N2 - Slane Bypass [planning decision pending]

Tech3

Hearing on Slane bypass due to start next month

The oral hearing into the proposed Slane Bypass will begin on 15th February in the Boyne Valley Hotel, Drogheda.

An Bord Pleanala confirmed the date last week for the hearing on the route of the proposed N2 bypass.

The roads would divert up to 10,000 vehicles a day away from Slane bridge, the scene of numerous fatal accidents over the years.

The planning board will hold a preliminary meeting in Drogheda’s Boyne Valley Hotel next Wednesday to acertain how many people want to make submissions to the main oral hearing.

Cllr Wayne Harding has welcomed the oral hearings, pointing out that Slane bridge has been the scene of numerous traffic accidents which has claimed the lives of 22 people over the years. “Another milestone has been reached in what has been along journey. I am very happy with what will be extensive consultation in relation to the proposed route. I believe that the enormous amount of further information submitted clears up a lot of the issues that have grown up around the application,” he said.

“I fully respect the independence of the board, but will be making the point that this year’s winter only strenghtens the argument for the bypass. It was impassable on many days during the cold spell, the western wall of Slane bridge partially collapsed due to what engineers believe was frost, and subsidence on the Mill Hill caused an emergency road closure. This is unacceptable for a national primary route,” he said.

Deputy Shane McEntee said the hearing was another step towards the new bridge and bypass being built.

“This new bridge is a number one priority for me. It has taken so long to get this far and every new development is a step in the right direction. I am hoping that once this oral hearing has taken place, the people of Slane will be one step closer to getting the new bridge they so desperately want and need.

“The closing of the bridge this week due to roadworks is just another indication of how necessary a new bridge is. Thousands of people have been inconvenienced and have had to take alternative routes, many of which are on small back roads. It has put extra time on their journeys, as well as extra pressure on the smaller back roads, which cannot cope with the huge level of traffic. A new modern bridge would put an end to disruption like this,” he said.

Senator Dominic Hannigan said he would be adding his support to the Slane bypass campaign and stressed how important building the bypass is to the people of Slane.

“Too many lives have been lost already and there have been too many times when tragedy has only narrowly been avoided. The people of Slane and their children need this bypass,” said Senator Hannigan.

“As I am very much in favour of the bypass, I will be informing the board of my intentions to make an oral submission.”

He added: “The first week will be spent looking at how the proposed bypass will contribute to the improvement of traffic in Slane. The archaeological implications, including the fact that the proposed route for the bypass is 500m from the buffer zone around the World Heritage Site at Brú na Bóinne, will be considered in the second week,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Save Newgrange campaign has requested a postponement of the oral hearing until after the general election.

Spokesperson Vincent Salafia pointed out that the Oireachtas Transport Committee was to hold hearings in February. He said the planning board had a legal duty to consider the committee hearings, as part of the planning process, and therefore the Bord Pleanala hearing should take place after the Dail hearings.

“It is also unfair to expect stakeholders to participate in two sets of hearing simultaneously,” he added.

http://www.meathchronicle.ie/news/meatheast/articles/2011/01/26/4002824-hearing-on-slane-bypass-due-to-start-next-month/

L1011

Vincent Rentaprotestor just desperately clutching at the hope of another delay there.

spacetweek

MYOB wrote: »

Vincent Rentaprotestor just desperately clutching at the hope of another delay there.

I know he's involved, but it still galls me to see him quoted in reference to the bypass. This protest of his is even worse than the M3 because there is even less evidence that any archaeological structures will be impinged upon than there was for the Tara valley. He's just a protest tourist, following road projects around the country in a van like a Grateful Dead fan.

Slane Resident

I have posted a breakdown of the archaeological impact taken directly from the EIS somewhere on boards but I'm not sure where it is.

There are 44 areas of archaeological significance within 500 metres of the proposed road. Of those 44, 33 are to have no predicted impact.

Of the remaining 11, the old Dublin-Slane road will have a minor negative visual impact, but after mitigation it will have a positive impact.

There is a possible demesne landscape feature in Crewbane, an early medieval rectangular enclosure, a potential archaeological site in Slane, townland boundaries of potential pre-17th century date, potential archaeological sites at Fennor/Cullen, another potential archaeological site (HC95) which will all be excavated and which is deemed to have positive impact.

The River Boyne flood plain will be excavated, any archaeological features recorded prior to construction, and impact after mitigation is deemed to be positive.

There is a site of buildings in Slane (HC10). There is deemed to be no impact as features have already been removed. No impact.

So the only area of potential negative impact is the World Heritage Site itself and in relation to this the EIS states

"Type of impact: Indirect, slight visual impact.
Significance and quality of impact: Slight negative
Description: Boyne Valley UNESCO World Heritage Site
Mitigation proposals: Impacts should be minimised by Landscape mitigations measures (See Chapter 8), and through sensitive design.
Impact after Mitigation: Slight residual impact."

A look at the "before" and "after" photographs of the area on the EIS show that the view will be basically unchanged. In the distance it might be possible to make out part of the new bridge but it is difficult to make out and in fact, one of the Save Newgrange supporters accused a person who posted them of having posted identical pictures, until the very miniscule differences between the two pictures was pointed out. Sensitive planting should mitigate things further.

marmurr1916

According to engineers, one of the reasons for the Slane bridge collapse was constant, heavy traffic:

CONSTANT HEAVY traffic on Slane bridge appears to have been why it partially collapsed last month, an oral hearing by An Bord Pleanála into a proposed bypass of Slane village heard yesterday.

At the time, Meath County Council said the collapse of a stone wall on the western facade of the bridge was due to icy weather.

However, yesterday Seamus Mac Gearailt of Roughan O’Donovan engineers, which oversaw the selection of the bypass route on behalf of the council, said “it appears to have been due to heavy traffic loading over years”.

The council is seeking permission from the planning board to build a 3.5km dual-carriageway at a cost of €46 million to the east of the village. The route will take it some 500m from the buffer zone to Brú na Bóinne, a Unesco world heritage site that includes Newgrange, Knowth and Dowth.

Mr Mac Gearailt also told the hearing, chaired by planning inspector Michael Walsh, that it was not just Slane bridge that posed risks to traffic but all of the road layout through the village.

The N2 has steep hills on both approaches to Slane bridge and it also intersects with the main Drogheda to Navan road in the middle of the village.

Mr Mac Gearailt said Slane had the “longest and most severe descent on any national primary route”.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0216/1224289928321.html

Slane Resident

Slane residents and members of various Slane community groups gave oral submissions to the An Bord Pleanala hearing into the Slane Bypass today.

Very poignant testimony was given by those who have been involved in serious accidents, those who have been bereaved, those who have assisted at the scene of accidents, and by Slane people who described how difficult it is living in Slane in constant danger from our road.

A very emotive presentation was given on behalf of the local school, both from the Principal and from a member of the Parent's Association, in relation to the difficulties experienced in getting children to and from the school safely.

Unfortunately none of the objectors to the road deemed it necessary to attend to hear this testimony.

In the afternoon it was the turn of Mr. John Rogers, S.C. to set out his objections to the road. Unfortunately there was some confusion when it transpired that the road which Mr. Rogers was referring to, in a map of the four considered routes of the road, when he queried why this particular road had been chosen, turned out to, in fact, be one of the rejected routes and not the actual chosen route.

After clarification by Meath County Council who produced an overlay of the maps to verify that another road, Route B, was the one chosen, Mr. Rogers continued with his submission in which he expressed concern as to the safety of hooter swans who graze on a field near his house. Unfortunately he did not make mention of the safety of the local people, but this was covered very adequately and emotionally earlier in the day by the residents of Slane themselves.

Slane Resident

Poor reporting by the Irish Times in relation to Senator Dominic Hannigan's evidence given yesterday at the oral hearing.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0219/1224290285580.html

The report states that Senator Hannigan, referring to the cost/benefit analysis, stated that it was 3:1, so "for every three euro we spend, we'd get back one". In fact what he stated was for that for every euro we spend, we'd get back three, which is twice the benefit as the Metro North project which is 1.5/1.6:1.

He did say that meant that in terms of bang for your buck, in the Slane bypass you get twice the value as Metro North.

Environmentalist Peter Sweetman, on behalf of groups concerned with natural habitats, said the board could not make a proper decision on the basis of the information before it. He said the information was “flawed” because of what he claimed were inadequacies, including evidence in relation to bats and swans – both of which are protected species.
Maria Meagher asked: “When will we be given the same level of protection as swans and bats? We feel we are an endangered species.”

Chris_5339762

Ah so thats where Peter Sweetman is thesedays. I see hes taken his special breed of environmentalism away from Galway and New Ross and now has his gaze fixed firmly on Slane.

Amtmann

Indeed. He must do a fair amount of driving on roads he's objected to over the years.

lucernarian

Dominic Hannigan forgot to mention where he got his 1.5:1 Cost-Benefit ratio from... There are other threads dedicated to that topic however.

tuathal

spacetweek wrote: »

I know he's involved, but it still galls me to see him quoted in reference to the bypass. This protest of his is even worse than the M3 because there is even less evidence that any archaeological structures will be impinged upon than there was for the Tara valley. He's just a protest tourist, following road projects around the country in a van like a Grateful Dead fan.

It's all over for this leftover delusion of the Celtic Tiger:

Heritage findings at Slane being ‘ignored’

The Irish Times - Wednesday, February 23, 2011
ELAINE KEOGH

MEATH COUNTY Council has been accused of ignoring the magnitude of the findings of an international expert who says the Slane bypass could threaten the status of Brú na Bóinne as a Unesco world heritage site. Dr Douglas Comer had also said the proposed road breaches the council’s own development plan, which says development must protect the amenity, views and landscape of the monuments in the world heritage site which includes Newgrange, Knowth and Dowth. At the public hearing into the plans for the Slane bypass, Colm Mac Eochaidh SC, for former attorney general John Rogers who lives near the buffer zone for the world heritage site, asked whether they would be told if Dr Comer’s report constituted “significant further information” and as such it should be advertised to the public.

Dr Comer said the landscape’s heritage value was “as high as it gets” and the building of a road at or near a world heritage site was “the most problematic of all possible developments”. Of the effects of the proposed bypass, “none can be viewed as non-significant”. The council is seeking permission from the planning board to build a 3.5km dual carriageway at a cost of €46 million. It retained Dr Comer on advice from An Bord Pleanála to assess independently the heritage impact on the site of the proposed road. He had advised the hearing that “almost certainly,” there would be a visit by experts from Unesco asking about gaps in information on the proposed road. The three likely outcomes of that process included being de-listed as a world heritage site. He said “nowhere else in the world” had the monuments and continuity of settlement that was found at Brú na Bóinne.

Dr Comer also said he could not find any study on the implications of simply banning heavy goods vehicles from the village – proposed nearly two years ago – or a study on other alternatives to building the bypass. He added that the Boyne bridge on the M1 motorway was “without a doubt incompatible” with the landscape that led to Brú na Bóinne being inscribed by Unesco.

WRITE TO lettersed@irishtimes.com

(As for spacetweek's ignorant remarks about Mr Salafia, they smack of jealousy of his media profile. At least he is qualified to be issuing opinions on the environmental effects of roads, since he is a lecturer in environmental legislation. What qualifies spacetweek to be advising the Government on Transport 21, in his pro-roads web site? What's wrong with him? Not getting enough hits or media coverage?)

Irish and Proud

...so heritage is the only consideration that should be accommodated? What about the local people in Slane, and the local people who need to get about - and I'm sure that there are local people who have trucks and (of course tractors) in the vicinity - with no bypass, they would either have to go through Slane, take a massive detour or take unsuitable back roads? What about the 22 people who died as a result of being forced through Slane and what about the structural damage being done to the town of Slane itself - do you actually care about the local people and those that died???

Both FG and Labour have shown support for this road and as far as I'm concerned, it will eventually go ahead and rightly so - otherwise it would show a massive failing in our democracy when the will of many people are denied by a few!

We really need to change our laws - it's ridiculous! :mad:

Son of Stupido

Slane plans pose 'no immediate danger'

RICHARD McCULLEN Irish Times 24th Feb 2011

THERE IS no immediate danger posed to the Brú na Bóinne site in Co Meath by plans to build a bypass of Slane village, according to a world heritage expert.
However, Dr Douglas Comer warned the project would be another intrusion on the site and if there were others in the future, they could undermine its designation as a world heritage site of outstanding universal value.
Dr Comer was replying to questions from Gerry Browner, senior architect with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, on the seventh day of an oral hearing by An Bord Pleanála into plans by Meath County Council for the bypass.
The proposed 3.5km dual carriageway, including a new bridge over the Boyne east of the village, would pass within 500 metres of a buffer zone around Brú na Bóinne which includes the ancient burial sites of Newgrange, Knowth and Dowth.
Supporters of the project claim the bypass and bridge are urgently needed to improve safety for locals in Slane, which has been the scene of at least 22 fatal road crashes.
Opponents say the new road and bridge would have a detrimental effect on the local landscape, especially the archaeological sites. Dr Comer said some features already intruded into the site, such as the M1 motorway and Boyne bridge, the cement factory chimneys at Platin and the new Indaver incinerator at Carranstown, Duleek.
He said if the bypass got the go-ahead, Unesco’s world heritage committee would likely send a fact-finding reactive monitoring mission to assess its impact on the Brú na Bóinne site. The committee might then decide there had been no deterioration to the site, place it on a list of endangered sites, or delist it.
Mr Browner added that the department had already received a yellow card from Unesco over the incinerator.

Slane Resident

Dr. Comer stated quite specifically that the standard procedure, if the project goes ahead, will be that Unesco will send in a team to review the works. When a team goes in to any project, it has three options open to it; the status of the WHS remains intact, or they put it on an endangered list, or they strike it off. Those are the three options available to it, for any world heritage site.

What way is it reported? Dr. Comer states that BnB could lose it's world heritage status. Yes, or then again, it might not. He's not second-guessing the team. He's stating the options which are available to it. He also stated that provided there is no further ribbon development or visual incursions, he thinks BnB will be just fine.

Report from Richard McCullen is a much more balanced and informed account of what actually went on at the hearing.

Sponge Bob

There may have been complaints about the usual fella the Times sends to these hearings ....who tends not to listen to all the evidence and who produces the most dreadfully partisan rubbish you will even see in the Times.

Slane Resident

Alex Mountcharles made a submission yesterday in which he reiterated his support for the bypass and in particular the chosen route, and addressed the issue of the proposed alternative western route which has been suggested by some observers as a better alternative, and stated that from the Slane Castle point of view the western route would be catastrophic.

He also spoke of the difficulties of living so close to the N2 himself, and the dangers to his young children if they get out the front door.

Headline was "Conyngham Family Oppose Slane Bypass".

In fact this is a direct quote from his submission:

"It is now clear that the only way to get the heavy volumes of traffic out of Slane village is to bypass it".

Also:

"For the reasons outlined above, we support the need for a bypass of Slane. If the Slane Castle estate is to continue and extend its role in the regeneration of Slane Village, then this bypass must follow the eastern route. We want to see Slane re-emerge as a thriving tourist destination that functions not as a disparate entity to Bru na Boinne but as the natural gateway to this outstanding World Heritage site that lies within its own parish".

lucernarian

It seems Henry Mountcharles himself took umbrage at the Indo's poor reporting:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/slane-clarification-2563696.html

spacetweek

I don't advise the Gov in my "pro-roads" site, I merely comment on its plans. My site is not pro-roads, it is meant to be purely informational and does not promote a particular point of view.

I would venture that since Salafia is an environmental lecturer (didn't know that), that he may ignore the other reasons to build this, primarily road safety. There is nothing more precious than people's lives.

Here are my rebuttals to the three key objections we've had so far:

HGV ban instead of bypass - There is no alternative route for HGVs, town still would have high car volumes, and many road deaths are probably car-to-car - so they would still occur;
Swans affected by noise - In a choice between people's lives and the comfort of swans, guess who wins;
Impact on the views and context of the valley - I'm not aware that the M1 Boyne bridge is visible from the site and the Slane bypass lies outside the protected area. I don't know how UNESCO could rescind the status when there will be no physical impact. You cannot cleanse the area of all man-made structures.

There are four things to consider here. They are from different spheres of life so it's important to take a holistic approach. I've ordered them in what I consider to be their importance:

- Road safety. The town has had a very high traffic death rate. This must end;
- Quality of life of the residents. The townspeople have a high traffic volume, including a high percentage of truck traffic, passing through a medieval street layout which is wholly inappropriate for modern needs and was obsolete centuries ago. Even in the days of horses and carts I'm sure many of them would have found the gradients rather steep;
- The impact on heritage structures. Covered above;
- The impact on the environment. As I see it, this is negligible. The traffic already exists and won't be spurred by this bypass, and it is long-term strategic priority to direct as much traffic as possible along the M1 instead of the N2. There will never be a need to expand the bypass once built. As for swans, etc., I leave that to the EIS.

@Tuathal, you're up.

Pete_Cavan

spacetweek wrote: »

I don't advise the Gov in my "pro-roads" site, I merely comment on its plans. My site is not pro-roads, it is meant to be purely informational and does not promote a particular point of view.

I would venture that since Salafia is an environmental lecturer (didn't know that), that he may ignore the other reasons to build this, primarily road safety. There is nothing more precious than people's lives.

Here are my rebuttals to the three key objections we've had so far:

HGV ban instead of bypass - There is no alternative route for HGVs, town still would have high car volumes, and many road deaths are probably car-to-car - so they would still occur;
Swans affected by noise - In a choice between people's lives and the comfort of swans, guess who wins;
Impact on the views and context of the valley - I'm not aware that the M1 Boyne bridge is visible from the site and the Slane bypass lies outside the protected area. I don't know how UNESCO could rescind the status when there will be no physical impact. You cannot cleanse the area of all man-made structures.

There are four things to consider here. They are from different spheres of life so it's important to take a holistic approach. I've ordered them in what I consider to be their importance:

- Road safety. The town has had a very high traffic death rate. This must end;
- Quality of life of the residents. The townspeople have a high traffic volume, including a high percentage of truck traffic, passing through a medieval street layout which is wholly inappropriate for modern needs and was obsolete centuries ago. Even in the days of horses and carts I'm sure many of them would have found the gradients rather steep;
- The impact on heritage structures. Covered above;
- The impact on the environment. As I see it, this is negligible. The traffic already exists and won't be spurred by this bypass, and it is long-term strategic priority to direct as much traffic as possible along the M1 instead of the N2. There will never be a need to expand the bypass once built. As for swans, etc., I leave that to the EIS.

@Tuathal, you're up.

My issue is, and always has been, the cost of the road. Why spend close to €50m on a road which sits less than 15km two motorways which have each cost over a billion euro? The new road will (as the existing road is) be used as a rat-run for toll dodgers.

As Type 2 Dual carriageway, the bypass is way over spec'd. It will cause more traffic to divert off the M1 at junction 12 and travel through Collon, bypass Slane and then down the M2 for free. If traffic through Collon starts increasing then there'll be pressure to extend the DC north from Slane and bypassing Collon and also to complete DC from the end of the M2 with the Slane bypass.

Most of the traffic that passes through Slane has no business being there because everywhere north of Slane is easily accessed from the M1. It is going to be a few years before the NRA has the money to build this bypass so in the meantime they should look at cheaper alternatives. The N2 north of Ashbounre should be detrunked and speeds reduced to 80kpm, with plenty of speed cameras. If there is still problems with traffic in Slane the bypass should proceed, built as standard single carriageway.

There is no need for DC because, as we keep hearing, the purpose of the bypass is to provide a new bridge and reduce traffic in the town, not to reduce travel times. Single carriageway would be cheaper and help prevent the need for further upgrades on the N2. In any event, the N2 does not need to be a national primary route because all the destinations on it can be served by the M1 (and improving N33).

L1011

A national route is not a "rat run for toll dodgers". Using the N2 to access things on the N2 is not "toll dodging"

Slane Resident

A road survey found that less than 16% (haven't got my notes, if I'm wrong I'll come back) of traffic using the N2 was not local, i.e., outside Ardee-Ashbourne corridor. It was found in the surveys that the majority of trucks which could be diverted onto the M1 had already done so. There are a lot of businesses, quarries, bus traffic, etc. within Ashbourne-Slane-Ardee area and the number plate recognition surveys and driver surveys showed that only 16% was non-local.

lucernarian

Slane Resident wrote: »

A road survey found that less than 16% (haven't got my notes, if I'm wrong I'll come back) of traffic using the N2 was not local, i.e., outside Ardee-Ashbourne corridor. It was found in the surveys that the majority of trucks which could be diverted onto the M1 had already done so. There are a lot of businesses, quarries, bus traffic, etc. within Ashbourne-Slane-Ardee area and the number plate recognition surveys and driver surveys showed that only 16% was non-local.

Thank you! I was dying to make a point of this as someone who was familiar with the area but I didn't have many facts and figures to back it up. There is a lot of agri-business, haulage and some quarrying in the area around and particularly to the north of Slane. I don't really agree with those people living and working in Collon or Ardee being forced to take a paid route because the existing direct route is too unsafe to use. By that logic, the bridge may as well be closed off and we should simply direct any and all traffic to use other bridges in the region and to hell with the inconvenience and extra cost it may cause.

Pete_Cavan

Slane Resident wrote: »

A road survey found that less than 16% (haven't got my notes, if I'm wrong I'll come back) of traffic using the N2 was not local, i.e., outside Ardee-Ashbourne corridor. It was found in the surveys that the majority of trucks which could be diverted onto the M1 had already done so. There are a lot of businesses, quarries, bus traffic, etc. within Ashbourne-Slane-Ardee area and the number plate recognition surveys and driver surveys showed that only 16% was non-local.

That just backs up my point that the N2 should not be a national primary route - a road where 84% of traffic is within travelling a 45km corridor is not of national importance. Like I said, detrunk the N2 north of Ashbourne and redesign the Slane bypass as standard single carriageway. A DC bypass will result in the N2 becoming a rat-run for toll dodgers.

Chris_5339762

Which is why, as I have said time and again on this thread, that Slane is the last of the towns on the major N routes out of Dublin that hasnt been bypassed. It is a toll dodge route for the M1 and now the M3.

The N2 should be de-trunked and the M2 section reverted to R status with a 100kmh speed limit. Funnelling a motorway into Slane is wrong and sends out the wrong message about the type of road it is.

IMO the Slane bypass should only be S2 and shouldnt be designed for 100kmh running so curvature and gradients wouldnt be as much of an issue.

Getting the crayons out, a western bypass of Slane should be provided, connecting the N51 west of the town to the current N2 north of the town. The second bridge should connect the current N2 say a mile or two south of Slane with the N51 somewhere west of the town. This would then become the main route around the town and would be signposted as such. A HGV ban in the town would then be put in place.

A route should be provided from the M1 Jn 10 (Drogheda) to north of Collon. THESE would effectively be the Slane bypass.

The current N2 would be detrunked and basically any traffic for the north of Slane would use either of these two routes.

And heres a thought. Why does Slane always attract problems for its gradients in/around the town when the N25 at the pike near Dungarvan is just as steep?

L1011

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

That just backs up my point that the N2 should not be a national primary route - a road where 84% of traffic is within travelling a 45km corridor is not of national importance.

This is a small country - I'd imagine that a similar figure of traffic is travelling within that distance of EVERY national route.

lucernarian

I'll just add that I don't see why the Slane bypass can't be built as S2.

But this idea of using the tolled M1 and then building a new road anyway through Tullyallen PARALLEL to the reasonable-standard R168 is madness. Chris, do you have any idea of the geography of this area and the location of various hills etc?

Also a HGV ban can't be applied completely through the town due to the N51 east-west route not being bypassed and trucks will need to be able to travel between Drogheda and Navan.

Slane Resident

Is S2 a two-lane carriageway? (Excuse my ignorance).

If so the engineer who is running the project explained today that they chose a four lane over a two lane for a number of reasons. Basically it only costs 8% more to build the four lane than a two lane, it will have no more visual impact except from the road itself, the amount of traffic using it will be approaching the limit of a two lane and so in 10 or 20 years time it will be running slower, and also a four lane allows safe overtaking and reduces the risk of a head on collision.

The other thing is a road origin survey stated that only 15% of traffic using the N2 could conceivably move to the M1, i.e., 15% is long distance, but you also have to account for the fact that some of that 15% might actually want to be on the N2 because it may want to go to towns not serviced by the M1. So 15% maximum.

Chris_5339762

Yeah S2 is just a standard 2 lane road.

Not to question the engineer, but the NRA have said that it costs 10% more to build Type 2 DC (4 lane carriageway) over Type 3 (2+1, 2 lanes in one direction, one in the other). So 8% to go from S2 to Type 2 DC just doesnt add up

And yes, an S2 will fill up more quickly but part of the Slane solution should be to divert traffic away from Slane, as compared to other N routes. A lot of it has absolutely no need to be anywhere near the town.

Pete_Cavan

Slane Resident wrote: »

Is S2 a two-lane carriageway? (Excuse my ignorance).

If so the engineer who is running the project explained today that they chose a four lane over a two lane for a number of reasons. Basically it only costs 8% more to build the four lane than a two lane, it will have no more visual impact except from the road itself, the amount of traffic using it will be approaching the limit of a two lane and so in 10 or 20 years time it will be running slower, and also a four lane allows safe overtaking and reduces the risk of a head on collision.

The problem with having the bypass as DC is it suddenly becomes more attractive for traffic traveling to Dublin to come off the M1 at junction 12 (before the toll) and use the N2 bypassing Slane and then the non-toll M2. The result would be much higher volumes of long distance traffic on the N2 and then there would be calls for the entire route from Ashbourne to north of Collon to be upgraded. This would be madness because the M1 already exists and building a DC parallel to it would be a complete waste of money.

Slane Resident wrote: »

The other thing is a road origin survey stated that only 15% of traffic using the N2 could conceivably move to the M1, i.e., 15% is long distance, but you also have to account for the fact that some of that 15% might actually want to be on the N2 because it may want to go to towns not serviced by the M1. So 15% maximum.

As you have pointed out, the vast majority of traffic using the N2 at Slane is local traffic traveling relatively short journeys - 3.5km of dual carriageway would do very little to improve journey times for them. The safety aspect of the bypass comes from removing the very steep decline on approach to the existing bridge, a single carriageway bypass does achieves this just as well as a DC. Reducing the speed limit on the N2 to 80kph would get rid of that 15% of long distance traffic from the road and, barring an explosion in population in Collon and Ashbourne, single carriageway will suffice for the bypass.

spacetweek

Just to be clear, I do actually think the BP only needs to be S2. Also I agree about the detrunking of the southern half of the route. Personally I would build a new N53 dualler from Dundalk to Castleblayney and detrunk the entire N2 as far as Dublin including the city centre part.