N2 - Slane Bypass [planning decision pending]

SlaneMan

I am not up to speed on the in and outs of different road types but I would offer the following:

Given the challenges of building a bridge in such a sensitive area it makes sense to build a bridge that is well and truly future proofed. This road has been years in planning and the current oral hearings show how difficult it is to get any kind of road approved in this area.

We have seen the folly of not building for the future on the M50 when the junctions had to be rebuilt at great cost. I also hear that the M1 is approaching capacity near Swords and the airport. The good news is that the M1 can be expanded to three lanes but the bad news is that the Boyne bridge cannot go beyond two lanes.

Finally, the costs differential does not sound that great especially as construction costs have dropped.

So, in summary, it seems like common sense to build the bridge once and make sure it has plenty of capacity for future growth.

SeanW

I'll give you a quick run down of currently implemented road types:

1) Motorway. Obvious, 2 wide lanes each way with a generous hard shoulder each way on the left hand side.
2) Type 1 Dual Carriageway: Similar to Motorway but without m-way restrictions, in a pinch it can also have a bus lane, at grade junctions, non standard junctions etc. Type 1 DC that is a motorway in all but name is generally called HQDC or High Quality Dual Carriageway. Think of the N6 builds between Kinnegad and Athlone, or the N4 between Kinnegad and J13 before both were later reclassified.
2) Type 2 Dual Carriageway: Also known as 2+2, this is a cheaper dual carriageway that has narrower running lanes, two each way, no hard shoulders and at-grade roundabouts. Tight curves and other lower spec design features such as a narrow cable barrier make 2+2s incompatible with Motorway specifications. Examples include the N3 between Kells and the Meath/Cavan border, and the N4 Dromod-Rooskey.

This is what is being sought for the Slane Bypass, which I agree with for the reasons I mentioned in earlier posts.
3) Type 3 Dual Carriageway: Also known as 2+1, this is an even cheaper type of dual carriageway - it has alternating sections of 2 lanes in one direction and 1 in the other, to provide some overtaking capability and specific intervals. Parts of the N2, N24 and N20 are built like this.
4) Super 2: S2s are the best of modern single carriageways, consisting of one running lane each way and a hard shoulder. Wide Super 2 was used in the past, but that standard is no longer implemented.
5) Reduced Super 2: At only 8 Metres wide, RS2 is the cheapest road possible, two running lanes with no hard shoulder.
This is what Pete Cavan wants to use on the Slane Bypass, which as stated before by someone else, traffic already exceeds the specs for RS2.

Pete_Cavan

SeanW wrote: »

5) Reduced Super 2: At only 8 Metres wide, RS2 is the cheapest road possible, two running lanes with no hard shoulder.

Type 2 DC does not have a hard shoulder either. The proposed bypass is Type 2 DC so clearly the existance of a hard shoulder is not an issue.

The N2 between Ashbourne and Ardee is standard/reduced S2 and there is no issue with safety, except for at, and on approach to, the Slane bridge which the bypass will address. The bypass removes the need to use the existing bridge, which removes the safety issue, carriageway width does not come into it.

Nothing wrong with reduced S2 from a design point of view.

SeanW wrote: »

This is what Pete Cavan wants to use on the Slane Bypass, which as stated before by someone else, traffic already exceeds the specs for RS2.

No, I'll go through this again for you once more. N2 Slane Bypass Environmental Impact Statement - Non-Technical Summary says;

The proposed bypass is forecast to carry a design year traffic flow of between approximately 10,000 and 12,300 AADT in 2027.

This is within the range for S2. Type 2 DC has a capacity of up to 20,000 AADT. So even by 2027 Type 2 DC will have twice the required capacity. Of course that AADT is based on the N2 remaining a national primary route, which it should not seeing as 86% of traffic movements on the road are local. Detrunking the N2 would see less of an increase in AADT. Either way, S2 will suffice.

The N2 between Ashbourne and Ardee is standard/reduced S2 and there is no issue with capacity, except for the single lane Slane bridge which the bypass will address. The bypass removes the need to use the existing bridge, which removes the capacity issue, carriageway width does not come into it.

Nothing wrong with reduced S2 from a capacity point of view.

The bypass should be S2, end of.

SlaneMan

Great Info Sean – Thx.

I don’t know if you have had an opportunity to attend the ABP hearings but there have been a large number of Fr Ted moments where normal logic and reasoning (such as the valid discussions on road types in this thread) goes out the window.

The affects on the landscape are by far the most important factor for ABP. Whether the road has 2 or 4 lanes is almost immaterial as the primary concern is what the road will look like from 2km away at Knowth. From that kind of distance it will be almost impossible to tell the differences between a 2 and 4 lane road.

If they build a 2 lane road, then almost certainly, at some point (whenever our poor economy recovers?) they will almost certainly have to upgrade the road to 4 lanes. This means we will have to bring construction equipment back into the sensitive river valley again and we will also have spend even more money to widen the bridge. More significantly, we have to go through the whole ABP saga all over again with all the usual excitement about souterrains, bats and swans.

On balance I think the current proposal makes sense. The plan is to build the bridge, once, making sure that we allow for any possible future growth.

Amtmann

At this stage so much money has already been spent on consultancy and the design of the Type 2 DC bypass that scrapping it in favour of an S2 solution would likely end up costing the state even more surely.

L1011

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Type 2 DC does not have a hard shoulder either. The proposed bypass is Type 2 DC so clearly the existance of a hard shoulder is not an issue.

Reduced S2 doesn't have "spare" lanes for a breakdown.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The N2 between Ashbourne and Ardee is standard/reduced S2 and there is no issue with capacity, except for the single lane Slane bridge which the bypass will address. The bypass removes the need to use the existing bridge, which removes the capacity issue, carriageway width does not come into it.

Nothing wrong with reduced S2 from a capacity point of view

These sections of road are over-capacity for RS2. And once again, you don't build new schemes to match adjoining ones, you build them to capacity.

These scheme needs something higher than RS2 and the only standard remaining for a national route then is T2DC.

spacetweek

The proposed bypass is forecast to carry a design year traffic flow of between approximately 10,000 and 12,300 AADT in 2027.

Where on earth do they get their crazy counts from? Levels at Ardee, a fair bit to the north of Slane, were already at about 7,000 AADT in 2010. I've made an animation.

Slane Resident

So - the oral hearing is over, and what have we learned?

The bridge will be just about visible from Knowth, (if you squint, according to one opponent). It will be lower down in the valley than the existing road so it should actually be less obtrusive than the existing N2.

It is sort of visible from Newgrange. Sort of. As in, if you climb up onto a ridge where the public are not allowed climb (past the "no climbing sign"), and if you look past the workman's hut and vans in the foreground and past the telegraph poles and look out into the far distance, 3.2 kilometres away. You might be able to make it out. On a clear day. If you're standing in that precise spot, and your view isn't blocked by the hut or the pylon. And you don't have an OPW guy shouting at you to get down off the hill.

Peter Sweetman thought it was "one of the better, if not the best" EIS's he'd ever seen and he congratulated the habitats people on the work done.

It isn't about John Rogers' view at all, it's about his concern for the WHS. We did see a lot of photographs of his garden and his view from his garden, but that was .... well, it was just for information purposes. Or something.

John Rogers, Senior Counsel, ex Attorney General, has no problem with stating he's "the N***** in the woodpile". Publicly. With stenographers present. Mind-boggling in its non-PC value really, especially from someone who makes his living through words.

Everybody, from all sides of the debate, agree that the situation in Slane is untenable and the status quo cannot be maintained.

The "alternative" routes don't work and won't work without transferring serious problems on all the smaller roads in the area.

Most HGV traffic (84%) is local to the Slane-Ardee corridor and can't be facilitated by the M1.

18 days of hearing, over 100 hours, and did we learn anything we didn't know beforehand? Well, apart from the odd propensity to make non-politically correct statements, no.

Can we have our road now please?

(I should state here that I used a very offensive word (or rather John Rogers did) which was asterisked out because it is abhorrent, which I absolutely agree with. I'm sure people have heard the phrase at some point and will know what it is, but for those who haven't, it's a very derogatory term for black people. Unbelievable to hear it used in a public forum in the 21st century - to say there was uproar is putting it mildly. We literally could not believe our ears).

Pete_Cavan

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0622/1224299387455.html

Surprised nobody posted this.

munchkin_utd

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0622/1224299387455.html

Surprised nobody posted this.

heres a snippet from the article;

---

AN BORD Pleanála has deferred a decision on Meath County Council's controversial plan for a 3.5km bypass of Slane village.

The N2 Slane Bypass would take traffic off the existing Dublin-Derry road via a new dual carriageway to the east of the village crossing the Boyne over a new 216m concrete bridge.

The planning board had been due to make a decision on the project this week.

However, a board representative has confirmed that the matter has been put back and is now due to be decided by August 30th.

Irish and Proud

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0622/1224299387455.html

Surprised nobody posted this.

Thanks for that Pete!

I know you oppose the road yourself (more for economic reasons in the interest of the country), but I really want to see this road going ahead. It's not just about economics at this stage, it's about our democracy (or what's left of it - not to mention public safety). We simply cannot countenance bigwigs from outside this country dictating what way we should live our lives (I live not too far from Newgrange) or where we have the right to live our normal everyday lives.

The only objection I'd have to the bypass is that the bridge will be built as a concrete structure - this IMO should be cable stayed like the M1 Boyne Bridge - this would blend much better into the landscape - the M1 Bridge looks quite eligant IMO. Newgrange and the surrounding area belongs to us, not UNESCO who seem to want to disregard us locals and our daily lives. As a matter of fact, your argument is the only argument that that I've seen that has any crediblity of those on the opposing side - any other opposing argument would be a bin job IMO. However, I still think this bypass is needed even if it went ahead as a Type 2 Single C/W in the context of the N2 South of Ardee being reclassified. Maybe, some compromise between your plan and the official plan would be the best way forward in light of the current economic situation.

Regards!

Pete_Cavan

Irish and Proud wrote: »

However, I still think this bypass is needed even if it went ahead as a Type 2 Single C/W in the context of the N2 South of Ardee being reclassified. Maybe, some compromise between your plan and the official plan would be the best way forward in light of the current economic situation.

This is exactly what I have said should happen.

Chris_5339762

Cable stayed would look good, but would be seen for miles around. In the case of the sensitive area around Slane, thats not good. The simplest, low impact bridge should be used.

I still think build a 2x2 capable bridge, bypass Slane with a S2 (but keep the land safe to make it a 2x2 in the distant future), declassify the N2 to R status, including declassifying the M2. Reclassify the N33 at Ardee to N2 to reconnect with the current route and stop this nonsense of Derry traffic having to go through Slane.

Irish and Proud

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

This is exactly what I have said should happen.

Sorry mate , I forgot that you did suggest a Type 2 Single C/W Bypass in the context of downgrading the N2 (South of Ardee) to Regional Status. That would be acceptable IMO.

Irish and Proud

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Cable stayed would look good, but would be seen for miles around. In the case of the sensitive area around Slane, thats not good. The simplest, low impact bridge should be used.

I still think build a 2x2 capable bridge, bypass Slane with a S2 (but keep the land safe to make it a 2x2 in the distant future), declassify the N2 to R status, including declassifying the M2. Reclassify the N33 at Ardee to N2 to reconnect with the current route and stop this nonsense of Derry traffic having to go through Slane.

Maybe a stone clad round arched viaduct - wonder would it cost too much though?

About the current M2 motorway, could it not simply be reclassified as the M137 (AFAIK the lowest available regional number - the current all purpose road to Ashbourne would retain it's R135 designation)? The N2 from Ashbourne to Ardee would then become the R137 as opposed to the R147 (old N3).

spacetweek

Irish and Proud wrote: »

About the current M2 motorway, could it not simply be reclassified as the M137 (AFAIK the lowest available regional number - the current all purpose road to Ashbourne would retain it's R135 designation)? The N2 from Ashbourne to Ardee would then become the R137 as opposed to the R147 (old N3).

3-digit motorway probably wouldn't cut it. Here's what you do. If you're redesigning the N33 as the N2, then renumber M2 as M33. Problem solved. (The N2 section inside Dublin can stay.)

Renumbering the M2 also has the pleasant side-effect of eliminating the conflict with the other M2 in NI.

etchyed

spacetweek wrote: »

3-digit motorway probably wouldn't cut it. Here's what you do. If you're redesigning the N33 as the N2, then renumber M2 as M33. Problem solved. (The N2 section inside Dublin can stay.)

Renumbering the M2 also has the pleasant side-effect of eliminating the conflict with the other M2 in NI.

Not sure what you mean by "wouldn't cut it" but I agree that a 3-digit motorway is unlikely, simply because it would be embarrassing for the NRA to build a stretch of motorway on a national primary route only to downgrade it to regional a few years later.

L1011

spacetweek wrote: »

Renumbering the M2 also has the pleasant side-effect of eliminating the conflict with the other M2 in NI.

Do we need to get rid of the M3 and ensure that there's something done to stop the future Westport-Castlebar DC becoming M5 too then* :P


*I can't see the N12 being replaced with motorway...

spacetweek

etchyed wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by "wouldn't cut it" but I agree that a 3-digit motorway is unlikely, simply because it would be embarrassing for the NRA to build a stretch of motorway on a national primary route only to downgrade it to regional a few years later.

Sorry upon re-reading I think my post wasn't too clear. I meant that a 3-digit motorway doesn't fit our numbering plan. Motorways by definition are trunk routes and therefore must be assigned a national primary route number.

Great Scott, I forgot about the NI M3. Though isn't that just a stub?

SeanW

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0622/1224299387455.html

Surprised nobody posted this.

So you might get your Enfield Mark 2 after all?

marmurr1916

spacetweek wrote: »

Sorry upon re-reading I think my post wasn't too clear. I meant that a 3-digit motorway doesn't fit our numbering plan. Motorways by definition are trunk routes and therefore must be assigned a national primary route number.

Great Scott, I forgot about the NI M3. Though isn't that just a stub?

In Ireland, any section of any road which is classified as a motorway is given the prefix 'M'.

In theory, a section of local road which meets motorway standards and is designated as a motorway could have an 'M' prefix.

In practice, at least so far, only sections of national primary routes have been classified as motorways.

Chris_5339762

What about the N32? Thats a motorway officially

antoobrien

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/an-bord-pleanala-refuses-slane-bypass-542584.html

Apparently it's too close to the "buffer zone" around Newgrange .

L1011

if they want to extend the buffer, let them. But claiming something is 'too close' means the entire premise of it being a buffer is false

lucernarian

This is bewildering, what do they propose be done about even the local traffic volumes that will continue to use this unsafe and inappropriate bridge?

mydiscworld

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0307/breaking22.html

Am I right in saying the is the 2nd bypass proposal turned down the ABP?

Surely the council should be able to get their act in order at this stage!

Alun

antoobrien wrote: »

Apparently it's too close to the "buffer zone" around Newgrange .

Hilarious, you really couldn't make up something like that.

Irish and Proud

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

This is bewildering, what do they propose be done about even the local traffic volumes that will continue to use this unsafe and inappropriate bridge?

I doubt the above even registers with the powers that be - it's just another example of how the system is broken - ordinary people no longer matter. The country is dictated by global interests whether they're political, economic, historical or just plain fanatical - now is the time for people power to manifest itself. I for one am not interested in what the powers that be want - it's what we the ordinary people want and we in the East of Meath want the Slane Bypass - how many more people are going to die - is 22 not enough - of course it's nothing in the eyes of people in high up places.

Regards!

spacetweek

antoobrien wrote: »

Apparently it's too close to the "buffer zone" around Newgrange .

In fairness it was the opponents who said that, ABP said it was due to "concerns about heritage". Possibly archaeological digs unearthed something along the alignment?

Irish and Proud

Alun wrote: »

antoobrien wrote: »

Apparently it's too close to the "buffer zone" around Newgrange .

Hilarious, you really couldn't make up something like that.

Could ABP be taken to court? Surely a decision has to have a solid foundation - being too close to a buffer zone would hardly be solid grounds for refusal since the buffer zone is the protection measure - not the site/park itself. Secondly, the idea of the bypass being open to abuse by toll dodgers is IMO a contravention of EU legislation which AFAIK states that there must be a reasonable alternative route to a toll road - neither Slane, Julianstown or Drogheda would not strike me as a reasonable alternative on the grounds of safety.

Regards!