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
1246731

Comments

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


    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.



    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.



    All the more reason to put HGVs onto the motorway.

    We're brothers on the N11/N25 thread :D, but I think we might have to agree to differ in this one...

    ...no matter what way you look at it, there is AFAIK an EU rule that states that a reasonable alternative a toll route must be provided. Take your suggestion - for this exercise, I'm going to make it work:

    Build a simple bypass of Ardee from the N33 and then bypass Collen (to reduce costs, use the type 2 single carriageway for all bypasses - no flyovers required)

    Now, bypass Slane from the N2 North of Slane to the N51 West of the town (no longer than the current proposal and no major bridge). Upgrade remaining narrow sections of the N51 (Slane to Navan) to Type 2 Single (the N51 will need to be upgraded anyway!).

    Now, with 3 smallish bypasses and relatively minor upgrades along the N51, this is very doable and plausible and would probably be of more benefit than the Slane Bypass.

    However, once in Navan, the only way to negotiate the town is to use the Flower Hill bypass to access to Navan Inner Relief Road. This would bring the trucks through the middle of residential areas - in my estimation, this would spark large protests probably resulting in road blocks etc. Ultimately, Navan would have to be bypassed to the West involving a direct N51 to N3 link with a crossing of the Boyne. I don't think the residents of Johnstown would tolerate the use of their link road (an urban road) as an extension of the Boyne crossing by trucks either - hence, a full outer bypass as mentioned above. The measure in itself would be very expesive (I guess much more so than the Slane Bypass).

    If the trucks are made to use the N33 from Ardee and the M1 to Junction 10 or 11 (before the toll section), the trucks would then be forced through Drogheda and Julianstown before hitting Junction 7 at City North (Gormanston) - Julianstown would certainly need a bypass - they're already (with 20k+ PCUS) calling for one. With many more trucks going through Drogheda (with a truck ban in Slane), Drogheda will probably need a bypass too.

    Now, I'm looking at the scenarios relating to your alternative and then my one - IMO, neither of them will work without significant road investment. It's all very messy in comparison to what a short 4km Bypass of Slane would involve - OK, Ardee and Collen would probably need small bypasses like Slane, but that really would be it - There would be a continuous road all the way from Dublin to Ardee (no towns) with the 3 small bypasses in place. Large bypasses of Navan or Drogheda could be put off for now. I don't know about Julianstown though!

    You'll probably disagree with the above, but I'll leave it at that!

    Let's get back to the N11/N25 thread! :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,511 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    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.

    Because Slane needs another river crossing, no matter what other schemes are proposed.
    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    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.

    Over a far longer length, with property demolition required to widen. Won't be any cheaper.

    The old bridge is single carriageway and very weak. It won't be "fine", no matter what is done.
    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    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.

    This isn't in any way an alternative route. There is no southern access to it anywhere near Slane for starters.

    What you're proposing only works in one direction and for traffic going all the way to the M50; and leaves Slane with a crumbling bridge. Seems more like lose-lose to me. Thats before we get to forcing HGV traffic to make a 90 or 270 degree turn at a tight junction in the middle of the village!

    Tell me how your scheme provides a viable bypass for traffic going from Ashbourne to Ardee? Collon to Finglas? etc etc etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,820 ✭✭✭Pete_Cavan


    We're brothers on the N11/N25 thread :D, but I think we might have to agree to differ in this one...

    ...no matter what way you look at it, there is AFAIK an EU rule that states that a reasonable alternative a toll route must be provided. Take your suggestion - for this exercise, I'm going to make it work:

    Build a simple bypass of Ardee from the N33 and then bypass Collen (to reduce costs, use the type 2 single carriageway for all bypasses - no flyovers required)

    Now, bypass Slane from the N2 North of Slane to the N51 West of the town (no longer than the current proposal and no major bridge). Upgrade remaining narrow sections of the N51 (Slane to Navan) to Type 2 Single (the N51 will need to be upgraded anyway!).

    Now, with 3 smallish bypasses and relatively minor upgrades along the N51, this is very doable and plausible and would probably be of more benefit than the Slane Bypass.

    However, once in Navan, the only way to negotiate the town is to use the Flower Hill bypass to access to Navan Inner Relief Road. This would bring the trucks through the middle of residential areas - in my estimation, this would spark large protests probably resulting in road blocks etc. Ultimately, Navan would have to be bypassed to the West involving a direct N51 to N3 link with a crossing of the Boyne. I don't think the residents of Johnstown would tolerate the use of their link road (an urban road) as an extension of the Boyne crossing by trucks either - hence, a full outer bypass as mentioned above. The measure in itself would be very expesive (I guess much more so than the Slane Bypass).

    If the trucks are made to use the N33 from Ardee and the M1 to Junction 10 or 11 (before the toll section), the trucks would then be forced through Drogheda and Julianstown before hitting Junction 7 at City North (Gormanston) - Julianstown would certainly need a bypass - they're already (with 20k+ PCUS) calling for one. With many more trucks going through Drogheda (with a truck ban in Slane), Drogheda will probably need a bypass too.

    Now, I'm looking at the scenarios relating to your alternative and then my one - IMO, neither of them will work without significant road investment. It's all very messy in comparison to what a short 4km Bypass of Slane would involve - OK, Ardee and Collen would probably need small bypasses like Slane, but that really would be it - There would be a continuous road all the way from Dublin to Ardee (no towns) with the 3 small bypasses in place. Large bypasses of Navan or Drogheda could be put off for now. I don't know about Julianstown though!

    You'll probably disagree with the above, but I'll leave it at that!

    Let's get back to the N11/N25 thread! :D

    I dont disagree with any of that and I know you are right in what you have said. However (Im sure you guessed this was coming), I cant see HGVs in Johnstown being a problem because must of them will (should) have turned onto M1 at Adree because very few would actually start their journey between Slane and Ardee. Unfortunately that would lead to problems in Drogheda as the HGVs avoid the M1 toll.

    The best solution for all of it is to reduce the tolls HGVs have to pay. If set at a more reasonable level it would encourage the drivers to use the motorways. This would do away with the need to bypass any of the towns as you suggested, but there still has to be something to deter toll dodging, that being having to slow down to 50kph to pass through a town. There is no point in building motorways if the non-tolled alternative is almost as fast. If it is a choice between paying a reduced toll or adding 20 minutes to your journey Im sure most would pay the toll. Getting the HGVs onto the motorways would increase toll revenue and save money in terms of less bypasses.

    I agree with everything in the post I quoted but yet I see absolutely no justification for building a bypass of Slane when there is a perfectly good motorway 10km to the east.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 51 ✭✭tuathal


    MYOB wrote: »
    Being a transport economist does not make you a transport expert. Its a fallacy to even suggest that.

    Please. I never said he was an engineer. There are numerous types of transport experts, and a transport economist is one of them. It defies logic to suggest otherwise. That is why the ESRI and the Irish Times engage him, to research transport proposals.

    Obviously, you have some vested interest here, that you are not revealing, which is your right. However, we are under no obligation to accept your misstatements, just because you work for the Government.
    MYOB wrote: »

    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.

    So, now you are an economist as well as an engineer. A transport expert and an economic expert, not to mention an archaeological expert as well? I;m impressed. But you know your real talent seems to be comedy.

    Shouldn't you be working now? Or did you get laid off when a lot of roads projects got cut from the NDP. There must be a lot of engineers and archaeologists hoping for jobs on the Slane bypass, as it will be the only show in town.
    MYOB wrote: »

    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.

    I said they agreed with him, in the sense that they reached the same conclusion. They did, which is why I reprinted both conclusions. Both the NRA and Morgenroth concluded that there were other more important roads projects that needed to go ahead, and that the funding for the Slane bypass should be pulled.

    So, where did the funding magically reappear from, between May and July 2009?
    MYOB wrote: »

    I'm entirely serious. The buffer zone exists, that is all that is required to keep its world heritage status.

    Seriously misinformed, by design I imagine.

    According to UNESCO its World Heritage Status was already in question, even before this proposal, due to the impact of large and small 'inappropriate development". This include the M1 motorway, which UNESCO were shocked to find had been built along side the edge of the world heritage site, but wasn't even mentioned in the M1 EIS.

    A joint UNESCO/ICOMOS reactive monitoring mission to Ireland in 2004, to examine the incinerator being built near Bru na Boinne, said in their report:

    The mission received conflicting opinions on the effect of this development, ranging from the view that the inscribed area was rapidly being devalued to the point where continued inscription should be questioned, to the view that the local community, whose applications are ‘not discouraged by successive development plans, are faced with objection from the state, even for individual family homes’. In this latter view it was expressed to the mission that while strategically significant infrastructure projects were granted permission, smaller scale proposals of importance to local residents were being refused.

    The M1 has had a major impact on the site, and this will be compounded by the N2. The UNESCO report condemns the Irish Government's treatment of the site:
    M1 Motorway – At the time of the nomination it was clear that the Irish Government had aspirations for a Dublin-Belfast motorway. The eastern boundary of the buffer zone was drawn on a line west of a possible route. However, no mention was made of this motorway in the main text of the nomination dossier although, an attached study discussed the proposed motorway. The implications for the site of the motorway were not discussed in the original ICOMOS evaluation. In the mission’s opinion it would have been appropriate for the State Party to have drawn the attention
    of the World Heritage Committee to this proposed major piece of infrastructure and to have confirmed whether or not it would have had an impact on the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage site.


    Two years after the inscription, an Environmental Impact Statement of the Motorway was published and this makes no reference to the World Heritage inscription or its impact on it. The Environmental Impact Statement is concerned largely with the narrow line of the preferred route. Once again, the mission considers that not only was this a major omission but also that the State Party should have informed the World Heritage Centre of its intention to build the motorway.

    The motorway (M1) has now been constructed and recently opened in 2003. The motorway crosses the River Boyne by means of a cable-stayed bridge with a main span of 170 m and a single pylon rising to an elevation of 85 m above sea-level and its top stands 60 m above the highest adjacent ground level. The bridge and the motorway are clearly visible from the eastern end of the inscribed site, not only during the day, but also at night when it is illuminated with blue light with a red aviation warning light. There is also considerable noise pollution. There can be no doubt that the motorway has a considerable impact on the World Heritage site and even more impact on the main site of the Battle of the Boyne within the buffer zone.

    The report made a number of recommendations, including:
    h) The Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government considers reviewing the eastern line of the buffer zone in the light of the line of the M1 Motorway as built;

    Has the buffer zone been reassessed?
    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.

    Meath County Council/NRA were forced to admit that this dual carriageway can be upgraded to motorway, without additional land take.

    This happened when they were forced by An Bord Pleanala to publish additional significant information, which they had excluded from the EIS and withheld from the public and the planning body.

    This road is not being built in a vacum. It is part of the plan to connect the M2 motorway, now built to Ashbourne, with the A5 motorway in Northern Ireland. Ultimately, the aim is to link Dublin to Derry, on a single motorway. The Irish Government has even pledged half a billion euros to the Northern authorities, for works up there.

    This is a motorway being built by stealth, and salami-sliced into small sections, but a motorway in the making, nonetheless.
    MYOB wrote: »

    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.

    Pedestrians, including tourists, will be endangered crossing from a sleepy historic village, over four lanes of speeding traffic, to a Unesco world heritage site.

    I want Ireland to face reality, which is that we cannot afford this extravagant road, when we already spent 2 billion bypassing Slane with the M1 and M3.

    Vested interests, like yours, are largely responsible for the mess we are in now. The 'transport experts' in the NRA managed to drive the cost of the roads programme from 6 billion in 2000, to over 30 billion - and take wwice as long to build them as was supposed to take.
    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.

    Every single county councillor in Meath voted for the HGV ban. The county manager has a legal duty to implement it, and both the NRA and the Minister promised to implement it. Why would it have been proposed and passed if it was unworkable? Clearly, it is being withheld, in order to artificially inflate traffic in Slane with 1,600 HGVs a day, so as to justify a bypass.
    MYOB wrote: »

    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.

    If they are so dangerous, then why was the NRA promoting them so heavily?

    MYOB wrote: »


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

    The N2 already IS part motorway. The N2 from Dublin to Ashbourne was redesignated as M2 motorway in 2007. The rest is inevitable, if this bypass goes ahead.

    MYOB wrote: »

    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.

    At least you are not a geographic expert too. New York has 8 times as many people as Dublin and is a central transport hub, just like Dublin. There are many states north of New York, and a country called Canada, not unlike the relationship between Dublin and N. Ireland. However, I can't see the Americans giving the Canadians half a billion to build their roads.

    Three motorways going north out of Dublin, within 20km of each other, is "idiotic" to say the least.
    MYOB wrote: »

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

    Every single road that can be tolled, will be tolled, in the upcoming budget. That is a certainty. There is not money to pay for building this road out of our own pocket. That is why the NRA cancelled it. They may have been forced to change their mind by some politicians, but they cannot print the money they don't have to build it.

    The roads programme went from 6 billion to over 30 billion. And you expect us to believe this road won't go over budget?
    MYOB wrote: »

    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.

    None of your arguments stood up at all.

    People are not as stupid as you seem to think they are, nor are you as smart as you pretend.

    Its vested interests like you that are responsible for this country being the economic and environmental disaster zone it is now. And you still haven't learned anything.

    THE CELTIC TIGER IS OVER - GET A LIFE


  • Registered Users Posts: 674 ✭✭✭etchyed


    tuathal wrote: »
    Obviously, you have some vested interest here, that you are not revealing, which is your right. However, we are under no obligation to accept your misstatements, just because you work for the Government.

    ...

    So, now you are an economist as well as an engineer. A transport expert and an economic expert, not to mention an archaeological expert as well? I;m impressed. But you know your real talent seems to be comedy.

    ...

    Shouldn't you be working now? Or did you get laid off when a lot of roads projects got cut from the NDP. There must be a lot of engineers and archaeologists hoping for jobs on the Slane bypass, as it will be the only show in town.

    ...

    Seriously misinformed, by design I imagine.

    ...

    Vested interests, like yours, are largely responsible for the mess we are in now.

    ...

    Clearly, it is being withheld, in order to artificially inflate traffic in Slane with 1,600 HGVs a day, so as to justify a bypass.

    ...

    People are not as stupid as you seem to think they are, nor are you as smart as you pretend.

    Its vested interests like you that are responsible for this country being the economic and environmental disaster zone it is now. And you still haven't learned anything.

    THE CELTIC TIGER IS OVER - GET A LIFE
    It's a shame that you've undermined yourself in this post with so much paranoia and so many personal insults. I have to admit some of your points are well made but your general attitude makes me reluctant to believe much of what you say.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,511 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    tuathal wrote: »
    Obviously, you have some vested interest here, that you are not revealing, which is your right. However, we are under no obligation to accept your misstatements, just because you work for the Government.

    I have no vested interests. I work for a private sector company not involved in road design, engineering, construction or indeed anything related to it.

    You're the one making misstatements - namely in relation to road standard, budget, location, impact, indeed every single thing you've posted.
    tuathal wrote: »
    So, now you are an economist as well as an engineer. A transport expert and an economic expert, not to mention an archaeological expert as well? I;m impressed. But you know your real talent seems to be comedy.

    The fundamental errors in Morgenroth's blog posting relate to his knowledge of roads, NRA standards, traffic counts and the like - not economics. If you'd read my post you'd have seen thats what I said, but no, you skimmed it and went on an attack path.
    tuathal wrote: »
    Shouldn't you be working now? Or did you get laid off when a lot of roads projects got cut from the NDP. There must be a lot of engineers and archaeologists hoping for jobs on the Slane bypass, as it will be the only show in town.

    I'm on annual leave. I could ask the same question of yourself but I'm not that childish.

    tuathal wrote: »
    I said they agreed with him, in the sense that they reached the same conclusion. They did, which is why I reprinted both conclusions. Both the NRA and Morgenroth concluded that there were other more important roads projects that needed to go ahead, and that the funding for the Slane bypass should be pulled.

    So, where did the funding magically reappear from, between May and July 2009?

    Reaching a conclusion that someone else has reached does not equate to 'agreement'

    tuathal wrote: »
    Seriously misinformed, by design I imagine.

    You're the one that is ludacriously misinformed.
    tuathal wrote: »
    According to UNESCO its World Heritage Status was already in question, even before this proposal, due to the impact of large and small 'inappropriate development". This include the M1 motorway, which UNESCO were shocked to find had been built along side the edge of the world heritage site, but wasn't even mentioned in the M1 EIS.

    Their fault for not requiring a larger buffer zone. The buffer zone is there - and the Slane Bypass is NOT within it.
    tuathal wrote: »
    Meath County Council/NRA were forced to admit that this dual carriageway can be upgraded to motorway, without additional land take.

    The Nenagh Bypass was upgraded to motorway without additional land take - at immense cost, complexity and disruption. Pretty much any new build single carriageway road can but the complexity is immense, as there is no space around the road pavement in which to work.

    The road is not being built as a motorway. There is no intention to make it motorway. Building it as a DC does not make it any easier to upgrade to motorway than building it as SC does - and indeed, building it at all makes it more complicated to build a motorway than not building it!
    tuathal wrote: »
    This is a motorway being built by stealth, and salami-sliced into small sections, but a motorway in the making, nonetheless.

    Fantasise all you like.
    tuathal wrote: »
    Pedestrians, including tourists, will be endangered crossing from a sleepy historic village, over four lanes of speeding traffic, to a Unesco world heritage site.

    Slane will only become a 'sleepy historic village' with a bypass; currently it is far from sleepy.

    And have you never heard of the concept of a bridge?
    tuathal wrote: »
    I want Ireland to face reality, which is that we cannot afford this extravagant road, when we already spent 2 billion bypassing Slane with the M1 and M3.

    Neither of these bypass Slane.
    tuathal wrote: »
    Vested interests, like yours, are largely responsible for the mess we are in now. The 'transport experts' in the NRA managed to drive the cost of the roads programme from 6 billion in 2000, to over 30 billion - and take wwice as long to build them as was supposed to take.

    How come Morgenroth, an economist, is referred to by you as a transport expert and the NRA staff, who are actually trained in and working in road design, get given '' to suggest they aren't?
    tuathal wrote: »
    Every single county councillor in Meath voted for the HGV ban. The county manager has a legal duty to implement it, and both the NRA and the Minister promised to implement it. Why would it have been proposed and passed if it was unworkable? Clearly, it is being withheld, in order to artificially inflate traffic in Slane with 1,600 HGVs a day, so as to justify a bypass.

    Councillors and county managers are known to propose things which are unworkable. Its a fact of life.
    tuathal wrote: »
    If they are so dangerous, then why was the NRA promoting them so heavily?

    The NRA *trialled* them and decided that they didn't work. Equating this to promotion is fantasy.
    tuathal wrote: »
    The N2 already IS part motorway. The N2 from Dublin to Ashbourne was redesignated as M2 motorway in 2007. The rest is inevitable, if this bypass goes ahead.

    You can't redesignate a road not built to motorway standards. The Slane bypass will not be built to motorway standards.
    tuathal wrote: »
    Three motorways going north out of Dublin, within 20km of each other, is "idiotic" to say the least.

    Two motorways, to entirely different destinations; and a national route of which a small part is designated motorway. Meath is the county *beside* Dublin, of course radial routes out of Dublin will be closely spaced within it. Belfast, Derry and Ballyshannon - the official ends of the N1, N2 and N3 corridors - are nowhere near 20km from each other.

    The "four motorways" (remember the M4 glances off Meath too) argument is another Salafia invention.
    tuathal wrote: »
    Every single road that can be tolled, will be tolled, in the upcoming budget. That is a certainty. There is not money to pay for building this road out of our own pocket. That is why the NRA cancelled it. They may have been forced to change their mind by some politicians, but they cannot print the money they don't have to build it.

    The only roads which may be tolled will be actual motorways - not low grade DC bypasses.

    Again, fantasise all you like - for that is all most of your posts are, pure fantasy.
    tuathal wrote: »
    The roads programme went from 6 billion to over 30 billion. And you expect us to believe this road won't go over budget?

    Fixed price contracts don't go over-budget.


    tuathal wrote: »
    None of your arguments stood up at all.

    People are not as stupid as you seem to think they are, nor are you as smart as you pretend.

    Its vested interests like you that are responsible for this country being the economic and environmental disaster zone it is now. And you still haven't learned anything.

    THE CELTIC TIGER IS OVER - GET A LIFE

    People are clearly stupid enough to think they can rehash a Vincent Salafia diatribe and except people to believe it.

    Seeing as you're so eager on vested interests - I call on you to declare any and all connections you have to "Save Newgrange", Vincent Salafia and any previous anti-roads campaigning you've done. We may see something interesting here.

    You clearly think that anyone who disagrees with you has a vested interest; you trust an economist more than people that actually work in the field.

    If anyone needs to "GET A LIFE", its those who spend time fantasising about being able to block a road project that will save lives, rescue a village from the strangehold of traffic and generally be of benefit to thousands of people a day - just so they can get some sense of satisfaction that they're trying to "save" something that needs no saving.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 51 ✭✭tuathal


    etchyed wrote: »
    It's a shame that you've undermined yourself in this post with so much paranoia and so many personal insults. I have to admit some of your points are well made but your general attitude makes me reluctant to believe much of what you say.

    You are right, I did get a bit personal there. But please look below. I am now being asked to give you all my life history!

    The personal insults began with MYOB, and as for paranoia...I am not the one shadow-boxing Vincent Salafia, who supposedly is drafting all my posts.

    This debate isn't about me. But at least I back up what I say by references and expert opinion. The only opinion we are hearing from MYOB is Fianna Fail and the NRA, and it isn't even backed up by common sense.

    If you prefer style over substance, and want to continue to believe all they say, that's your choice. Me, I believe there is more to the story here than what they are telling us.

    Did they tell us they were going to toll the M3 before they built it? NO

    Did they tell us they were going to put a minimum traffic guarantee in the M3 contract, which means that the motorway could cost an extra 100 million in direct payments to the tolling company from the exchequer, because they inflated the traffic numbers in the planning stages? NO

    Do you honestly trust anything this Government (or its mouthpiece MYOB) tells you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,511 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    tuathal wrote: »
    You are right, I did get a bit personal there. But please look below. I am now being asked to give you all my life history!

    If you accuse someone of vested interests, you should be willing to show your cards.
    tuathal wrote: »
    This debate isn't about me. But at least I back up what I say by references and expert opinion. The only opinion we are hearing from MYOB is Fianna Fail and the NRA, and it isn't even backed up by common sense.

    I've never voted or even agreed with Fianna Fail in my life, thanks.

    I'm willing to let everyone else here decide whether what I'm saying is backed up by common sense or not. There is no common sense in refusing to build a second river crossing for a village left with a crumbling medieval bridge.
    tuathal wrote: »
    Did they tell us they were going to toll the M3 before they built it? NO

    YES, actually. The contract was PPP from the get-go. Not one bit of land was bought before it was fully known it was to be tolled.

    Revisionist history doesn't help your case.
    tuathal wrote: »
    Did they tell us they were going to put a minimum traffic guarantee in the M3 contract, which means that the motorway could cost an extra 100 million in direct payments to the tolling company from the exchequer, because they inflated the traffic numbers in the planning stages? NO

    No government agency reveals details of its contracts before finalisation. It can be assumed that the next cheapest contract cost more than this one plus the worst case scenario for payments; or else it would have been selected.
    tuathal wrote: »
    Do you honestly trust anything this Government (or its mouthpiece MYOB) tells you?

    I'm not a "Government mouthpiece". You're the one refusing to admit who you are.


  • Registered Users Posts: 674 ✭✭✭etchyed


    tuathal wrote: »
    You are right, I did get a bit personal there. But please look below. I am now being asked to give you all my life history!

    The personal insults began with MYOB, and as for paranoia...I am not the one shadow-boxing Vincent Salafia, who supposedly is drafting all my posts.

    This debate isn't about me. But at least I back up what I say by references and expert opinion. The only opinion we are hearing from MYOB is Fianna Fail and the NRA, and it isn't even backed up by common sense.

    If you prefer style over substance, and want to continue to believe all they say, that's your choice. Me, I believe there is more to the story here than what they are telling us.

    Did they tell us they were going to toll the M3 before they built it? NO

    Did they tell us they were going to put a minimum traffic guarantee in the M3 contract, which means that the motorway could cost an extra 100 million in direct payments to the tolling company from the exchequer, because they inflated the traffic numbers in the planning stages? NO

    Do you honestly trust anything this Government (or its mouthpiece MYOB) tells you?
    I trust virtually nothing this government tells me. But you can't assume somebody's a Fianna Fáil supporter/mouthpiece just because they support a road project you disagree with.

    You've made some valid points, particularly in relation to this UNESCO report on the M1, which I doubt many posters here knew about. And I agree entirely that the M3 is a completely unneeded and costly piece of infrastructure that's a disaster in transport planning terms. Motorways are not supposed to be for commuters.

    But apart from that, MYOB has shown a lot of your posts to be nonsense. You've now resorted to "something fishy going on", "three motorways in Meath!", "Fianna Fáil are not to be trusted", "everything's been 10 times over budget" type arguments which won't really hold much sway here as everyone knows they're either incorrect or irrelevant. I would respectfully suggest that your posting style might be better suited to Politics.ie, where nobody does much research before having an opinion.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 51 ✭✭tuathal


    etchyed wrote: »
    I trust virtually nothing this government tells me. But you can't assume somebody's a Fianna Fáil supporter/mouthpiece just because they support a road project you disagree with.

    I can assume what I like when the person in question is spouting the same nonsense as Fianna Fail and the Government, as is the case here.
    etchyed wrote: »

    You've made some valid points, particularly in relation to this UNESCO report on the M1, which I doubt many posters here knew about. And I agree entirely that the M3 is a completely unneeded and costly piece of infrastructure that's a disaster in transport planning terms. Motorways are not supposed to be for commuters.

    Thank you.
    etchyed wrote: »
    But apart from that, MYOB has shown a lot of your posts to be nonsense. You've now resorted to "something fishy going on", "three motorways in Meath!", "Fianna Fáil are not to be trusted", "everything's been 10 times over budget" type arguments which won't really hold much sway here as everyone knows they're either incorrect or irrelevant.

    Which posts, in particular, are nonsense? What references or quotes did he give to back up one word he says? All I have read is unqualified and unfounded opinion.

    "something fishy going on"

    I think there is something fishy going, for two reasons:

    (a) The NRA cancelled the bypass, on economic grounds, in May 2009 and then changed their minds by July (after a visit from the Taoiseach where he met with the newly formed Bypass Slane Camaign.

    (b) The NRA, Meath County Council and the Minister for Transport (whose constituency this is) all promised to implement the HGV ban that had been voted for unanimously by Meath County Councillors in April 2009. But they never implemented it, so that the EIS for the bypass was published in December, using the HGVs in Slane for the traffic count, when they should have been banned long before then.

    "three motorways in Meath!"


    The three motorways in Meath argument is actually semi-
    borrowed from Frank McDonald (who does make the 4 motorway in Meath argument) in the Irish Times, who wrote an article called "There is a way around planned Slane bypass", which states:
    The authority’s programme is so overblown that when the controversial M3 is finally completed this year, Meath alone (coincidentally, Dempsey’s own constituency) will end up being traversed by four motorways – the M1, the M2, the M3 and the M4. Three of these routes pass remarkably close to each other – only 20km apart in some places. Any Martian could see that we lost the run of ourselves in building all of these roads fanning out from Dublin.

    Even as far back as 2008 he wrote:
    Co Meath will soon be traversed by no less than four motorways - the M1, M2, M3 and M4. In a country as small as Ireland, with a relatively low population density, how can such profligacy be justified - especially when the coffers are no longer full?

    This section will become the M2 motorway, just like the N2 from Dublin to Ashbourne did, as it is part of a single road linking Dublin to Derry, under Transport 21. Why else would they make it motorway standard?

    "Fianna Fáil are not to be trusted"

    I don't think this one takes much explaining, but I will try and expand on the obvious.

    The Bypass Slane Campaign is being headquartered inFF Cllr Wayne Harding's Pub in Slane. The group was formed the day after the HGV ban was passed by Meath County Council.

    The campaign has provided lots of free publicity for the likes of Thomas Byrne, TD, Cllr Nick Killian, and a tribe of other FFers, just like the Tara campaign did. Even the FF press office in the Dail is being employed to spin on their behalf.

    This is Dempey's constituency, and economic development (FF style) is the main objective for Meath. If safety was a concern, they wouldn't let the HGVs continue to roll though Slane.

    "everything's been 10 times over budget"

    The roads programme in the NDP started out at 6 billion. By 2004 the Comptroller and Auditor General said it was up to 16 billion.

    Then the new NDP in 2007 refinanced the same roads, for another 14 odd billion. So, from 6 to 30 billion is a bit of a jump, which I think is relevant here. Maybe you don't. But the idea that suddenly everything is OK, now that they are finally starting to use fixed price contacts, after wasting 24 billion is laughable.

    They may use a fixed price contract, but I bet it will also provide for shadow tolling, and that in the end, just like with the M3, the road will end up costing way more than it was supposed to because the traffic numbers are fairy-tale.
    etchyed wrote: »

    I would respectfully suggest that your posting style might be better suited to Politics.ie, where nobody does much research before having an opinion.

    As for my posting style, I don't see you giving any references or quoting any experts. And while you complain about me making personal attacks, you are quick enough to make them yourself.

    I have just as much right to post here as you, and as an Irish taxpayer and citizen, I don't see why I should be forced to reveal my identity, or refrain from trying to stop this Government from destroying this country completely.

    How many people, aside from Mr Salafia, actually tried to call a halt to the development frenzy, and voodoo economics? We now have have the 10 largest ecological footprint in the world and one of the worst economies, looking down the barrel of the IMF. Thanks to people like MYOB, and crew.

    To be honest, I posted here to correct the nonsense I was reading, and it is scary to see that so many people actually believe it. I won't be spending a lot of time here, don't worry...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,511 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    tuathal wrote: »
    ITo be honest, I posted here to correct the nonsense I was reading, and it is scary to see that so many people actually believe it. I won't be spending a lot of time here, don't worry...

    By posting a lot of ill-informed gibberish? There's a reason people believe what other people are saying. Namely that its true.

    I don't cite "experts" because I don't need to. You are grossly misinformed about road standards in this country, grossly misinformed about what's required to bring in a HGV ban (namely a full, untolled diversionary route) and fantasising about non-existant and impractical road plans.

    You cite people with vested interests while accusing others of holding them, and insist people are "mouthpieces" while using the exact same argument as a well know road protestor. All in, your argument is barely worth countering but needs to be to ensure that more people aren't confused in to believing it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,511 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    tuathal wrote: »
    Why else would they make it motorway standard?

    How many times do you need to be told that the road isn't being built to motorway standard before you'll accept it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 752 ✭✭✭Jayuu


    The roads programme in the NDP started out at 6 billion. By 2004 the Comptroller and Auditor General said it was up to 16 billion.

    Then the new NDP in 2007 refinanced the same roads, for another 14 odd billion. So, from 6 to 30 billion is a bit of a jump, which I think is relevant here. Maybe you don't. But the idea that suddenly everything is OK, now that they are finally starting to use fixed price contacts, after wasting 24 billion is laughable.

    I'm not arguing either for or against this bypass. However I do want to ask you where your extra €14 billion figure in 2007 is coming from?

    As for the initial jump in cost the C&AG did criticise the NRA for not having proper estimation processes in the early stages of the road building programme but also states that 50% of the cost increases in the initial programme came from inflation and expanded scope. That's clearly not a waste of money so it already casts doubt on your supposed €24 billion wastage.

    Some one with better knowledge can say when the NRA started using fixed-price contracts but to my knowledge its been the standard for a number of years now and there's no reason to assume that it won't be the standard for the Slane bypass if it goes ahead.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,511 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jayuu wrote: »
    Some one with better knowledge can say when the NRA started using fixed-price contracts but to my knowledge its been the standard for a number of years now and there's no reason to assume that it won't be the standard for the Slane bypass if it goes ahead.

    Its been compulsory for state-funded construction projects over 5 million in value since February 2007, but the NRA may have used it beforehand.


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


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    I dont disagree with any of that and I know you are right in what you have said. However (Im sure you guessed this was coming), I cant see HGVs in Johnstown being a problem because must of them will (should) have turned onto M1 at Adree because very few would actually start their journey between Slane and Ardee. Unfortunately that would lead to problems in Drogheda as the HGVs avoid the M1 toll.

    The best solution for all of it is to reduce the tolls HGVs have to pay. If set at a more reasonable level it would encourage the drivers to use the motorways. This would do away with the need to bypass any of the towns as you suggested, but there still has to be something to deter toll dodging, that being having to slow down to 50kph to pass through a town. There is no point in building motorways if the non-tolled alternative is almost as fast. If it is a choice between paying a reduced toll or adding 20 minutes to your journey Im sure most would pay the toll. Getting the HGVs onto the motorways would increase toll revenue and save money in terms of less bypasses.

    I agree with everything in the post I quoted but yet I see absolutely no justification for building a bypass of Slane when there is a perfectly good motorway 10km to the east.

    You could explore the concept of a consensus between the Truckers, the M1 Toll operaters, the Slane Residents and the NRA, which in turn would become a signed 10 year deal if sucessful. This could include a deferral of the Slane Bypass until 2020 - the year construction would commence as part of that deal. Also, trucks could immediately be banned from Slane, while the reduction of M1 Tolls would be a done deal for at least 10 years. Alternative routes via Navan could be signposted - the N51 would still need an upgrade, but that shouldn't break the exchequer.

    I don't know if the above would work, but it's worth a try... :pac:

    Regards!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 51 ✭✭tuathal


    Jayuu wrote: »
    I'm not arguing either for or against this bypass. However I do want to ask you where your extra €14 billion figure in 2007 is coming from?

    As for the initial jump in cost the C&AG did criticise the NRA for not having proper estimation processes in the early stages of the road building programme but also states that 50% of the cost increases in the initial programme came from inflation and expanded scope. That's clearly not a waste of money so it already casts doubt on your supposed €24 billion wastage.

    Some one with better knowledge can say when the NRA started using fixed-price contracts but to my knowledge its been the standard for a number of years now and there's no reason to assume that it won't be the standard for the Slane bypass if it goes ahead.

    The €14 billion figure in 2007 is actually €16.5bn, which is the roads portion of the NDP 2008-2013, as quoted in the Sunday Tribune.

    However, also in the same article is the claim that the NRA only gets to spend half of that. So, let's be conservative on this, and say the figure is only 8 billion. So, we have an 8 billion overspend on the NDP 2000-2006 and then another 8 billion spent on roads that were supposed to have been finished by 2006, but were refinanced in 2007. That's 16 billion.

    I don't have an exact figure, because Minister Dempsey refused to give an exact figure in his answer to the following Parliamentary Question on the issue:
    258. Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Transport the amount by which the national roads programme has gone over budget since it was launched in the National Development Plan 2000-2006, wherein it was supposed to cost approximately €6 billion.

    For an example of real gibberish, read Dempsey's response. But you won't find an answer to the question.

    As for fixed price contracts, the NRA may have been required to start using them in 2007 (3 years after the C&AG recommended it), which you would have thought protected the taxpayer and transferred the risk to the construction company, as Fred Barry claimed above. Wrong.

    In the same year that fixed price contracts came in, the Public Private Partnership (PPP) of the NRA came up with a way of transferring the risk back to the taxpayer, with 'shadow tolling' clauses. For proposed new roads, which the NRA wants to build, but which won't have enough traffic to be economically viable, they went to the European Commission and got special permission to insert 'minimum traffic guarantee' clauses.

    Dermot Ahern requested and received an Opinion from the Commission. He got a favourable one, saying that the traffic guarantees in the M3 motorway and the Limerick Tunnel were 'permissible state aid', on the basis that there was 'no alternative' to meet the traffic needs.

    This was not mentioned at the Tolling Hearing for the M3 in 2007, even through they already had permission.

    Traffic levels on the M3 have fallen way below the targets, and the M3 will cost another 100 million.

    I had said before, that the public were not told ahead of time about the tolling aspects of the M3, and was contradicted by MYOB. What actually happened was that the EIS for the M3, back in 2003, had a tolled and an untolled scenario. They didn't actually decide to do it until they got permission from the Commission to do the shadow tolling. This is because they knew damn well that the M3 was a loser, and as the EC Opinion even states, they wouldn't have been able to get any tolling company to agree to invest in the road.

    Anyhoo...this is somewhat of a digression from the Slane bypass issue, which I will get back to shortly. But it should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks that there isn't more to the story with just about anything the NRA tell you.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,511 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    tuathal wrote: »
    Traffic levels on the M3 have fallen way below the targets, and the M3 will cost another 100 million.

    If traffic figures don't rise for the entire tolling period, and if we can trust the "organisation" producing the "figures".

    Which is fantasy in the extreme. But most of your posts contain liberal doses of fantasy.

    The figure has been pulled out of the air by an organisation consisting entirely of road BANANAs, who oppose each and every scheme, anywhere, on whatever grounds they can imagine. The same people would oppose the Slane Bypass whether or not Newgrange exists, because they simply don't want roads

    Something tells me you slot in under that definition.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 51 ✭✭tuathal


    You could explore the concept of a consensus between the Truckers, the M1 Toll operaters, the Slane Residents and the NRA, which in turn would become a signed 10 year deal if sucessful. This could include a deferral of the Slane Bypass until 2020 - the year construction would commence as part of that deal. Also, trucks could immediately be banned from Slane, while the reduction of M1 Tolls would be a done deal for at least 10 years. Alternative routes via Navan could be signposted - the N51 would still need an upgrade, but that shouldn't break the exchequer.

    I don't know if the above would work, but it's worth a try... :pac:

    Regards!

    Interesting idea, but you will need to give them another 10 years to complete all the archaeological excavations in and around Newgrange.

    The truckers would play ball, if they were offered a fair deal.
    IRHA president Vincent Caulfield attacks M3 tolls:
    IRHA president Vincent Caulfield told Anglo-Celt newspaper last week that road hauliers are avoiding the toll charges on the M1 and M4 by continuing to use the old roads, because they cannot afford them. He said he feels that the same will apply in respect of the new M3 thus defeating the purpose for which such new roads were built. "We are more than compensating for the wear and tear we are causing to the roads - tolls are a double taxation as far as we are concerned," Mr Caulfield is quoted as saying.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 51 ✭✭tuathal


    MYOB wrote: »
    If traffic figures don't rise for the entire tolling period, and if we can trust the "organisation" producing the "figures".

    Which is fantasy in the extreme. But most of your posts contain liberal doses of fantasy.

    The figure has been pulled out of the air by an organisation consisting entirely of road BANANAs, who oppose each and every scheme, anywhere, on whatever grounds they can imagine. The same people would oppose the Slane Bypass whether or not Newgrange exists, because they simply don't want roads

    Something tells me you slot in under that definition.

    That's a lot of wild opinion, and zero information. And no, I am not a member of An Thrashcan.

    The fact is that the NRA knew that direct payments from the exchequer would begin from day one.

    According to the NRA's own figures (in the FAQ section of the m3motorway.ie web site), the M3 will, "on opening", have traffic volume of "approximately 22,000 vehicles daily", which is 3,500 vehicles below the NRA's threshold for shadow tolls of 25,250.

    Fred Barry, Chief Executive Officer of the NRA, revealed that the threshold for
    shadow tolling is 25,250 vehicles a day at a meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport on“ 18 November 2009, saying:

    "The level of traffic guarantee set out in the PPP contract for the initial year
    of operation is a combined total for the two plazas of 25,250 vehicles per day. If the traffic levels are 25,000 and the debt level thresholds are contravened, the concessionaire would receive an additional payment of approximately €100,000. If the traffic levels are 35,000 no additional payment arises."

    So, they knew from day one that the count would be far below target, and that was before the recession kicked in.

    As for trustworthy organisations, the NRA won't publish the M3 contract, so we are all in the dark about the long-term shadow tolling numbers, but let's fact it, they wouldn't have bothered to do it in the first place if the road was viable.

    At best, they gambled with taxpayers money, but in my opinion, they just locked taxpayers into a 45 year highway robbery scheme.

    Thank God for the 'transport experts' in the NRA


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


    I must say I am enjoying this thread, quality Nimbyish is always welcome in this forum unless it beomes a tad personal and histrionic ...and there is no reason to accuse anybody around here of being a closet ( or overt) Fiana Fáiler in my opinion. :)

    Tuathal self confessed being a member of the 'save newgrange facebook group' in this post in a related thread on the Archeology of this scheme on Boards should anyone wish to read the thread for completist reasons.

    Apart from those observations , I am permanently out of this here thread before the temptation to bash Dempsey becomes uncontrollable :D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 68,511 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    tuathal wrote: »

    At best, they gambled with taxpayers money, but in my opinion, they just locked taxpayers into a 45 year highway robbery scheme.

    Thank God for the 'transport experts' in the NRA

    Even if the fantastical figures are correct, how much of the road do you think you'd have got built for 100M - and 100M over 40 years at that?

    I suspect you'd have run out of steam short of Navan, particularly with the delays and extra costs caused by your equivalents at Tara.

    Also, on your constant insistance that the roads scheme went up so much in price - you're managing to ignore the vast amounts of schemes that were completed or progressed which were outside the original NDP1 scope. This is where most of the extra went. But of course, that doesn't help your argument.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 51 ✭✭tuathal


    MYOB wrote: »
    Even if the fantastical figures are correct, how much of the road do you think you'd have got built for 100M - and 100M over 40 years at that?

    I suspect you'd have run out of steam short of Navan, particularly with the delays and extra costs caused by your equivalents at Tara.

    Also, on your constant insistance that the roads scheme went up so much in price - you're managing to ignore the vast amounts of schemes that were completed or progressed which were outside the original NDP1 scope. This is where most of the extra went. But of course, that doesn't help your argument.

    Planning permission was granted for the M3 that was supposed to cost 600m. By completion, it had cost 900m.

    Please explain how any of this additional cost was caused by delays to the M3, when there were none.

    Then there is the 100m extra in shadow tolling...so a billion...for a road that wasn't needed, which we will all be paying for, for the next 40 years.

    Were the public ever given a say in this? No, they were lied to and misled.

    The M3 contract is in violation of the fixed price requirement, and should be terminated.


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


    Another thread on Boards points out that any attempt to correct some of the more outlandish assertions of the Save Newgrange group is being thwarted by ( some or all of ) the management of the savenewgrange site. Tuathal confirms in this thread linked below he/she is part of that management and I trust they would no doubt be prepared to give us a view on my suggestion below.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055821049
    For example, a post stating that the proposed road is to be 500 metres from the buffer zone around Bru na Boinne was, until recently, guaranteed to be almost immediately removed. Following complaints from its own members in relation to the censorship of posts, the censorship stopped for a couple of days. It has today (Saturday 5th Feb) restarted in earnest. Even one of the admins from the site admitted that one of HIS own posts had been deleted within a few seconds rolleyes.gif

    As an example of misrepresentation, Mr. Salafia continuously posts, in response to questions, a link to an RTE account on the day the route was revealed which stated that the road was 500 metres from Newgrange. Either Mr. Salafia has failed to notice that this report has been corrected many times in the media since; has failed to read the EIS or CPO documentation (which would be remarkably remiss in someone who is heading a campaign of this importance), or he would prefer the members of the site not to be aware of the fact that the road will be 3.5 kilometres from Newgrange. Either way, it's regrettable.

    In my opinion it would be fair to invite/turn a blind eye to a single regular poster in this thread synthesising a series of FACTS and for them to post those FACTS onto the savenewgrange site...even if only to test whether the commitment to overall quality of discussion in this forum on Boards is reciprocated by savenewgrange themselves.

    If this reciprocation is not permitted I am sure that posters in this thread would like to be aware of that asymettry of relationship.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,511 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    tuathal wrote: »
    Planning permission was granted for the M3 that was supposed to cost 600m. By completion, it had cost 900m.

    How much of that cost was to the state and how much was to Eurolink M3?

    Only the cost to the state is of any relevance here.
    tuathal wrote: »
    Please explain how any of this additional cost was caused by delays to the M3, when there were none.

    Construction was delayed by that insane woman digging herself in, blockades, etc.
    tuathal wrote: »
    Then there is the 100m extra in shadow tolling...so a billion...for a road that wasn't needed, which we will all be paying for, for the next 40 years.

    The 100m won't happen. Stop pretending it will.

    Any part of the price borne by the concessionaire - which is virtually ALL of it - is irrelevant to what "we will all be paying for"
    tuathal wrote: »
    No, they were lied to and mislead..

    You're lying and misleading over the cost of the M3 here.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 51 ✭✭tuathal


    MYOB wrote: »
    How much of that cost was to the state and how much was to Eurolink M3?

    Only the cost to the state is of any relevance here.



    Construction was delayed by that insane woman digging herself in, blockades, etc.



    The 100m won't happen. Stop pretending it will.

    Any part of the price borne by the concessionaire - which is virtually ALL of it - is irrelevant to what "we will all be paying for"



    You're lying and misleading over the cost of the M3 here.

    That's an extremely abusive statement to make, particularly when, unlike you, I provide factual references for the claims I make. I am surprised it is not in violation of the rules here.

    Let's take this step by step, and even leave out the tolling for now.

    The original cost of the M3 was supposed to be 600 m

    The final cost was 900 m.

    That is an increase of 300 m, which you blame on delays caused by objectors.

    I am asking you to explain, since the only delay to the M3 was actually caused by the NRA itself, who had missed the Lismullin National Monument, and Dick Roche halted works so they could excavate it.

    Let's hear some real analysis from you. Otherwise, I am just going to set you to 'ignore' for trolling.


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,511 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    tuathal wrote: »

    The original cost of the M3 was supposed to be 600 m

    The final cost was 900 m.

    Cost to who?
    tuathal wrote: »
    That is an increase of 300 m, which you blame on delays caused by objectors.

    Stop inventing things and putting words in my mouth. I said that SOME costs were down to delays. I never attributed all cost increases (which weren't cost increases to the state, anyway) to this.
    tuathal wrote: »
    I am asking you to explain, since the only delay to the M3 was actually caused by the NRA itself, who had missed the Lismullin National Monument, and Dick Roche halted works so they could excavate it.

    So the extra delays caused by "Squeak" Feeney are just a figment of my and the entire medias imagination? Not to mention every other protest.

    tuathal wrote: »
    Let's hear some real analysis from you. Otherwise, I am just going to set you to 'ignore' for trolling.

    The only troll around here is you. A manager of a campaign against a road who won't show his cards but claims other people have "vested interests" or are "government mouthpieces" or members of Fianna Fail pretty much defines a troll.


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


    tuathal wrote: »
    The original cost of the M3 was supposed to be 600 m

    The final cost was 900 m.

    That is an increase of 300 m, which you blame on delays caused by objectors.

    There was an interesting thread on Boards about what appeared to be an attempt to deliberately sever the route of the Navan railway line in Cannistown. That 'redesign' no doubt cost a few squiddlies and would be worthy of an FoI :)

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055330014&highlight=cannistown


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,511 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    There was an interesting thread on Boards about what appeared to be an attempt to deliberately sever the route of the Navan railway line in Cannistown. That 'redesign' no doubt cost a few squiddlies and would be worthy of an FoI :)

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055330014&highlight=cannistown

    I'd forgotten about that one.

    But before our resident NRA hater can blame them; this was a design, build, operate contract. So its RPS you can blame as scheme designers.


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


    Who is going to volunteer to post the FACTS on the savenewgrange site then. We will need to see the full post here for quality control purposes before it is posted over there.

    I would personally take a very dim view of such a post being deleted or edited once it is actually posted over there.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 674 ✭✭✭etchyed


    tuathal wrote: »
    I can assume what I like...
    That's about all I needed to know. I don't really have the time or energy to go through all you've said in detail. Others here are doing a far better job of it than I could.

    It was hypocritical of me to insult you. I apologise. What I was trying to point out is that, having read this forum for a few years, argument around here tends to be quite detailed, fact-based and well-reasoned. Some of the mistruths and speculations you're posting are more likely to be picked apart with a fine-tooth comb here than elsewhere. Basically, you're not gonna get away with bull****. Just letting you know.


Advertisement