in any danger to structural failure and collapsing into the River Boyne given the massive stresses the HGV traffic must be placing on the bridge?

And, as it's a protected structure that AFAIK can't be re-inforced or worked on in any major way, doesn't this mean that unless traffic is removed from this bridge its collapse is not a matter of if, but when?

Surely the issue of not only dangerous approaches but the nature of the bridge itself warrants some sort of action - and sooner rather and later?

monument

JupiterKid wrote: »

This thread is just turning into a spat between posters who, on the one hand, won't see any merit in a bypass for Slane whatsoever and the other who are pro-bypass.:( It doesn't really seem to be going anywhere constructive.

Agreed about the thread not going anywhere constructive!

But I would like to make it clear that I've already said that I'm not strictly against a bypass.

JupiterKid wrote: »

I have a question - the existing bridge at Slane is the best part of half a millennium old and is clearly unfit for carrying cars and busses let alone HGVs. Is it in any danger to structural failure and collapsing into the River Boyne given the massive stresses the HGV traffic must be placing on the bridge?

And, as it's a protected structure that AFAIK can't be re-inforced or worked on in any major way, doesn't this mean that unless traffic is removed from this bridge its collapse is not a matter of if, but when?

Surely the issue of not only dangerous approaches but the nature of the bridge itself warrants some sort of action - and sooner rather and later?

Yes. Action is needed in the form of a HGV ban.

MYOB wrote: »

2+3 != 3+2?

Same thing. You're making an unverified claim.

No, I'm not. It's imposable to claim that all DCs are safer than all SCs. Overall it's not a hugely important point.

What does it take for you to stop talking here? You said you were going to ages ago. :P

MYOB wrote: »

"And the NRA have been told no by ABP a few times now after they put forward over-specified projects."

Can you not remember what you've posted? You are quite deliberately raising a spectre of something that did not happen and is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

It seems quite relevant given that the ABP inspector asked in his report that SC be considers for around about half of the bypass which was designed by the NRA as all DC. Is your problem is the board did not agree? I never said or implied they did in this case.

MYOB wrote: »

My post stands - if you think that's an attack, you don't know what an attack is.

All I'm asking is you deal with points and not continue to give digs.

MYOB wrote: »

You're trying to weasel away from what you said. Major difference.

:rolleyes:

MYOB wrote: »

Provide some prove that DCs are "not always" safer than SCs, go read the NRA specifications and come back. And then answer the question - why are you proposing the NRA should built a dearer, wider profile, less safe scheme?

You still haven't answered this - you've just tried to work around the question to no success.

What am I proposing again?

For a second there you had me convinced that I had proposed something -- I had to go back and check. But I can't find anywhere where I had proposed a lower spec bypass.

L1011

monument wrote: »

No, I'm not. It's imposable to claim that all DCs are safer than all SCs. Overall it's not a hugely important point.

It is rather an important point, as its the main reason you used to avoid answering a question.

monument wrote: »

What does it take for you to stop talking here? You said you were going to ages ago. :P

I said I wasn't going to continue to argue with you over your assertion that two unequals were equal

You're now trying to claim two equals are unequal...

monument wrote: »

It seems quite relevant given that the ABP inspector asked in his report that SC be considers for around about half of the bypass which was designed by the NRA as all DC. Is your problem is the board did not agree? I never said or implied they did in this case.

My issue here is that you implied it could be a problem with ABP, when it wasn't an issue with ABP. The rejection was not based on the specification of the scheme, so why you thought it appropriate to wave it as a potential issue I don't know - other than as one of the many side-distractions you've dragged this thread on.

monument wrote: »

All I'm asking is you deal with points and not continue to give digs.

And I ask that you answer questions.

monument wrote: »

What am I proposing again?

For a second there you had me convinced that I had proposed something -- I had to go back and check. But I can't find anywhere where I had proposed a lower spec bypass.

You said you'd prefer a lower spec bypass. Seeing as you appear to need quotes to remember what you said:

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.

So, one more time:

Do you really think it's better to build a dearer, wider profile, less safe bypass?

monument

MYOB wrote: »

It is rather an important point, as its the main reason you used to avoid answering a question.

I also asked you about cost, but you never got back to me on that.

MYOB wrote: »

I said I wasn't going to continue to argue with you over your assertion that two unequals were equal

You're now trying to claim two equals are unequal...

You also said you were going to stop talking to me, but here we are still boring everybody to death!

MYOB wrote: »

My issue here is that you implied it could be a problem with ABP, when it wasn't an issue with ABP.

You might have picked it up that way, but I never was meaning to imply it was. Only the the inspector had a problem with the spec of about half of the bypass.

MYOB wrote: »

You said you'd prefer a lower spec bypass. Seeing as you appear to need quotes to remember what you said:

"I'd question the need for the higher spec version" does not mean at the end of the questioning that the result would be a preference for a lower spec -- there could be many reasons why you'd go for a higher spec even after questioning the original plan.

MYOB wrote: »

So, one more time:

Do you really think it's better to build a dearer, wider profile, less safe bypass?

Yes, I like to needless spend money, take farmers' land and put people at risk. :rolleyes:

L1011

monument wrote: »

I also asked you about cost, but you never got back to me on that.

NRA website and indeed this forum.

There is a concept of "writing to your audience". This is a roads forum, the T2 DC standard has been discussed to death here, including costings. Due to the land take and narrower structures, it is cheaper to build than a T1 SC.

The T1 SC standard only still exists for roads where you wouldn't use a DC for specific reasons - filling a small gap of unupgraded between two existing T1s for instance.

monument wrote: »

You might have picked it up that way, but I never was meaning to imply it was. Only the the inspector had a problem with the spec of about half of the bypass.

Well, why did you even introduce it?

monument wrote: »

Yes, I like to needless spend money, take farmers' land and put people at risk. :rolleyes:

So do you now accept that T2 DC is the correct spec for the project?

monument

MYOB wrote: »

NRA website and indeed this forum.

There is a concept of "writing to your audience". This is a roads forum, the T2 DC standard has been discussed to death here, including costings. Due to the land take and narrower structures, it is cheaper to build than a T1 SC.

The T1 SC standard only still exists for roads where you wouldn't use a DC for specific reasons - filling a small gap of unupgraded between two existing T1s for instance.

As I've already said, I'd like to see costings for this project, not general ones.

MYOB wrote: »

Well, why did you even introduce it?

Because it's a discussion forum and, like the inspector, I'm not decided about project as it was proposed. I don't have to pick yes or no to any options.

MYOB wrote: »

So do you now accept that T2 DC is the correct spec for the project?

Like the inspector, for at least up the hill.

L1011

monument wrote: »

As I've already said, I'd like to see costings for this project, not general ones.

If the cost per km varies for this project over the standard one, it will vary by the same amount or possibly slightly worse for T1 SC due to the extra land and materials required. There isn't any potential freak circumstance that will make a T1 SC cheaper.

monument wrote: »

Because it's a discussion forum and, like the inspector, I'm not decided about project as it was proposed. I don't have to pick yes or no to any options.

I'll still see it as an attempt to try and sabre-rattle, then.

monument wrote: »

Like the inspector, for at least up the hill.

So we'd revert to more cost and less safety after the hill. Why?

monument

We're going around in circles now.

I'm not convinced and you're not going to try to convince me.

L1011

monument wrote: »

We're going around in circles now.

I'm not convinced and you're not going to try to convince me.

As long as I've convinced anyone else dropping in to the thread, that's enough for me.

SeanW

monument wrote: »

No matter what way you want to dress it up a tolled route (the M50) is the main alternative to the city ban area!
...
The DPT and Eastlink were concessions within a plan which forced a lot of traffic by the Westlink.

Irrelevant. The legality and propriety of the West Link toll had already been established a decade or so previously. There are plenty of alternative Liffey crossings and routes that don't invlove the Liffey at all, and at least some of them allow lorries.

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.

The inspector suggested two types of road would be suitable: a Type 1 SC, which would be less safe and more expensive, versus a Type 2 DC, which would have a lower profile and be safer and less stressful to use.

Since you seem to think the Boyne river has such a wonderful array of crossings in the area, I think we should go through each one. Starting from the coast and continuing to Navan, we have:

1. The first 3 Boyne crossings from the coast are in Drogheda town, which already has enough problems with toll dodging. To my mind the situation in Drogheda where a towns SOLE bypass is tolled, is totally unacceptable.
2. Next we have this little charmer. Wonderful. There are no more Boyne crossings between here and Slane.
3. Slane bridge, the 400 year old POS that should have been left in the 17th Century.
4. Finally, there's this: another narrow local road bridge. This is the last bridge before Navan town.
5. 3 crossings in Navan town. Again, sending toll dodgers into urban areas is something I oppose in the strongest possible terms. Navan is also more than 5 miles from Slane.
6. Finally the M3, which runs to the WEST of Navan town and goes directly towards Cavan. It's only a little under 10 miles from Slane.

So there you have it - despite it being 20 miles from Navan to the coast, and the Boyne river being rather small and not that forbidding, there are no non-urban, un-tolled crossings capable of carrying long distance traffic, at all.


Oh and lets not forget the main problem: The current N2 route, with steep inclines and that rubbish bridge is totally unsuitable for use in the 21st century, can't even hold 2 cars side by side let alone handle lots of lorries.

SeanW

monument wrote: »

Yes, I like to needless spend money, take farmers' land and put people at risk. :rolleyes:

That's kinda what it looks like :rolleyes:

monument

There are no realistic HGV route alternatives to the Westlink in Dublin.

Or what kind of double standards are we talking about here? Why is there one measure for around Slane and Drogheda and another for around Dublin?

How are the urban roads in Lucan and the country roads around it ok?

SeanW

monument wrote: »

There are no realistic HGV route alternatives to the Westlink in Dublin.

I think this lorry driver might disagree with you. I used to live in Dublin. I tried a large number of M50 toll dodge routes. They exist and they work.

Or what kind of double standards are we talking about here? Why is there one measure for around Slane and Drogheda and another for around Dublin?

How are the urban roads in Lucan and the country roads around it ok?

There is no double standard. Before you slap up a toll or a restriction, there has to be an alternative route. There is at least one for the West Link, otherwise it could never have been tolled.

Obviously I would prefer that any urban area should not have its main bypass tolled unless there is an older, or secondary bypass, like what Enfield and Dundalk etc. have, but it's not strictly necessary, when the Drogheda Bypass was built, it was OK to have the alternative route going through the town. I disagree, I think that was a mistake, but then again, I'm not the one who signed off on the idea, and I didn't write the rules that allowed that.

The West Link has alternative routes. Not the greatest but they exist. The Drogheda Bypass has an alternative route, though again I don't like it and think it should have either been toll free or had a secondary bypass that was. (Ironically Dundalk has a secondary bypass to the East though the M1 is free ...)

Slane ... nothing that is unrestricted or untolled or very difficult to reach for 10 miles, if you put up an HGV ban without a bypass. You can't do that to a national road.

antoobrien

monument wrote: »

Or what kind of double standards are we talking about here? Why is there one measure for around Slane and Drogheda and another for around Dublin?

That's a ridiculous comparison for two reasons.

1. There is a limited HGV ban in Dublin - for 5 axle vehicles only that don't have a reason to be in the city other than get to the port between 7am & 7 pm (day).
2. The 5 axle ban zone is larger than Slane village - with a national park (Phoenix Park) in the way of any bypass (in much the way Newgrange is inconveniently close to Slane for it's bypass)

Lets not forget that 4 axle HGVs are not at all banned fron entering Dublin City center and 5-axle vehicles are allowed to enter the city between 7pm & 7am (night).

Lets compare that to the the proposed Slane 24 hour ban for all HGVs. The trucks using the local Roadstone quarry would be banned from Slane, but the Cemex trucks are not banned from getting to the depot on East Wall.

jack presley

monument wrote: »

We're going around in circles now.

I'm not convinced and you're not going to try to convince me.

Only now? The going around in circles has been going on for months in this thread

monument

SeanW wrote: »

I think this lorry driver might disagree with you. I used to live in Dublin. I tried a large number of M50 toll dodge routes. They exist and they work.

Local traffic from a nearby quarry?

SeanW wrote: »

There is no double standard. Before you slap up a toll or a restriction, there has to be an alternative route. There is at least one for the West Link, otherwise it could never have been tolled.

Obviously I would prefer that any urban area should not have its main bypass tolled unless there is an older, or secondary bypass, like what Enfield and Dundalk etc. have, but it's not strictly necessary, when the Drogheda Bypass was built, it was OK to have the alternative route going through the town. I disagree, I think that was a mistake, but then again, I'm not the one who signed off on the idea, and I didn't write the rules that allowed that.

The West Link has alternative routes. Not the greatest but they exist. The Drogheda Bypass has an alternative route, though again I don't like it and think it should have either been toll free or had a secondary bypass that was. (Ironically Dundalk has a secondary bypass to the East though the M1 is free ...)

Slane ... nothing that is unrestricted or untolled or very difficult to reach for 10 miles, if you put up an HGV ban without a bypass. You can't do that to a national road.

Look if Drogheda is the alternative for M1 toll, it'll be also fine as an alternative to a Slane area HGV ban.

You're only showing me one alternative to the Westlink which allows HGVs, and that alternative is of about the same or lesser quality than Drogheda.

Yes, you can do that to a national road -- the Dublin ban was like that with national roads for years -- and you can downgrade a section of the N2 from a national road if that makes you happy.

An alternative to this is for the state to subsidies HGVs on the M1.

antoobrien wrote: »

That's a ridiculous comparison for two reasons.

1. There is a limited HGV ban in Dublin - for 5 axle vehicles only that don't have a reason to be in the city other than get to the port between 7am & 7 pm (day).

A 7am to 7pm ban would be an improvement from the current safety situation -- but surely that safety situation allows for a longer ban at least of traffic not delivering to within the village?

antoobrien wrote: »

1. The 5 axle ban zone is larger than Slane village - with a national park (Phoenix Park) in the way of any bypass (in much the way Newgrange is inconveniently close to Slane for it's bypass)

That makes the city ban and the idea of a Slane area ban sound more alike!

antoobrien wrote: »

Lets not forget that 4 axle HGVs are not at all banned fron entering Dublin City center

Dublin is looking at extending the ban to 4 axle trucks, and Slane could start off with banning them given the danger of the hill.

antoobrien wrote: »

Lets compare that to the the proposed Slane 24 hour ban for all HGVs. The trucks using the local Roadstone quarry would be banned from Slane, but the Cemex trucks are not banned from getting to the depot on East Wall.

Banned from using Slane as a through road, just like trucks are banned from using the city roads as a through road -- there's little difference here!

antoobrien

monument wrote: »

That makes the city ban and the idea of a Slane area ban sound more alike!

Except that there are is a reasonable alternative for HGVs in Dublin

monument wrote: »

Banned from using Slane as a through road, just like trucks are banned from using the city roads as a through road -- there's little difference here!

Why do you insist in not listening to actual facts then go misrepresent the same one? It's like trying to talk to a cetain banned user who's name also beings in m (won't say the name it's like summoning cthulhu)

Again only the 5 axle trucks are banned from Dublin and then only 7am-7pm. Every other from of traffic can use Dublin city as a through road 24/7. And there are reasnable alternatives for the banned vehicles that actually better for the truck dirvers because they don't have to weave through narrow streets that aren't suited for them and so and start whole time.

Since you're not aware of the facts, here's the list that was previously posted of the so called alternatives for slane - they don't look suitable to me.

SeanW wrote: »

Since you seem to think the Boyne river has such a wonderful array of crossings in the area, I think we should go through each one. Starting from the coast and continuing to Navan, we have:

1. The first 3 Boyne crossings from the coast are in Drogheda town, which already has enough problems with toll dodging. To my mind the situation in Drogheda where a towns SOLE bypass is tolled, is totally unacceptable.
2. Next we have this little charmer. Wonderful. There are no more Boyne crossings between here and Slane.
3. Slane bridge, the 400 year old POS that should have been left in the 17th Century.
4. Finally, there's this: another narrow local road bridge. This is the last bridge before Navan town.
5. 3 crossings in Navan town. Again, sending toll dodgers into urban areas is something I oppose in the strongest possible terms. Navan is also more than 5 miles from Slane.
6. Finally the M3, which runs to the WEST of Navan town and goes directly towards Cavan. It's only a little under 10 miles from Slane.

So there you have it - despite it being 20 miles from Navan to the coast, and the Boyne river being rather small and not that forbidding, there are no non-urban, un-tolled crossings capable of carrying long distance traffic, at all.


Oh and lets not forget the main problem: The current N2 route, with steep inclines and that rubbish bridge is totally unsuitable for use in the 21st century, can't even hold 2 cars side by side let alone handle lots of lorries.

So, there's no practical alternative and the existing N2 is dangerous. How can you support a do nothing HGV ban over a bypass?

monument

Sorry, yes, 5 axle trucks.

Slane Resident

And let's not forget this "do nothing " HGV ban will just spread the risk onto rural roads as was seen at the start of the year when the bridge was closed and there were accidents in small local villages. as was already pointed out by another poster, the nearest alternative isn't the M1, it's Stackallen Bridge and that's what HGVs will take. You're not even dealing with the fact that according to the NRA survey only 16% of HGV traffic could reroute onto the M1.

monument

Slane Resident wrote: »

And let's not forget this "do nothing " HGV ban will just spread the risk onto rural roads as was seen at the start of the year when the bridge was closed and there were accidents in small local villages. as was already pointed out by another poster, the nearest alternative isn't the M1, it's Stackallen Bridge and that's what HGVs will take. You're not even dealing with the fact that according to the NRA survey only 16% of HGV traffic could reroute onto the M1.

You can force the HGVs around to the larger roads, the M1 and M3, and the current main alternatives to them.