N2 - Slane Bypass [planning decision pending]

Sponge Bob

monument wrote: »

Still nonsensical

You have your view and I have mine.

Slane should be bypassed, and no more nonsense!!!!

monument

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You have your view and I have mine.

Slane should be bypassed, and no more nonsense!!!!

The person was killed on a road which won't have traffic taken off it by the bypass.

I'm not against a bypass btw.

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

The person was killed on a road which won't have traffic taken off it by the bypass.

I'm not against a bypass btw.

Please read my posts before making further unfounded claims. This cannot be decided one way or another yet, based on the evidence to hand. The proposed bypass intercepts the N51-Drogheda outside the village and the truck would have used the bypass instead of the Drogheda Road, were it to continue its journey on the N2 (obviously in conjunction with a HGV ban).

I do agree that a HGV ban needs to be considered and implemented (even if it only applies to certain portions of traffic). However if a HGV ban forces trucks onto equally appalling roads in east Co. Meath then there's no point as other communities will have to deal with tragedies like this in the future.

monument

monument wrote: »

The person was killed on a road which won't have traffic -- wishing to travel on the N51 on one side of Slane to the N51 on the other side of Slane -- taken off it by the bypass.

I'm not against a bypass btw.

Fixed.

But you're right -- we don't know.

Nothing is guaranteed to bring road deaths down to zero. Not a bypass, not a HGV ban, not more traffic calming or traffic restrictions -- not all even all of those things combined.

SeanW

monument wrote: »

You could just as easily say that the anti-HGV ban "brigade" or the anti-traffic calming "brigade" have "blood on their hands and should gloriously point to the consequences of their success". But all of that would be nonsensical too.

You could just as easily say that the anti-reality brigade caused this ... but it would be nonsese.

It's established in Irish law, or at least precedent, and also by common sense, that HGV bans cannot just be slapped down on an area (especially N roads) without an alternative route - hence the need to build the Dublin Port Tunnel before DCC banned lorries off the quays, then the N4.

The roads in Slane are "main" roads with significant regional, national and some international use, the only alternatives are L roads from hundreds of years ago and other 1 lane bridges, and 10+ miles away there's a TOLLED (i.e. not alternative) bridge and an old N1 that is itself hopelessly congested.

In short, the infrastructure out there is pathetic and hopelessly inadequate, in need of urgent and serious attention.

So you're right in one sense - lorries should be banned off Slanes' streets ... after a toll-free N2 bypass is built and preferably some serious attention is also paid to the N51 through there too.

The only reason that a bypass is not under construction or in service yet is because of looney eco-fruitcakes in the Save Newgange crowd.

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

Fixed.

But you're right -- we don't know.

Nothing is guaranteed to bring road deaths down to zero. Not a bypass, not a HGV ban, not more traffic calming or traffic restrictions -- not all even all of those things combined.

What I'd like to know is why you made such a premature assumption, considering the location of the accident and how the bypass intersects the road in question well before where the accident took place...

Also, talking about bringing "road deaths down to zero" is a straw man argument. Clearly there are road safety and improvement measures that can be taken which will have a definitive reduction in fatal accidents. No road improvement will fully compensate for human error. If these errors can be prevented even 50% of the time, it would be worthwhile.

Some measures can empirically be shown to prevent certain kinds of accidents. This is hypothetical but if the truck was going to take the N2 in Slane, the only conclusion is that this accident wouldn't have happened. Other accidents can happen but it's clear a bypass and hgv ban would have stopped this kind of accident from happening. And there can't be a successful hgv ban without a bypass.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

You could just as easily say that the anti-reality brigade caused this ... but it would be nonsese.

It's established in Irish law, or at least precedent, and also by common sense, that HGV bans cannot just be slapped down on an area (especially N roads) without an alternative route - hence the need to build the Dublin Port Tunnel before DCC banned lorries off the quays, then the N4.

The roads in Slane are "main" roads with significant regional, national and some international use, the only alternatives are L roads from hundreds of years ago and other 1 lane bridges, and 10+ miles away there's a TOLLED (i.e. not alternative) bridge and an old N1 that is itself hopelessly congested.

In short, the infrastructure out there is pathetic and hopelessly inadequate, in need of urgent and serious attention.

So you're right in one sense - lorries should be banned off Slanes' streets ... after a toll-free N2 bypass is built and preferably some serious attention is also paid to the N51 through there too.

The only reason that a bypass is not under construction or in service yet is because of looney eco-fruitcakes in the Save Newgange crowd.

It has already been debated to hell and back about what is a reasonable alternative or not.

If the Port Tunnel and the Dublin ban is precedent it is precedent for a long detour.

There's nothing in Irish law which makes a HGV ban harder on an N-road, but the roads can be downgraded by a stroke of a pen, followed up by a change of some signs.

The key thing is detours could be done away from Slane and away from urban areas and other roads on hills which are anyway as much of a problem as those in Slane.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

What I'd like to know is why you made such a premature assumption, considering the location of the accident and how the bypass intersects the road in question well before where the accident took place...

My point is -- and I fixed it to make it clearer in my last post -- if the truck was to continue traveling along the road, the bypass would not have helped. The bypass will not remove that risk.

How was my post unclear? I was tired, and I am human.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Also, talking about bringing "road deaths down to zero" is a straw man argument. Clearly there are road safety and improvement measures that can be taken which will have a definitive reduction in fatal accidents. No road improvement will fully compensate for human error. If these errors can be prevented even 50% of the time, it would be worthwhile.

The point was not that we should not try these interventions, but that even after a bypass, a HGV ban on Slane hill, and everything else thinkable was in place, there could still be deaths.

To_be_confirmed wrote:

This is hypothetical but if the truck was going to take the N2 in Slane, the only conclusion is that this accident wouldn't have happened. Other accidents can happen but it's clear a bypass and hgv ban would have stopped this kind of accident from happening. And there can't be a successful hgv ban without a bypass.

Hypothetically the driver was not turning onto the N2.

Hypothetically a truck driver* turning into the N2 could still break the ban to nip into the village for a coffee or to see somebody etc.

* A hypothetical driver, not any one driver

lucernarian

monument wrote:

The point was not that we should not try these interventions, but that even after a bypass, a HGV ban on Slane hill, and everything else thinkable was in place, there could still be deaths.

I understood the point, but why are you making such a point? It's kinda obvious that road deaths will never reach zero per year while humans drive cars.

Suppose a bypass and HGV ban, or indeed a ban of all vehicles with more than 2 axles on the bridge itself, would reduce the above kind of accident rate by 99.5% (let's say). Does that mean that we cannot accuse the bypass opponents of reckless and negligent behaviour over their opposition? Even if one or two deaths per decade happen anyway, it's clear that at least some of the 20-odd fatalities would not have happened. So I can't simply accuse opponents of having blood on their hands over one accident. But over the course of several fatalities in a decade? Most certainly.

Also, you ruled out the bypass having a possibe preventatory role in this accident in more than one post, and continued to do so after the exact location was explained. My first post on this a day ago even underlined that the finer details of where the truck was going hadn't been established.


And regarding the reasonable alternative, please underline the actual alternative you would propose to use. Less of the wishy-washy "signs could be changed, the dublin port tunnel precedent" palaver. If you're saying that tolled roads are the alternative, there seems to be substantial opinion in this thread against the legality of that. Also, truck haulage companies do operate somewhat near to Slane. It may be politically unfeasible to force truckers from just outside Slane (e.g. the agri machinery place to the south of Collon) to drive an extra 26km to take the M1 via Ardee and N33. Otherwise you'll just have trucks driving through Slane on the N51 to Drogheda or to a lesser extent Navan, more often and we sadly know where that gets us... And the N51 between Slane and Drogheda has its share of fatal accidents especially where it winds alongside the river.

monument

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I understood the point, but why are you making such a point? It's kinda obvious that road deaths will never reach zero per year while humans drive cars.

You know well what I'm saying, that's why you asked this:

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Suppose a bypass and HGV ban, or indeed a ban of all vehicles with more than 2 axles on the bridge itself, would reduce the above kind of accident rate by 99.5% (let's say). Does that mean that we cannot accuse the bypass opponents of reckless and negligent behaviour over their opposition? Even if one or two deaths per decade happen anyway, it's clear that at least some of the 20-odd fatalities would not have happened. So I can't simply accuse opponents of having blood on their hands over one accident. But over the course of several fatalities in a decade? Most certainly.

In the same in theory mode you're in:

Other measures, such as a HGV ban or extra traffic calming, could reduce the collision rate by "99.5% (let's say)".

Thus, the same thing can easily be said about those opponents of a ban or extra calming: "So I can't simply accuse opponents of having blood on their hands over one [collisions]. But over the course of several fatalities in a decade? Most certainly."

One side has no more right to that kind of idea than the other, so it's all pointless.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Also, you ruled out the bypass having a possibe preventatory role in this accident in more than one post, and continued to do so after the exact location was explained. My first post on this a day ago even underlined that the finer details of where the truck was going hadn't been established.

Did I rule it out in more than one post or I dismissed somebody else ruling it in without having the full info to do so?

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

And regarding the reasonable alternative, please underline the actual alternative you would propose to use. Less of the wishy-washy "signs could be changed, the dublin port tunnel precedent" palaver. If you're saying that tolled roads are the alternative, there seems to be substantial opinion in this thread against the legality of that.

Including myself, I don't view the legal know how on here to be very substantial at all.

Notwithstanding that, there's also the already mention option of removing the toll for HGVs -- all of them or maybe just for local traffic. It could have, for example, the positive of also removing / reducing HGV traffic from urban areas east of the M1.

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Also, truck haulage companies do operate somewhat near to Slane. It may be politically unfeasible to force truckers from just outside Slane (e.g. the agri machinery place to the south of Collon) to drive an extra 26km to take the M1 via Ardee and N33.

One min you're pointing to the idea your opponents have blood on their hand and then then next we have excuses like the above and below...

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

Otherwise you'll just have trucks driving through Slane on the N51 to Drogheda or to a lesser extent Navan, more often and we sadly know where that gets us... And the N51 between Slane and Drogheda has its share of fatal accidents especially where it winds alongside the river.

One you're talking about a road which already has HGVs on it.

Two, what does "share of fatal accidents" even mean - you could say that about half the roads in the country!

Three, yes, you have to prioritise. Getting more traffic off Slane is the priority, but sure you also have to be carefully you're not going to notably increase traffic collisions elsewhere.

A hell of a lot of this post has been said on this thread before -- we are going around and around.

lucernarian

One min you're pointing to the idea your opponents have blood on their hand and then then next we have excuses like the above and below...

I should explain that my point relating to a 26km diversion is that it probably wouldn't happen for want of political willpower and local opposition to that as a cheap/halfhearted solution when a new river crossing is what's needed. Not that it was an intrinsically bad idea.

Slane Resident

The reality is that Slane needs to be bypassed. It's needed to be bypassed for decades. Political inaction and lack of will has led to a situation where one of the most dangerous roads in the country has been ignored in favour of parish pump politics projects. All along, all through the oral hearing, all through the lead-up, we asked who was going to be the 23rd to die on the road. Now we know.

And yes, we know we're going around in circles. Because Slane people have been shafted, and Jimmy's death is the result. And what do we do now - forget about it until the 24th? Maybe a child this time? Maybe another multi-vehicle accident?

Shame on everybody who objected to this. Shame on An Bord Pleanala who didn't listen to their inspector's own report. Every single person at the oral hearing, except the usual righteous-anger-nutjobs, acknowledged the huge dangers of Slane; everybody said the situation was untenable, and then they walked away and left us with the situation that they said couldn't be borne. And this is the result.

Jayuu

Can I ask what is the status of this project post the decision making process? Has the entire project been shelved or is it just residing in some form of planning hell at the moment?

lucernarian

Slane Resident wrote: »

The reality is that Slane needs to be bypassed. It's needed to be bypassed for decades. Political inaction and lack of will has led to a situation where one of the most dangerous roads in the country has been ignored in favour of parish pump politics projects. All along, all through the oral hearing, all through the lead-up, we asked who was going to be the 23rd to die on the road. Now we know.

And yes, we know we're going around in circles. Because Slane people have been shafted, and Jimmy's death is the result. And what do we do now - forget about it until the 24th? Maybe a child this time? Maybe another multi-vehicle accident?

Shame on everybody who objected to this. Shame on An Bord Pleanala who didn't listen to their inspector's own report. Every single person at the oral hearing, except the usual righteous-anger-nutjobs, acknowledged the huge dangers of Slane; everybody said the situation was untenable, and then they walked away and left us with the situation that they said couldn't be borne. And this is the result.

That's not fair, we don't know if the bypass would have made any difference to this man's death yet. Though it acts as a reminder to what can still easily happen on the N2 in Slane... Even if I agree with you on what needs to be done, we need to hold off on blame for this latest accident at this time.

And I would say the project is in planning purgatory, waiting for some indefinite length of time for the planning process to proceed again.

monument

Jayuu wrote: »

Can I ask what is the status of this project post the decision making process? Has the entire project been shelved or is it just residing in some form of planning hell at the moment?

Planning permission has been rejected and cannot be reapplied for / won't be entertained unless the substantive issue raised by ABP are addressed.

Slane Resident

The issue raised by ABP (the HGV survey) has been dealt with, but apparently the funds are gone and because ABP, rather than just calling for a report as an addendum, refused permission, the whole process will have to be gone through again - years more delay.

monument

ABP raised more than one issue.

Sponge Bob

Please save us ABP trivia until you are sure the funeral is over.

monument

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Please save us ABP trivia until you are sure the funeral is over.

But you were unable to take a leaf out of your own book and save the blame game and mud slinging until the funeral is over?

This is a thread about the bypass, somebody asked a question about the planning of such and I answered.

If so many people did not treat ABP as trivia, then Slane might have a bypass now.

Slane Resident

If people had stuck to the substantive facts, and not twisted things and deliberately spread misinformation, and if others had been less concerned about views from their house and more about safety, Slane might have a bypass now. And I'm sure the funeral is over, since I was at it. God rest him.

monument

If the NRA and the county county others were not so sure of them self, Slane might have a bypass now.

If safety was taken above all else there would have been a HGV ban on Slane hill and over the bridge a long time ago.

Slane Resident

Same old same old. The HGV ban would just move the dangers elsewhere, as was made quite clear at the oral hearing. I'm not going to campaign for something that will put blood on my hands when there's a death elsewhere. We had a de facto ban for a couple of weeks last year and there were numerous accidents on rural roads around the area, including a HGV ending up in someone's garden. It won't work. The bypass needs to be built.

L1011

The only people who seem to believe a hgv ban is possible without a bypass are cycling campaigners. Why?

monument

Slane Resident wrote: »

Same old same old. The HGV ban would just move the dangers elsewhere, as was made quite clear at the oral hearing. I'm not going to campaign for something that will put blood on my hands when there's a death elsewhere. We had a de facto ban for a couple of weeks last year and there were numerous accidents on rural roads around the area, including a HGV ending up in someone's garden. It won't work. The bypass needs to be built.

"Same old same old" --That's exactly what I'm thinking of your post.

A temporary local road closure is not comparable to banning HGVs from using all unsuitable roads as through routes.

It "won't work" because nobody in a position of power or influence has an interest in it working and they have convinced others it "won't work". For example:

• It won't work for anybody who wants the bypass as it would reduce the need for a bypass.
• It won't work for TDs or councillors as they would lose votes from the above people.
• It won't work for the county council as it is (rightly or wrongly) in their best interest to have more larger roads in their area.
• It won't work for the NRA as it goes against the grain for them.

MYOB wrote: »

The only people who seem to believe a hgv ban is possible without a bypass are cycling campaigners. Why?

BTW I'm not a cycling campaigner.

But, why do you revert to attacking the post when they even attempt to challenge your view? That's an interesting question.

L1011

We have thoroughly dealt with your idea that a ban can be put in before. Zero point trying again as the position hasn't changed.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

We have thoroughly dealt with your idea that a ban can be put in before. Zero point trying again as the position hasn't changed.

I recall you claiming a load of things you refused to back up.

L1011

monument wrote: »

I recall you claiming a load of things you refused to back up.

No. I recall you floundering to redefine precedent though.

I'm not rehashing this again - nothing has or will change

monument

MYOB wrote: »

I'm not rehashing this again - nothing has or will change

Indeed, you're still wrong.

L1011

monument wrote: »

Indeed, you're still wrong.

Not a hope

monument

MYOB wrote: »

Not a hope

I went to the bother of looking back on where the debate ended the last time...

You claimed areas which are in the Dublin ban were not -- I proved otherwise.

You claimed there was no detour of 30km or over with the Dublin ban -- I proved otherwise and offered to show other examples if you were interested.

You said that roads needed to be downgraded lower than N road before a ban could be put in placed but a ban was in place in Dublin for six years before the roads were downgraded. And you gave no reason why the roads in a large area around Slane could not be downgraded.

I'm sure you were thinking there was not a hope in any of these cases that you were wrong. But it turns out you were.

L1011

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

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