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
1356731

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 15 SlaneMan


    Don’t forget that the problems in Slane are not limited to N/S traffic. Slane has a large volume of trucks and cars travelling through it on the N51 and the trucks have no choice but to use the dangerous hill and bridge to get on the N2. The bypass will provide safe access to the N2 via a new roundabout to the W of the village.
    The bypass is designed to address safety problems with both N/S and E/W traffic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    My view is that an M2 shadowing the N2 from Ashbourne to Ardee would be an extravagance we can certainly do without. We're bust and we need to prioritise schemes better, and rationalise a few others. I have a thread about that here.
    But the Slane Bypass is only approx. 4km long an should be built regardless.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,889 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    Simple suggestion...

    Downgrade N2 from Dublin-Ardee as the RXXX - perhaps listing Ashbourne and Slane as the possible destinations
    Reassign N33 to N2
    Resignpost M1 as "Belfast/Derry" with obvious "N2 Derry" signage at the Ardee exit

    this seems obvious - the NRA already regard the N33 as the recommended route to Derry, yet when you drive along the M50 the N2 junction is still signposted for Derry.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    Furet wrote: »
    My view is that an M2 shadowing the N2 from Ashbourne to Ardee would be an extravagance we can certainly do without. We're bust and we need to prioritise schemes better, and rationalise a few others. I have a thread about that here.
    But the Slane Bypass is only approx. 4km long an should be built regardless.

    Slane should be bypassed alright, a new route from Navan to Drogheda should be built instead of the existing N51.

    I can't see why trucks can't be banned from going through Slane. Dublin Corpo bans trucks going through Dublin City and forces up to 50km detours for some trucks and a toll. If there was an actual will to fix the issue it would be done.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭marmurr1916


    Simple suggestion...

    Downgrade N2 from Dublin-Ardee as the RXXX - perhaps listing Ashbourne and Slane as the possible destinations
    Reassign N33 to N2
    Resignpost M1 as "Belfast/Derry" with obvious "N2 Derry" signage at the Ardee exit

    That would sort everyone out. Sure you still have the stupid toll at Drogs but people would then actually use the M1 to get to Derry. You will still get the odd one who uses old road, but hed be in the minority

    Result: Less accidents at Slane. Job done (save for the bypass which it would still need)

    Good idea, plus stick a toll on the M2 to ensure that there's no point in dodging the M1 toll.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,552 ✭✭✭veryangryman


    Slane should be bypassed alright, a new route from Navan to Drogheda should be built instead of the existing N51.

    I can't see why trucks can't be banned from going through Slane. Dublin Corpo bans trucks going through Dublin City and forces up to 50km detours for some trucks and a toll. If there was an actual will to fix the issue it would be done.

    Agree with most of the post; however no truck is forced into the M50 or M1 toll. There are dodging routes although not signposted so i think the word forced is not fully apt.

    Theres a pretty dangerous b!tch of a Bridge over the Moy on the N26 near Swinford which is almost as bad. At least with Slane you can see the bridge from the hill and you got traffic lights/road signs etc all over the place. Id say the Swinford one would need (at least) a yield sign either side of bridge


  • Registered Users Posts: 751 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    Good idea, plus stick a toll on the M2 to ensure that there's no point in dodging the M1 toll.

    I think you're underestimating the determination of people (especially hauliers) to avoid tolls. Putting a toll on the M2 will probably see them just move onto the R135 (old part of the N2) and through Ashbourne village to rejoin the existing N2 where the motorway ends.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭marmurr1916


    Jayuu wrote: »
    I think you're underestimating the determination of people (especially hauliers) to avoid tolls. Putting a toll on the M2 will probably see them just move onto the R135 (old part of the N2) and through Ashbourne village to rejoin the existing N2 where the motorway ends.

    Slap a ban on HGVs going through Ashbourne (local deliveries etc excluded) if the M2 is tolled!


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,552 ✭✭✭veryangryman


    Slap a ban on HGVs going through Ashbourne (local deliveries etc excluded) if the M2 is tolled!

    Again, the Hauliers would just go through Navan or Drogheda.

    You need to have an option of a realistic alternative if your tolling a route. Even the M50 has same (even if their downright dangerous - Leixlip-Clonee anyone?)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    Best to have an image of this here:

    slanebypass.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    A PREVIOUSLY unrecorded “impressively large earthwork” – believed to be part of the outer defences of an early medieval royal stronghold at Knowth, in the Boyne Valley – has been identified by an archaeological survey.

    The survey, commissioned by former attorney general John Rogers SC, has been submitted to An Bord Pleanála as additional information as part of its consideration of plans for an N2 bypass running east of Slane, Co Meath.

    Carried out by archaeologists Joe Fenwick, Gerard Dowling and Roseanne Schot of the Brú na Bóinne Research Project, the survey found the earthwork at Crewbane, near the home of Mr Rogers, who is objecting to the bypass.

    It was prompted by the discovery in 2007 of a souterrain in Crewbane, at the perimeter of the Brú na Bóinne Unesco world heritage site “buffer zone” 2km east of Slane village and 1km from the prehistoric passage tomb of Knowth.

    “This impressively large earthwork is not recorded in the Sites and Monuments record for Co Meath,” the archaeologists say.

    It presents a “massive facade” when approached uphill from the south, averaging 4m in height and extends over a distance of 23m.

    “It is apparent that the Crewbane souterrain is not an isolated archaeological monument in the landscape, but one element in a complex of archaeological features situated on and around this prominent ridge overlooking the river Boyne.

    “These include a second and possibly third potential souterrain, a substantial linear embankment, a circular enclosure [of] 40m in diameter [a possible ring fort], a relict field system and associated open settlement of possible medieval or early modern date . . . ”

    They speculate that the complex “might have served as a defensive outpost protecting the western flanks of the royal stronghold at Knowth”, saying it was “unfortunate” that it straddles the western boundary of the Unesco world heritage site buffer zone.

    “It is likely, however, that had this complex been known at the time the world heritage site perimeter was being drafted, its influence would have extended its perimeter somewhat further to the west and northwest,” Mr Fenwick has told An Bord Pleanála.

    In a letter to the board, he acknowledged that an alternative route of the bypass running west of Slane would also have a large number of “significant impacts” on the archaeological, architectural and cultural heritage of the area, including Slane Castle demesne.

    Mr Fenwick suggested that the “only realistic option” was to ban heavy goods vehicles entirely from the village and provide an east-west corridor to the north of Slane, to redirect this traffic towards “the new and underutilised” M1 and M3 motorways. The consultations end on Friday.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1012/1224280878318.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    Furet wrote: »

    If the proposed bypass does not encroach upon this site, then it should still go ahead. The route chosen looks like the best option as it is the shortest, seems to be the most eco friendly, the most cost effective, and the least damaging to the village of Slane. A route to the West has no advantage except for either the construction industry which would be happy with a far longer scheme to construct, or the accountants who would have a bigger excuse for not doing the bypass. Also, the Western route would result in more destruction of woodland and scrub, and would also impact on the drumlin country around the Hill of Slane. A route to West, apart from being more costly, would much be more inconvenient to most motorists. Also, given where the buffer zone and the new discovery is, the option of using the Western route to act also as a bypass for the N51 would seem unlikely.

    Doing nothing is simply not an option either, and to further restrict traffic (now limited to 30kph) is also not an option - a proper crossing of the Boyne in the area is needed - simple! Also, how much more can the people of Slane take, and how much more can the village itself (with all the traffic vibrations) take. Also, when certain people seem to worry about how the road will affect the appearance of the area, what about the lovely enhancements to the southern approach to Slane - maybe they think the yellow gantries do look lovely! :rolleyes: Well I for one don't - they're as ugly as hell and the new road is most likely to lead to the best thing that would ever happen them - demolition! Also, there would be scope to enhance pedestrian facilities along this approach and the old bridge.

    Bypass Slane Now!!!

    Route Options (Bypass Slane Campaign Site)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 79 ✭✭Newtown Warrior


    A ROUTE TO THE WEST HAS NO ADVANTAGE EXCEPT FOR EITHER THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY WHICH WOULD BE HAPPY WITH A FAR LONGER SCHEME TO CONSTRUCT, OR THE ACCOUNTANTS WHO WOULD HAVE A BIGGER EXCUSE FOR NOT DOING THE BYPASS.

    The intrinsic and tourist value of Bru na Boinne is far greater the destruction of woodland and scrub and would also impact on the drumlin country around the Hill of Slane’????????? The notion of potentially compromising one of Irelands premiere locations should not be on the table when we are trying desperately to encourage for tourist to visitors and maintaining our precious heritage.

    I concur that Slane requires a bypass. However as demonstrated due consideration has not been given to the western proposal.


    This western route has its benefits-
    • It is located further away from Bru na Boinne.
    • It is located closer to existing quarry developments.
    • A longer road will provide more employment directly and indirectly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    The intrinsic and tourist value of Bru na Boinne is far greater the destruction of woodland and scrub and would also impact on the drumlin country around the Hill of Slane’????????? The notion of potentially compromising one of Irelands premiere locations should not be on the table when we are trying desperately to encourage for tourist to visitors and maintaining our precious heritage.

    I concur that Slane requires a bypass. However as demonstrated due consideration has not been given to the western proposal.

    The Eastern Route does not threaten Newgrange or Knowth in any way - these are inside the core heritage zone - then there is the buffer zone to ensure the protection of Bru na Boinne - the Eastern route does not even enter this buffer zone.

    The real question is: what tourists do we as Irish people really want anyway? Do we want tourists who accept this country for what it is or do we want tourists that see this island as some sort of disneyland with leprechauns and thatched cottages. They only reason I can see for not proceeding with the eastern route (unless it directly affects the new discovery) is that it might spoil the experience for the type of tourist who don't really want to see sight nor light of us ordinary Irish people.

    Given that Bru na Boinne is under no threat, to me our daily lives plus the environment are of far greater importance than creating an illusion that suits some stereotypical tourist that likes to see Ireland as quaint! Do you really want this stereotypical image of Ireland to persist - are you not rather embarrassed when people abroad might still think we have only acquired electricity in the last 20 years.

    I must admit, when I was a child (11) going to Scotland (Glasgow), I thought it would be all cobblestones, kilts and bagpipes! :o:o:o WTF??? :o When I got to Glasgow (1984), I was stunned by the then futuristic M8 motorway - it completely blew away my stupid perception of Scotland for good! :) In other words, I was glad to see Scotland for what is really was - I was so glad is wasn't all in the past and the M8 was my favourite motorway for such a long time (the Dublin M50 nowadays) - I did read English comics at the time - I wonder is that where I got my perception? :o Likewise, some of our tourists must get real about Ireland - many of us Irish people (though proud of our heritage) do not appreciate stereotypes regarding this country - I for one would put the walk through the Red Cow Interchange on the tourist trail - with a whirlpool of traffic lanes all round, it would get them real about Ireland!
    This western route has its benefits-
    • It is located further away from Bru na Boinne.
    • It is located closer to existing quarry developments.
    • A longer road will provide more employment directly and indirectly.

    Point 1 is not a good reason - apart from the ECO aspect, would the eastern route not better serve people trying to get to Bru na Boinne?
    Point 2 is good - didn't think of that one I must admit!
    Point 3 - the long term interests of people and the environment takes precedence over short term economics as far as I'm concerned. The longer route would also mean increased business costs for many as it is significantly longer.
    I will throw in Point 4: The western route (just thought of it) would facilitate a possible traffic desire line from Navan past Slane to Ardee, then across on the N33 to the M1 North.

    However, the N2 is the main desire line for now, so I still think the Eastern Route is best!

    Regards!


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


    The third point is especially astonishing. That sounds like an argument for doing something with more labourers/effort than do something that's more efficient. Isn't that what these boys were after?!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 51 ✭✭tuathal


    The Eastern Route does not threaten Newgrange or Knowth in any way - these are inside the core heritage zone - then there is the buffer zone to ensure the protection of Bru na Boinne - the Eastern route does not even enter this buffer zone.

    That is completely false.

    The proposed bypass will intrude upon the World Heritage Site, directly. It will be visible, audible, and entail demolishing a number of archaeological sites that are related to Newgrange. In addition, it will detract greatly from the amenity value of the site and its setting, which is also protected in law. It will sever the World Heritage Site from the village.

    That is why some of Ireland's leading archaeologists, like Professor George Eogan, think it could even result in the loss of World Heritage status.

    But not only Ireland's leading archaeologists, but one of Ireland's leading transport experts, Dr Edward Morgenroth of the ESRI, has condemned this project as an "idiotic" waste of taxpayers money, when there is a much more logical and efficient solution to stopping all the HGVs passing through the village every day, avoiding the M1 toll. Implement the HGV ban that the Meath County Councillors voted for in 2009. If the HGVs are gone, there is no need for this bypass.

    The NRA agreed with Morgenroth and cancelled the bypass in late April 2009, but then changed their mind, after a visit by Brian Cowen to Slane. Something very fishy going on planning-wise in Meath.

    With 7 billion in cuts on the horizon, it is insance to keep building 'gold-plated' infrastructure like this. Look at the M3, with traffic 25% under target, and direct payments being made by the taxpayer to the tolling company, for another newroad that wasn't needed, when the old one could have been upgraded, and not tolled at all.

    The Celtic Tiger is over...and sites like Newgrange are the only real thing that will keep money flowing into this country. Leave them alone...


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,505 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    If you want "completely false", lets just deconstruct your post:


    Edgar Morgenroth is NOT a transport expert. He is an economist. He is qualified in economics, not transport.

    And an archaeologist that thinks that something outside the buffer zone of a world heritage site could lead to the loss of world heritage status clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.

    As all roads which cross the path of the bypass currently will continue to cross the path of it - on bridges - there is no severance

    And a 2+2 bypass is not "gold plated". Slane needs bypassing and a 2+2 is the minimum standard which will avoid having to re-do it within a decade. A HGV cannot happen without an acceptable signposted alternative route - guess what? There isn't one.

    And N3 was unupgradable - there were houses and business premises alongside virtually all of it; Navan needed bypassing, Dunshauglin needed bypassing and Kells needed bypassing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    tuathal wrote: »
    That is completely false.

    The proposed bypass will intrude upon the World Heritage Site, directly. It will be visible, audible, and entail demolishing a number of archaeological sites that are related to Newgrange. In addition, it will detract greatly from the amenity value of the site and its setting, which is also protected in law. It will sever the World Heritage Site from the village.

    That is why some of Ireland's leading archaeologists, like Professor George Eogan, think it could even result in the loss of World Heritage status.


    Doesn't the N51 not pass through the buffer zone? Surely the traffic/noise from this poses alot more of a threat to the heritage status then a proposed road that is completely outside the buffer zone? No?

    The current road through Slane is a danger to road users, I'm surprised the state hasn't already been sued for not building a bypass because continuing with the current situation puts citizens in clear danger.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Simple suggestion...

    Downgrade N2 from Dublin-Ardee as the RXXX - perhaps listing Ashbourne and Slane as the possible destinations
    Reassign N33 to N2
    Resignpost M1 as "Belfast/Derry" with obvious "N2 Derry" signage at the Ardee exit

    That would sort everyone out. Sure you still have the stupid toll at Drogs but people would then actually use the M1 to get to Derry. You will still get the odd one who uses old road, but hed be in the minority

    Result: Less accidents at Slane. Job done (save for the bypass which it would still need)

    That is the most sensible solution to the whole thing. I also think a short link road on the north western side of Slane linking the existing N2 (which should be redesigated as suggested above) and the N51. Online upgrades of the N51 to Navan (which is needed anyway) would mean traffic can turn off at Adree and use M1 or take N51 to get onto M3 to get to Dublin without having to enter Slane or go near the World Heritage Site. Simple. We already have two motorways within 15km of Slane so there is absolutely no need to spend money bypassing the town.


  • Registered Users Posts: 751 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    Are you seriously thinking that people will just forget the road exists because its redesignated?

    Maybe tourists and those unfamiliar with the netowrk will go the new route. But most hauliers, heavy goods vehicles and people who have been using the road for years will still most likely continue to use the route especially if the alternative involves a toll.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,552 ✭✭✭veryangryman


    Jayuu wrote: »
    Are you seriously thinking that people will just forget the road exists because its redesignated?

    Maybe tourists and those unfamiliar with the netowrk will go the new route. But most hauliers, heavy goods vehicles and people who have been using the road for years will still most likely continue to use the route especially if the alternative involves a toll.

    Some Hauliers themselves may not know that they can get to Derry quicker by going via M1 - they just follow the signposts

    Even if ~20% did it, that would reduce the potential accidents involving trucks there by ~20%. Personally i think its worth it. I also think that as the years go on and the M1 becomes the de facto route, the estimate above would increase.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,505 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Some Hauliers themselves may not know that they can get to Derry quicker by going via M1 - they just follow the signposts

    Seriously, no. No hauliers don't know that. No commercial drivers of any description don't know it.

    Irish ones know and won't pay the tolls.

    Non-Irish ones have sat navs that know; and generally *do* take it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    Jayuu wrote: »
    Are you seriously thinking that people will just forget the road exists because its redesignated?

    Maybe tourists and those unfamiliar with the netowrk will go the new route. But most hauliers, heavy goods vehicles and people who have been using the road for years will still most likely continue to use the route especially if the alternative involves a toll.

    Ban HGVs through Slane, traffic can use the N51 to Navan and then the old N3 as a non-tolled alternative route. All boxes ticked.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    That is the most sensible solution to the whole thing. I also think a short link road on the north western side of Slane linking the existing N2 (which should be redesigated as suggested above) and the N51. Online upgrades of the N51 to Navan (which is needed anyway) would mean traffic can turn off at Adree and use M1 or take N51 to get onto M3 to get to Dublin without having to enter Slane or go near the World Heritage Site. Simple. We already have two motorways within 15km of Slane so there is absolutely no need to spend money bypassing the town.

    No, there is a need for a bypass - even if it's scaled down to type 2 single carriageway (8.0m pavement). AFAIK, there is not one crossing of the Boyne between the Navan Inner Relief Road and the M1 that is even 2 lanes wide - and at least 2 of these are death traps (Slane and Oldbridge). There are a lot of people living in the general area of Slane.

    Regards!


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    No, there is a need for a bypass - even if it's scaled down to type 2 single carriageway (8.0m pavement). AFAIK, there is not one crossing of the Boyne between the Navan Inner Relief Road and the M1 that is even 2 lanes wide - and at least 2 of these are death traps (Slane and Oldbridge). There are a lot of people living in the general area of Slane.

    Regards!

    No, the population of the general Slane area is not enough to justify the cost of building this bypass. Even at Type 2 single carriageway you are talking about something like €4million to build this road, money which would be better spent adding an extra lane to more of the M1. Looking long term the M1 will be used as the main Dublin - Derry route because we will never be able to afford to build a motorway from the end of the existing M2 to the border (nor should seeing as we already have a motorway either side of it). Traffic making longer journeys (beyond Slane) should be encouraged to use the M1 and meaning most of the problem in Slane is eliminated anyway. The existing bridge in Slane is good enough for local traffic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 51 ✭✭tuathal


    MYOB wrote: »
    If you want "completely false", lets just deconstruct your post:

    Edgar Morgenroth is NOT a transport expert. He is an economist. He is qualified in economics, not transport.

    Sorry, but you are wrong on all counts.

    While Dr Edgar Morgenroth is an economist, he is probably Ireland's leading transport economist/expert. According his profile on the web site of his employer, the Economics and Social Research Institute (ESRI), Ireland's leading research institute:
    Dr Edgar Morgenroth is an Associate Research Professor and programme co-ordinator for research on transport and infrastructure at the ESRI. He holds a PhD in Economics from Keele University in the UK and a Master’s degree in Economics and Finance from the National University of Ireland, Maynooth

    His research interests include transport economics, international trade, economic geography and public economics. Within these broad research topics he is particularly interested in the commuting patterns, economic returns to infrastructure, determinants of the volume of trade, the determinants of firm location, regional disparities, regional policy and the efficiency of public investment.

    Not only that, but he actually worked on the formulation of the National Development Plan (NDP), the transport section of which was rebranded as Transport 21; the plan the N2 Slane bypass is being built under.
    Dr Morgenroth has carried out extensive research as part of major studies on public investment in Ireland that were carried out as background studies for the formulation of the Irish National Development Plans. For example he was project co-ordinator on the research study on Investment Priorities carried out for the Department of Finance. In addition he has collaborated on a range of major studies on EU Structural Funds such as the Ex-post Evaluation of the Community Support Framework for the period 1994 to 1999.

    It is important to note that the N2 Slane bypass was not originally included in the NDP/Transport 21, but was added later on.

    In On 24 April 2009 he wrote an Opinion piece for The Irish Times called ‘Cuts in capital spending need not mean fewer projects‘, in which he wrote:

    Of course, not all planned infrastructure projects were good projects to start with and some should certainly be abandoned. It is remarkable that there are plans to facilitate the avoidance of the toll on the M1 by building a bypass around Slane involving the expensive construction of a bridge over the river Boyne when a simple HGV ban would solve the local traffic problems.

    Since then, Dr Morgenroth has written two posts in The Irish Economy blog, saying the N2 Slane bypass is a waste of taxpayers’ money. The first post, 1 March 2010, was entitled ‘Wasting money on roads?‘ and said:
    The simple, cheap and obvious solution to the problem of HGVs going through Slane is to ban them from doing so, as I argued in May 2009. This would also avoid all the hassle of forcing a major construction project through an area rich in archaeological sites and historic significance.

    The follow-up post, published 25 August 2010, was entitled simply ‘Wasting money on roads‘, wherein Dr Morgenroth said:
    Unfortunately gold-plating of projects is not unusual. In the ESRI Mid-Term Evaluation of NDP 2000-2006 we pointed out that “roads with capacity of 55,500 AADT, or anywhere near it, appear to be a significant overdesign for the numerous lightly-trafficked sections of the N8 and N9″. Such schemes cannot pass a reasonable cost-benefit analysis when compared to more appropriately sized schemes.

    Unfortunately, the lesson does not seem to have been learned and the tax payer is expected to pay for overdesign again (the fact that some of the schemes are PPPs is irrelevant here as these also have to be paid for by tax payers).

    Take the example of the N2, for which there are two proposed schemes in the system. I have already referred to the idiotic scheme to by-pass Slane where the key issue could be simply dealt with via a HGV ban.

    The ironic thing is that the NRA actually agreed with Dr Morgenroth and cancelled the N2 Slane bypass in 2009, on economic grounds, but mysteriously changed their mind, not long after a visit from the Taoiseach to Slane.

    The NRA informed Slane councillors by letter that there was no funding for the bypass in a 20 May 2009 meeting with Slane Electoral Area councillors, which was reported in The Meath Chronicle on 27 May 2009- . Incredulity in Slane as NRA says no funds for bypass:
    In its explanation for a pause in progress on the construction of a bypass – delivered to councillors at the Slane Electoral Area meeting last Wednesday – the NRA said the Government”s national transport infrastructure investment programme, Transport 21, provided the framework for the development of the national road network over the 10-year period from 2006 to 2015. It said that, under the plan, the initial focus of the authority”s programme of works would concentrate on the completion of the five major inter-urban routes linking Dublin to Cork, Waterford, Limerick, Galway and Northern Ireland (via the M1) to motorway/high quality carriageway standard.

    The plan anticipated the completion of these routes in their entirety by the end of 2010. Transport 21 also envisaged significant development of other key national primary roads, including the N2, N3, N4, N5, N21, N22, N24, N25 and N30, the Atlantic Road Corridor from Letterkenny through Sligo, Galway, Limerick, Cork and Waterford, as well as a number of national secondary routes which were identified in the plan as being particularly important for regional development, it said. Because of this, and the continued uncertainty regarding public finances, the NRA regretted that ‘it is not possible at this time to provide funding for the construction of the N2 Slane Bypass’.

    Then the leader of Fianna Fail, Taoiseach, Brian Cowen was welcomed to Slane on 25 May 2009 by Minister for Transport, Noel Dempsey, and his local Fianna Fail allies, Thomas Byrne TD and Cllr-to-be Wayne Harding. This was part of the Fianna Fail European and local election campaign. The Taoiseach’s arrival is proudly proclaimed in Cllr Harding’s blog (see him pictured with Cowen and Bypass Slane) – Harding welcomes Taoiseach meeting with Slane Bridge protest group:

    15 July 2009 - just two months after cancelling the bypass – NRA announced reversal of Slane bypass decision to the Oireachtas Transport Committee:
    The National Roads Authority believes that Slane should be bypassed on economic, environmental and safety grounds. The planning is well advanced and the compulsory purchase order, CPO, and environmental impact statement, EIS, documentation will be available to submit to An Bord Pleanála by October this year. Subject to Department of Finance approval, CPO and EIS applications will be submitted to An Bord Pleanála as soon as the documentation is ready.
    MYOB wrote: »

    And an archaeologist that thinks that something outside the buffer zone of a world heritage site could lead to the loss of world heritage status clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.

    Are you serious? You think some of Ireland's leading archaeologists, like Professor George Eogan of UCD and Joe Fenwick of NUI Galway and the Boyne Research Project, are going to go public and put their reputations on the line, without good reason? Are you going to side with archaeologists paid by the NRA?

    The plan is to build a dual carriageway, 500m from the edge of the world heritage site. That is considered the setting, and protected in the National Monuments Act. The landscape and views is protected the County Development Plan. Even UNESCO informed Ireland, at the time of inscription, to protect site and control development "in and around" the World Heritage Site.

    In The Drogheda Independent – Wednesday January 27 2010:
    Dr George Eogan, Professor Emeritus of Archaeology at University College Dublin, who performed extensive excavations at the Bru na Boinne World Heritage Site, said: "If this plan goes ahead, it will have a significant impact on the landscape and will result in the World Heritage Site being boxed in between two motorways, the M1 and the M2. 500 metres is simply too close, and it is conceivable that Newgrange could lose its World Heritage Status, if this plan goes ahead, like Dresden did last summer. They should simply ban HGVs from the town. There is simply no need to spend all this money or to do all this damage."

    Not only that but the EIS states that over 44 archaeological sites are to be impacted by the proposed bypass, in just 3.5km. As noted above, Fenwick has argued that the boundary of the world heritage site is not big enough, and it should be expanded to include new sites.
    MYOB wrote: »
    As all roads which cross the path of the bypass currently will continue to cross the path of it - on bridges - there is no severance

    Ploughing a greenfield Type 2 dual carriageway, built to motorway standard, through the Boyne Valley, one of Ireland's most delicate and highly protected natural reserves - in between the village of Slane and the World Heritage Site - is going to create severance on a grand scale. Pedestrians will not be able to even cross the road.

    Ironically, one of the big arguments the NRA makes against the western route is that fact that it will sever the village from Slane Castle. Are you going to say there is no severance there too?
    MYOB wrote: »
    And a 2+2 bypass is not "gold plated". Slane needs bypassing and a 2+2 is the minimum standard which will avoid having to re-do it within a decade. A HGV cannot happen without an acceptable signposted alternative route - guess what? There isn't one.

    Slane has already been bypassed, at a cost of roughly 2 billion euros. The M1 motorway actually runs along the western side of the UNESCO World Heritage Site, about 7km to the west of the village. The new M3 motorway runs about 7km to the east of the village.

    That is why Meath County Councillors voted for the HGV ban in April 2009. All they have to do is drive 5 min to the east or west, along the existing road.
    MYOB wrote: »

    And N3 was unupgradable - there were houses and business premises alongside virtually all of it; Navan needed bypassing, Dunshauglin needed bypassing and Kells needed bypassing.

    The original plan was to upgrade the N3; a plan that had been on the cards for about 20 years, which entailed bypassing the towns and pthe road. A 2+1 scheme could easily have gone in, without much damage to the few scattered houses along the road.

    However, once the upgrade was approved in 1999 by An Bord Pleanala, a decision was made to create the National Development Plan 2000-2006. This radically altered this and other plans all around the country - in what was a blatant grab for EU funding, not to mention an unprecedented opportunity for rezoning.

    Look at what is now happening in Carrickmines, where the the practice of bribes for rezoning land, which is then bought for motorways at inflated prices, is finally being prosecuted.

    Now, you are telling me that Dublin needs 3 major motorways going north, within 20km of each other? New York City doesn't have that many motorways going north, why does Dublin need it?

    With cuts of 7 billion on the cards this year alone, you seriously want to spend another 100 million on toll roads in Meath, when a simple HGV ban will do the trick?


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,505 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    tuathal wrote: »
    Sorry, but you are wrong on all counts.

    I'm not
    tuathal wrote: »
    While Dr Edgar Morgenroth is an economist, he is probably Ireland's leading transport economist/expert.

    Being a transport economist does not make you a transport expert. Its a fallacy to even suggest that.
    tuathal wrote: »
    The follow-up post, published 25 August 2010, was entitled simply ‘Wasting money on roads‘, wherein Dr Morgenroth said:

    That blog post is littered with errors and has been gone over on here before. Some of the errors are so basic as to make your calling him a "transport expert" laughable.
    tuathal wrote: »
    The ironic thing is that the NRA actually agreed with Dr Morgenroth and cancelled the N2 Slane bypass in 2009, on economic grounds, but mysteriously changed their mind, not long after a visit from the Taoiseach to Slane.

    Claiming that the NRA "agreed" with Morgenroth is a massive stretch of your imagination here! They pulled it due to funding, not due to Morgenroth. You're giving the man far too much credit, just like you give him too much status and belief in his "expert" status.
    tuathal wrote: »
    Are you serious? You think some of Ireland's leading archaeologists, like Professor George Eogan of UCD and Joe Fenwick of NUI Galway and the Boyne Research Project, are going to go public and put their reputations on the line, without good reason? Are you going to side with archaeologists paid by the NRA?

    I'm entirely serious. The buffer zone exists, that is all that is required to keep its world heritage status.
    tuathal wrote: »
    The plan is to build a dual carriageway, 500m from the edge of the world heritage site.

    500m from the edge of the buffer zone

    tuathal wrote: »
    That is considered the setting, and protected in the National Monuments Act. The landscape and views is protected the County Development Plan. Even UNESCO informed Ireland, at the time of inscription, to protect site and control development "in and around" the World Heritage Site.

    Which we did, by putting in the buffer zone.
    tuathal wrote: »
    Ploughing a greenfield Type 2 dual carriageway, built to motorway standard, through the Boyne Valley, one of Ireland's most delicate and highly protected natural reserves - in between the village of Slane and the World Heritage Site - is going to create severance on a grand scale. Pedestrians will not be able to even cross the road

    A type 2 DC is NOT "built to motorway standard"! Its clear you don't even know what you're fighting against here.

    To let you catch up a bit here, a Type 2 DC is a 4 lane road with a wire barrier down the centre. It has no hard shoulders. Junctions are generally roundabouts. Minor roads are on flyovers. Laybys are provided at intervals. The overall landtake is minorly higher than the old standard single carriageway - and identical to the wider standard of this built in some counties

    Pedestrians are allowed on N road dual carriageways - of which a type 2 DC is.

    If you imagine this is "gold plated" now, you clearly want Ireland to return to the middle ages.
    tuathal wrote: »
    Ironically, one of the big arguments the NRA makes against the western route is that fact that it will sever the village from Slane Castle. Are you going to say there is no severance there too?

    A road running between a village and a castle which is very near to it will sever it as there will be multiple paths, etc blocked.

    Running between it and a site some distance from it has no such effect. There will only be a few roads all of which will be preserved.
    tuathal wrote: »
    Slane has already been bypassed, at a cost of roughly 2 billion euros. The M1 motorway actually runs along the western side of the UNESCO World Heritage Site, about 7km to the west of the village. The new M3 motorway runs about 7km to the east of the village.

    That is why Meath County Councillors voted for the HGV ban in April 2009. All they have to do is drive 5 min to the east or west, along the existing road.

    Neither the R132 or R147 is acceptably close for a HGV ban. Look at the HGV ban routes around Maynooth to see how close they have to be. You can't redirect traffic solely on to tolled routes so don't continue pretending that the M1 and M3 can be the alternative.

    There cannot be a HGV ban in the village until there is a second river crossing and there can be no second river crossing without the bypass.
    tuathal wrote: »
    The original plan was to upgrade the N3; a plan that had been on the cards for about 20 years, which entailed bypassing the towns and pthe road. A 2+1 scheme could easily have gone in, without much damage to the few scattered houses along the road.

    2+1s are known to be extremely dangerous and no more are being built. Once you bypassed the three towns (including Kells on both roads), provided the S2 bypass of Dunboyne and did patchwork upgrades in between you are, effectively, getting to the same scale as the M3 just without the speed advantages and with far more destruction of housing stock, business premises, etc.

    tuathal wrote: »
    Now, you are telling me that Dublin needs 3 major motorways going north, within 20km of each other? New York City doesn't have that many motorways going north, why does Dublin need it?

    The N2 will not be a motorway, stop pretending it will be.

    New York is the far north east of its country, Dublin is in the centre, along one side. It is, of course, going to have more motorways radiating out northwards.
    tuathal wrote: »
    With cuts of 7 billion on the cards this year alone, you seriously want to spend another 100 million on toll roads in Meath, when a simple HGV ban will do the trick?

    Toll roads? Have you got some insane idea that this is going to be tolled? Or that it'll cost 100 million?


    Either you *are* Vincent Salafia or you're regurgitating his arguments without actually studying them. Every point you've made is in his extremely poorly researched letter to the Meath Chronicle.

    You need to go away and actually learn what you're arguing against before you come back here and continue to argue. You also need to stop trusting Morgenroth as some form of deity.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    MYOB wrote: »
    A type 2 DC is NOT "built to motorway standard"! Its clear you don't even know what you're fighting against here.

    To let you catch up a bit here, a Type 2 DC is a 4 lane road with a wire barrier down the centre. It has no hard shoulders. Junctions are generally roundabouts. Minor roads are on flyovers. Laybys are provided at intervals. The overall landtake is minorly higher than the old standard single carriageway - and identical to the wider standard of this built in some counties.

    Explain why we should build a DC when we already have a motorway within 10km? My earlier estimate of the cost was based on single carriageway, DC here would cost close to €10million. There is no way this cost can be justified when we should be encouraging people to use motorways. Even with this short section of DC, the road either side of Slane isnt great so HGVs should use the motorways which are designed to take them.
    MYOB wrote: »
    Neither the R132 or R147 is acceptably close for a HGV ban. Look at the HGV ban routes around Maynooth to see how close they have to be. You can't redirect traffic solely on to tolled routes so don't continue pretending that the M1 and M3 can be the alternative.

    There cannot be a HGV ban in the village until there is a second river crossing and there can be no second river crossing without the bypass..

    Like I said before, direct traffic onto N51 as far as Navan and then they can use the old N3 as the non-tolled alternative route, which does not require a new river crossing. Then the HGV ban can be introduced.
    The N2 will not be a motorway, stop pretending it will be..

    All the more reason to put HGVs onto the motorway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,505 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Explain why we should build a DC when we already have a motorway within 10km? My earlier estimate of the cost was based on single carriageway, DC here would cost close to €10million. There is no way this cost can be justified when we should be encouraging people to use motorways. Even with this short section of DC, the road either side of Slane isnt great so HGVs should use the motorways which are designed to take them.

    Because the traffic counts are too high for the single carriageways we now build (RS2, about 8M wide). The next standard up is RD2, "type 2" DC.
    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    Like I said before, direct traffic onto N51 as far as Navan and then they can use the old N3 as the non-tolled alternative route, which does not require a new river crossing. Then the HGV ban can be introduced.

    N51 needs upgrading before this can happen; and it leaves Slane with one, elderly and vulnerable to damage river crossing.

    Also, where do you suggest traffic comes from/to Navan back to the N2 corridor south of Slane?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,816 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    MYOB wrote: »
    Because the traffic counts are too high for the single carriageways we now build (RS2, about 8M wide). The next standard up is RD2, "type 2" DC.

    I wasnt asking why should we build DC instead of single carriageway, I was asking why build a DC and continue using the N2 as the route from Dublin to Derry when we already have the M1? Explain why do that when we can simply downgrade the N2 north of Ashbourne to a regional road, reduce speed to 80kph and signpost the M1 as the Derry road with turn off at Ardee. As I said before there is no problem doing this because the old N3 in the non-tolled alternative.
    MYOB wrote: »
    N51 needs upgrading before this can happen; and it leaves Slane with one, elderly and vulnerable to damage river crossing.

    The N51 only requires basic upgrdes, some realignment, widening, etc. and this can be done for a fraction of the cost building a DC bypass of Slane with a big bridge. The old bridge in Slane will be fine as long as HGVs are kept off it, which under my proposal they are.
    MYOB wrote: »
    Also, where do you suggest traffic comes from/to Navan back to the N2 corridor south of Slane?

    The redirected traffic coming into Navan from Slane uses the existing N51 and uses existing roads around the town. This traffic does not have to go into the main part of the town and uses the existing road along the river (old N3). This extra traffic would not have a major effect on Navan as most of the traffic now bypasses it on M3. Toll dodgers are forced to slow down entering the town and the same in Dunshaughlin, making their journey longer but thats the price they pay for not using the motorway. Im sure most people north of Slane would just use the M1 in this situation because toll dodging would cost them a lot in terms of time for the sake of a few euro so extra traffic in Navan is not a problem.

    More toll money for less cost, its win win.


Advertisement