Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

N2 - Slane Bypass [planning decision pending]

Options
1202123252631

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Well that nails the anti bypass argument. This road must now proceed for the sake of Slane and it's surrounding community.

    I agree with you. How much funding did the redesign/reanalysis effort get from the NRA this year???


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,080 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument



    Well that nails the anti bypass argument. This road must now proceed for the sake of Slane and it's surrounding community.

    I must say that the ethos of responsibility apparent in Slane is a model for the country as a whole and makes me very proud to be from Meath. I so like the way in which the Slane residents want their traffic problem dealt with locally rather than shoving the traffic problems onto other communities like Duleek by way of the HGV ban. I also like their concern for the surrounding rural areas. Certain small minded communities (NIMBYism) in other parts of the country who seemingly have no concern for anyone outside their patch should take note.

    As usually, more them vs us, more of what is basically name calling, and more strawman arguments.

    As stated many times on this thread: Slane has an acute -- of the bridge, the hill and traffic levels -- which is unlikely to be replicated elsewhere.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,825 ✭✭✭SeanW


    monument wrote: »
    As stated many times on this thread: Slane has an acute -- of the bridge, the hill and traffic levels -- which is unlikely to be replicated elsewhere.
    All of which means that Slane's problem is dramatically worse than problems elsewhere. That's reason enough to build the bypass a matter of the highest urgency. Obviously the clowns in ABP that thought more studies were necessary didn't live in Slane, or didn't live in a town that had recently been bypassed, as Longford has been. Because if there was an ounce of common sense in that decision, it would never have been made at it was.

    As I&Ps post has shown, the view is largely that it's either/or relating to bypass vs. HGV ban. I.E. its either an HGV ban, or a bypass. Not both. To recap:
    1. An HGV ban is viewed by anti-bypass people as a replacement for a bypass not a precursor, this confusion WILL spill into any debate on the bypass as it may have done in the case of the ABP refusal.
    2. An HGV ban would inevitably send lorries on roads even less suited to heavy goods traffic, over roads and bridges that are equally as bad or worse than the main road.
    3. An HGV ban is likely to be illegal given that there is no precedent for it, e.g. towns (including Lucan for the M50) that have not been able to impose HGV bans on their main streets without their being a toll-free alternative nearby.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    SeanW wrote: »
    All of which means that Slane's problem is dramatically worse than problems elsewhere. That's reason enough to build the bypass a matter of the highest urgency. Obviously the clowns in ABP that thought more studies were necessary didn't live in Slane, or didn't live in a town that had recently been bypassed, as Longford has been. Because if there was an ounce of common sense in that decision, it would never have been made at it was.

    As I&Ps post has shown, the view is largely that it's either/or relating to bypass vs. HGV ban. I.E. its either an HGV ban, or a bypass. Not both. To recap:
    1. An HGV ban is viewed by anti-bypass people as a replacement for a bypass not a precursor, this confusion WILL spill into any debate on the bypass as it may have done in the case of the ABP refusal.
    2. An HGV ban would inevitably send lorries on roads even less suited to heavy goods traffic, over roads and bridges that are equally as bad or worse than the main road.
    3. An HGV ban is likely to be illegal given that there is no precedent for it, e.g. towns (including Lucan for the M50) that have not been able to impose HGV bans on their main streets without their being a toll-free alternative nearby.
    We don't need to go into the legality of a HGV ban again. It seems increasingly evident that a HGV ban just wouldn't work anyway. That in itself is enough to justify the construction of new bridge as the only acceptable remedial action.


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


    We don't need to go into the legality of a HGV ban again. It seems increasingly evident that a HGV ban just wouldn't work anyway. That in itself is enough to justify the construction of new bridge as the only acceptable remedial action.

    ssh don't say that, it'll upset the anti bypass crew.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 78,383 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    antoobrien wrote: »
    ssh don't say that, it'll upset the anti bypass crew.
    Behave

    Moderator


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,080 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    SeanW wrote: »
    All of which means that Slane's problem is dramatically worse than problems elsewhere. That's reason enough to build the bypass a matter of the highest urgency. Obviously the clowns in ABP that thought more studies were necessary didn't live in Slane, or didn't live in a town that had recently been bypassed, as Longford has been. Because if there was an ounce of common sense in that decision, it would never have been made at it was.

    As I&Ps post has shown, the view is largely that it's either/or relating to bypass vs. HGV ban. I.E. its either an HGV ban, or a bypass. Not both. To recap:
    1. An HGV ban is viewed by anti-bypass people as a replacement for a bypass not a precursor, this confusion WILL spill into any debate on the bypass as it may have done in the case of the ABP refusal.
    2. An HGV ban would inevitably send lorries on roads even less suited to heavy goods traffic, over roads and bridges that are equally as bad or worse than the main road.
    3. An HGV ban is likely to be illegal given that there is no precedent for it, e.g. towns (including Lucan for the M50) that have not been able to impose HGV bans on their main streets without their being a toll-free alternative nearby.

    On a HGV ban, I overall disagree. But the bulk of what you're saying has already been replied to and addressed in detail in the last few pages, so there's no point in doing the same again.

    Again, to be clear: I'm not anti-bypass. In fact, I see them as central to making cities, towns and villages more liveable places.

    We don't need to go into the legality of a HGV ban again. It seems increasingly evident that a HGV ban just wouldn't work anyway. That in itself is enough to justify the construction of new bridge as the only acceptable remedial action.

    If we're basing our views on facts and evidence, regardless of what point-of-view you have, nothing has happened since January which should change your view.

    Councillors voting on something at a local area meeting often has little to do with facts and evidence... and the report they used to base their view on was likely debated on here more than by the council.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    monument wrote: »
    If we're basing our views on facts and evidence, regardless of what point-of-view you have, nothing has happened since January which should change your view.

    Councillors voting on something at a local area meeting often has little to do with facts and evidence... and the report they used to base their view on was likely debated on here more than by the council.
    I think you misunderstood. I said it seems increasingly evident that a HGV ban wouldn't work, not "OMG guys we've finally won the bypass argument, lets never question the idea of a HGV ban again". I haven't seen the contents or details or conclusions of such a report but I think it's clear what we can infer from it. Firstly, that some sort of additional traffic survey has taken place and secondly that the councillors seem interested enough to refer to the contents of the report in the action they've taken.

    When I go on to say "that in itself is enough to justify the bypass", I'm referring to the successful completion of a comprehensive traffic management survey reporting on the inadequacies of a HGV ban, which the recent vote of local councillors seems to indicate. I don't mean that this issue is now done and dusted. Hopefully we can avoid more discussion on legality going around in circles while a traffic survey has been completed which may knock the idea of a HGV ban on the head!


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,080 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    I think you misunderstood. I said it seems increasingly evident that a HGV ban wouldn't work, not "OMG guys we've finally won the bypass argument, lets never question the idea of a HGV ban again". I haven't seen the contents or details or conclusions of such a report but I think it's clear what we can infer from it. Firstly, that some sort of additional traffic survey has taken place and secondly that the councillors seem interested enough to refer to the contents of the report in the action they've taken.

    When I go on to say "that in itself is enough to justify the bypass", I'm referring to the successful completion of a comprehensive traffic management survey reporting on the inadequacies of a HGV ban, which the recent vote of local councillors seems to indicate. I don't mean that this issue is now done and dusted. Hopefully we can avoid more discussion on legality going around in circles while a traffic survey has been completed which may knock the idea of a HGV ban on the head!

    You have not read the report and you're relying on or putting a lot on the view of councillors who are just as likely not to have read the report (as a group, not just the odd who who bothers to read things). And it's even more likely again that the debate here has been more substantial and detailed that with the local area council meeting.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Not that objectors care about logic but I'll try to explain the problem in a one liner.

    Slane needs bypassing because the bridge is too narrow and steep but some people want heavy traffic banned instead which is impossible because the heavy traffic would be sent onto even narrower and less suitable 'nearby' bridges instead.

    The solution is obviously to widen some bridge somewhere but the serial objectors won't tell us which one. Here is an example of an alternative route that is (ahem) 'suitable' . Meanwhile downriver from Slane the first 'suitable' alternative is this wonderful bridge here. :)

    Sure we might as well use both of them in a convoluted one way merry go round, the locals won't mind shure. I'm only surprosed that some great Civil Engineering Panjamdrum from Dublin has not rolled out the country for a day and proposed tunneling under Slane.....yet anyway. Shure what would the locals in Meath know about anything as compared to the wisdom accumulated down the road shure. :D:D:D


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,080 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Slane needs bypassing because the bridge is too narrow and steep but some people want heavy traffic banned instead which is impossible because the heavy traffic would be sent onto even narrower and less suitable 'nearby' bridges instead.

    The largest and most apparent danger is the HGVs at Slane because of all the factors all in one: (1) the large village setting, (2) the village centre with shops on the steep hill, (3) a cross roads part of the way down the hill, (4) the sharp turns into the bridge, one right at the end of the steep hill, and the narrow bridge.

    Not even half of these factors together are not mirrored at the other bridge crossings.
    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    The solution is obviously to widen some bridge somewhere but the serial objectors won't tell us which one. Here is an example of an alternative route that is (ahem) 'suitable'

    Is there some sort of structural problem with that? There does not seem to be any weight restrictions and if the width is a problem traffic lights can work wonders. There's no steep hill or sharp turns like at Slane and if the traffic is diverted via a HGV ban it is expected that at least 45% of HGV movements could go via the M1.

    Here's a more than suitable bridge! ;)
    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Sure we might as well use both of them in a convoluted one way merry go round, the locals won't mind shure. I'm only surprosed that some great Civil Engineering Panjamdrum from Dublin has not rolled out the country for a day and proposed tunneling under Slane.....yet anyway. Shure what would the locals in Meath know about anything as compared to the wisdom accumulated down the road shure. :D:D:D

    As a group it shows how desperate your arguments are when you feel the need to continuously attack any opposing view.


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Slane Resident


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    . I'm only surprosed that some great Civil Engineering Panjamdrum from Dublin has not rolled out the country for a day and proposed tunneling under Slane.....yet anyway. Shure what would the locals in Meath know about anything as compared to the wisdom accumulated down the road shure. :D:D:D


    Oh we've had it. Possibly earlier on this thread, if not on one similar. Vicious anti-bypass poster who suggested that the deaths in Slane were invented and suggested that an underpass would be a much better solution, which could "probably" be built for 100K. Considering the cost of an extension, I'd love the number of his builders.

    Monument, I've read the HGV survey report. In its entirety. As mentioned earlier. The HGV ban won't work. End of. Sorry. Flogging a dead horse at this stage.

    What would be amusing, if it wasn't so serious, is how the County Council's original vote for a HGV ban in Slane, a kneejerk reaction following a horrific multivehicle accident in March 2009, has been used for the past four years by anti-bypass campaigners as proof that a HGV ban is (a) feasible and (b) sensible and (c) negates the need for a bypass. Strangely enough, now that the County Council have accepted, following further studies, that a HGV ban is unworkable and foolhard from a road safety perspective, suddenly those same campaigners feel that council decisions are lacking in practicality and in merit. Remarkable really.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    But sure obviously the local councillors would know nothing of the 'alternative' bridges upriver and downriver of Slane, how could they know anything shure being country people.

    Ye'll probably have to prove ye have no Kerry Slugs in Slane next and not being Kerry is not a defence. Ye'll also have to prove the local bats are not a newly discovered subspecies as well. Serial objectors are good at coming up with any old excuse to prolong the pain. :D


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,080 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Monument, I've read the HGV survey report. In its entirety. As mentioned earlier. The HGV ban won't work. End of. Sorry. Flogging a dead horse at this stage.

    No, we still disagree on this and you have introduced nothing new to even attempt to change that.

    What would be amusing, if it wasn't so serious, is how the County Council's original vote for a HGV ban in Slane, a kneejerk reaction following a horrific multivehicle accident in March 2009, has been used for the past four years by anti-bypass campaigners as proof that a HGV ban is (a) feasible and (b) sensible and (c) negates the need for a bypass. Strangely enough, now that the County Council have accepted, following further studies, that a HGV ban is unworkable and foolhard from a road safety perspective, suddenly those same campaigners feel that council decisions are lacking in practicality and in merit. Remarkable really.

    Who exactly are you referring to? To be clear: I'm not a "campaigner" and I did not rely on the councillors views in the first place.

    What is this exactly? A shadow boxing debate when you attack unnamed "campaigners" who are not here and no reference to where they have made these arguments?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    monument wrote: »
    What is this exactly? A shadow boxing debate when you attack unnamed "campaigners" who are not here and no reference to where they have made these arguments?

    No shadow boxing about it, I strongly suggest you read back the entire thread which entirety entirely justifies the comments made by Slane Resident.

    This would be more appropriate and senstiive than asking Slane Resident to revisit matters they have already discussed ad nauseum as their own neighbours were killed and injured by the interminable traffic. :(


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,080 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    But sure obviously the local councillors would know nothing of the 'alternative' bridges upriver and downriver of Slane, how could they know anything shure being country people.

    Ye'll probably have to prove ye have no Kerry Slugs in Slane next and not being Kerry is not a defence. Ye'll also have to prove the local bats are not a newly discovered subspecies as well. Serial objectors are good at coming up with any old excuse to prolong the pain. :D

    Again: As a group it shows how desperate your arguments are when you feel the need to continuously attack any opposing view.

    How come you're unable to deal with the points rather than focusing on attacking people? As for "Serial objectors" -- more shadow boxing debating with people who are not here or at least with people who have not posted in months or years.

    Councillors -- as a group -- tend to base their views on lobbying and positions which they think will get them more votes, and not the quickest way to solve a problem which is minimising danger today.

    While you might be right that some of the "serial objectors" who are not present are obsessed with objecting no matter what, but at the same time the obsessive pro-bypass posters who are here are obsessed with a bypass. The bypass obsessed seem very scared of any intern measures even -- the idea that intern measures are likely to save life and make Slane more liveable is what scares them.

    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    No shadow boxing about it, I strongly suggest you read back the entire thread which entirety entirely justifies the comments made by Slane Resident.

    This would be more appropriate and senstiive than asking Slane Resident to revisit matters they have already discussed ad nauseum as their own neighbours were killed and injured by the interminable traffic. :(

    It's shadow boxing and so are your posts -- those posters have not posted in months or maybe years.

    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    This would be more appropriate and senstiive than asking Slane Resident to revisit matters they have already discussed ad nauseum as their own neighbours were killed and injured by the interminable traffic. :(

    Does Slane Resident need you to talk for them? But I have not asked him or her to revisit matters -- I actually went to some lengths to agree to disagree but they persisted at ad nauseum without adding anything new.

    Generally I would say: This is boards.ie -- it's a discussion forum -- and you're going to people who disagree with you. If you're of such a sensitive disposition that you can't take different views, it's not a site for you and you should unsubscribe, and click away.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    monument wrote: »
    The largest and most apparent danger is the HGVs at Slane because of all the factors all in one: (1) the large village setting, (2) the village centre with shops on the steep hill, (3) a cross roads part of the way down the hill, (4) the sharp turns into the bridge, one right at the end of the steep hill, and the narrow bridge.

    Not even half of these factors together are not mirrored at the other bridge crossings.
    This might sound like a further "attack" on someone with a different opinion but when hypocritical suppositions are being made by yourself, it really becomes frustrating.

    Aside from the disingenuous wording of "bridge crossings" as opposed to "alternative routes", you don't even recognise the obvious dangers of *any* traffic using the Oldbridge crossing near Drogheda. If you had any experience of these places or even an interest in using google streetview, you wouldn't make such absurd conclusions. Immediately preceding Oldbridge on the southern side is a very sharp right turn which is also at a steep ascending gradient, immediately adjacent to a canal with very limited barrier protection. To compound it, 300 metres before this, lies a canal crossing which is perpendicular to the canal and the road leading to and from the bridge. It's extremely difficult for anything more than a small two-axle truck to make the turns required and that's assuming the entire area of the road pavement can be used. It's also assuming that the larger vehicles in question do not use Oldbridge itself nearby, which has a 3 tonne limit. The clue's in the name.

    The situation at Stackallen is better but that's not saying much. Road pavement width is more or less continuous at about 4 metres from the N51 to its end at a t-junction with another local road. The bends on the approaches to the bridge are not so severe as to limit many types of vehicle but no consideration could be given to pedestrian or cyclist safety on the bridge or the stone-walled approaches either. The bridge is also of considerable vintage and may not be able to physically handle all of the vehicles so diverted.

    Before we consider the suggestion of traffic lights, let us remind ourselves of the approach roads, the stone walls approaching the bridge and the properties and farmyard nearby which would all pose significant problems in its widening. And the remaining distance that one must travel on country roads to get back to the Dublin side of the N2 will also need to be addressed in some manner. It's likely safer than the bridge of Slane in isolation but the longer distance travelled over inadequate roads for much of the distance would mitigate against this. It also doesn't solve the problem posed by car traffic using Slane bridge in an environment where mixed use with cyclists and pedestrians can be expected. By the way, of course there's a structural problem in widening a reasonably long stone bridge! It could be cheaper to just knock it and build a new one. Cue justifable outrage at the destruction of aesthetically significant sites and/or parts of an area's heritage.

    The M1 bridge would not cater for all truck users or destinations (45% is the cited figure) and this means more trucks going through large urban areas in Drogheda or Navan if bans are slapped on Slane and Stackallen. This then leaves a lot of unanswered questions like assessing the increased risk of the alternative routes (particularly the N51's safety issues near Oldbridge in Co. Louth). Or the issue of enforcement, when a truck driver is presented with up to a 20km diversion...


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,080 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    In a hurry, so quickly....
    Aside from the disingenuous wording of "bridge crossings" as opposed to "alternative routes", you don't even recognise the obvious dangers of *any* traffic using the Oldbridge crossing near Drogheda. If you had any experience of these places or even an interest in using google streetview, you wouldn't make such absurd conclusions. Immediately preceding Oldbridge on the southern side is a very sharp right turn which is also at a steep ascending gradient, immediately adjacent to a canal with very limited barrier protection. To compound it, 300 metres before this, lies a canal crossing which is perpendicular to the canal and the road leading to and from the bridge. It's extremely difficult for anything more than a small two-axle truck to make the turns required and that's assuming the entire area of the road pavement can be used. It's also assuming that the larger vehicles in question do not use Oldbridge itself nearby, which has a 3 tonne limit. The clue's in the name.

    And it's for good reason I did not reply to Sponge Bob's joking about using that bridge! :)

    The situation at Stackallen is better but that's not saying much. Road pavement width is more or less continuous at about 4 metres from the N51 to its end at a t-junction with another local road. The bends on the approaches to the bridge are not so severe as to limit many types of vehicle but no consideration could be given to pedestrian or cyclist safety on the bridge or the stone-walled approaches either. The bridge is also of considerable vintage and may not be able to physically handle all of the vehicles so diverted.

    I did ask a question on that but Sponge Bob replied with more of his jokey / attack people posts.

    It also doesn't solve the problem posed by car traffic using Slane bridge ...

    That would still be the job of a bypass.

    Maybe every post I make should include the line: I'm not against a bypass. While we're waiting for one you deal with or at least limit the largest problem as much as possible.


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Slane Resident


    Monument.

    Firstly, I have never accused you of being anti-bypass in general. You do, however, seem to be anti-this specific bypass. Perhaps a clue is in the name?

    Secondly, there are 46 pages in this thread. Anything I've raised has been gone over and gone over, ad nauseum. If you haven't read the entire of the thread, then perhaps you might like to before accusing me of "shadow-boxing".

    "The bypass obsessed seem very scared of any intern measures even -- the idea that intern measures are likely to save life and make Slane more liveable is what scares them".

    Can we just examine this statement for a minute?

    What "interim" (I presume you mean "interim") measures do you believe the pro-bypass people are "scared of"? A HGV ban? Speaking for myself, only because I won't campaign for something which will cause deaths elsewhere.

    The closure of Slane bridge last year for a period of weeks led to a huge increase in HGV accidents elsewhere in the county and a couple of very serious incidents including a lorry turning over into a front garden. I'm not going to campaign for a measure and then shrug my shoulders when I hear someone's been killed probably as a result of that action. I don't have that thick a neck - unlike many campaigners who are happy to put out all kinds of falsehoods about the N2 bypass (such as it being 500 metres from Newgrange, for example) and don't seem to see that this involves real lives, and real deaths.

    If there was a safe alternative solution to the bypass, do you not think those of us who have to bring our children to school every day along the N2 would take it? The mothers who were involved in the March 2009 accident, some of them with small pre-school children in their car, who now have to do that run every day while looking into their mirrors hoping not to see a runaway lorry coming at them; do you think they're holding out for some principle? Seriously, stop and think about that for a second. There's no political agenda here. We just simply refuse to shove our hazards onto someone else. If you can show me a safe alternative - not a made-up knee-jerk one which ignores the facts - then I'm more than prepared to go with it. But here's the thing. I was at just about every day of the oral hearing. I've listened to the experts, from both sides. I've read the reports, from both sides. The HGV ban will not work. The new study confirms that. There is no alternative. Snapping your fingers and wishing there was doesn't make it happen.

    I know people, local people, who have been campaigning for something to be done on this road since the death of David Garvey in 2001. I marched after David Garvey was killed. The people behind Bypass Slane and Slane Bridge Action Group are ordinary people, not political people. I know them, they're my neighbours. My kids go to school with their kids, and one was a teacher in the school. They're not activists. They're people who have been involved in serious accidents, who have come across the scenes of serious accidents, who dread crossing the bridge every day because of accidents. I have a sister who won't visit me because of the bridge. I don't think you have any idea what it's like to live here, and to make out that there's some nefarious political motivation behind this, rather than the deaths of 23 people who should not have died, is a very narrow-minded and callous way of thinking. Sometimes things are as simple as they seem.

    So here's the facts. Slane has one of the most dangerous roads in the country. It has a uniquely hazardous layout for a national route. The N2 through Slane is quite simply not fit for purpose. HGV surveys have shown that 1600 truck movements daily pass over a medieval bridge. Those same surveys have shown that only 16% of those truck movements could be rerouted. The bypass is relatively cheap. It will not infringe on heritage sites. It will dramatically improve road safety. Safety experts have said that rerouting the 1600 truck movements over smaller rural roads will increase hazards elsewhere. The ordinary people in Slane have said they don't want to shove their problems onto another community, and in my opinion we should be commended for that. Everybody, every single person with the exception possibly of Vincent Salafia whom I didn't hear speak, who attended the oral hearing, for both sides - from Douglas Comer, the US heritage expert, the archaeologists, the road safety people, the engineers, An Taisce, etc. - every one of them agreed that the situation was untenable, something that we in Slane well know. Those are the facts. Blue-sky thinking and wishing that a ban coulda woulda shoulda work doesn't make it happen.

    And this: "the idea that intern measures are likely to save life and make Slane more liveable is what scares them".

    I'm not even going to respond to this. Except to say how dare you.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    A lot of the discussion in this thread is akin to asking the people of Slane to prove the sun rises in the east instead of accepting that the sun rises in the east and proceeding from that prior assumption. So I'll try a simple assumption to kick things off. :)

    "A very old and rather narrow bridge with steep approaches was obviously not designed for HGV traffic."

    Can we all accept that or does someone have a problem with that statement?????


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    monument wrote: »
    I did ask a question on that but Sponge Bob replied with more of his jokey / attack people posts.

    Logic can be so funny.

    If ever a community have been rode in an infrastructure planning thread on Boards it is the people of Slane in this thread.

    Every single point they make ends up in their being forced to provide justification to the nth+ degree for it. I have never come across such a volume of circular and frequently utterly specious arguments in any infrastructure planning thread on Boards. Never.

    Consequently the people of Slane have my absolute sympathy given what they are up against. !! Meanwhile the quality of the case against the bypass essentially relies on the Approximity of a World Heritage site and not on the Proximity of a World Heritage site.....and of course I fully support World Heritage site designations being used to kill people through neglect .....lest anyone think that I don't know what a World Heritage site is for. :cool:

    Who has a problem with this bit then!

    "A very old and rather narrow bridge with steep approaches was obviously not designed for HGV traffic."


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Slane Resident


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    If ever a community have been rode in an infrastructure planning thread on Boards it is the people of Slane in this thread.

    Every single point they make ends up in their being forced to provide justification to the nth+ degree for it. I have never come across such a volume of circular and frequently utterly specious arguments in any infrastructure planning thread on Boards. Never.

    Consequently the people of Slane have my absolute sympathy given what they are up against. !!


    It's also, I would imagine, unique in that those who are campaigning for a bypass, those who live in the area beside this highly dangerous road, a road in the top 1% of most dangerous roads in the country, are actually accused of having no interest in safety by the BANANAs. It's like the world has been turned upside down. It's remarkable really.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,743 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    monument wrote: »

    What is this exactly? A shadow boxing debate when you attack unnamed "campaigners" who are not here and no reference to where they have made these arguments?

    If you're not a campaigner, I'm a teapot.

    Pity you've convinced yourself that you're not; we might not be suffering the same circular arguments if you could realise.

    You are fundamentally opposed to this bypass for some unknown and are cloaking it in anything going.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    I'm not so convinced on this "Monument is a campaigner" thing. People are entitled to their individual biases or skepticism. And perhaps, a coordinated HGV ban across the region would be the lesser of two evils while planning permission is sought again...


  • Registered Users Posts: 111 ✭✭Slane Resident


    what would a coordinated HGV ban across the region entail?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Aquarius34


    I'd prefer to see an N51 bypass and just the existing N2 bridge widened. The N2 only gets busy after Ardee, most traffic use the M1 now.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Aquarius34 wrote: »
    I'd prefer to see an N51 bypass and just the existing N2 bridge widened. The N2 only gets busy after Ardee, most traffic use the M1 now.

    One could widen the bridge I suppose but it is a 14th Century Bridge and part of our built heritage in its own right. So that exercise would be vandalism to my mind.

    Widening the bridge will not deal with the ultra steep approaches but bypassing along the the N51 axis would reduce the frequent stopping that leads to myriad brake failure incidents...some fatal.... on these steep approaches.

    Bypassing the N51 west to north and N2 sections, joining N2 and N51 north of Slane and sending the N51 traffic east roughly Collon - Dunleer ( detrunking the N51 east of Slane) would be the best solution to my mind.

    Banning ultra heavy 3 axle trailer units is a necessary step...not all HGV traffic eg buses and delivery lorries.

    I dont want to trash Mellifont either. :(


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Aquarius34


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    One could widen the bridge I suppose but it is a 14th Century Bridge and part of our built heritage in its own right. So that exercise would be vandalism to my mind.

    Widening the bridge will not deal with the ultra steep approaches but bypassing along the the N51 axis would reduce the frequent stopping that leads to myriad brake failure incidents...some fatal.... on these steep approaches.

    Bypassing the N51 west to north and N2 sections, joining N2 and N51 north of Slane and sending the N51 traffic east roughly Collon - Dunleer ( detrunking the N51 east of Slane) would be the best solution to my mind.

    Banning ultra heavy 3 axle trailer units is a necessary step...not all HGV traffic eg buses and delivery lorries.

    I dont want to trash Mellifont either. :(


    Detrunking the N51 is a ridiculous idea. .It connects Drogheda, Navan, to the Midlands. What is the point of having a national secondary road at all then?

    Build another bridge alongside then.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Build another bridge alongside then.

    you could build another bridge about 1km away, a higher one, so without the steep slopes on either side.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    You need to get the height and approach geometry spot on in Slane and the bridge should be S2.

    I suggest the R168 becomes N51 instead. The interminable wrangling over the Slane Bypass, by some great irony, was well decribed by Irelands third greatest 20th Century Poet whose home town it was. Not Séamus Heaney but Francis Ledwidge :D
    Oh what a pleasant world 'twould be,
    How easy we'd step thro' it,
    If all the fools who meant no harm,
    Could manage not to do it!


Advertisement