N2 - Slane Bypass [planning decision pending]

SeanW · 13-01-2013 3:15pm

There is serious ideological opposition to a bypass for Slane.

monument wrote: »

But than again some people in Slane and beyond want the M1 and M3 to be state secrets or maybe just invisible.

tuathal wrote: »

But I have to say, from a personal point of view (edit: Tuathal is part of the anti-bypass movement in some capacity, likely Save Newgrange /edit), I have never met a nastier group of people in my life. Time and again people tried to reason with them, and offered to co-operate on finding a solution that met everyone's needs. Instead, nothing came back but personall abuse, false accusations and aggresive behaviour.

The people of Slane, belonging to that lynch mob, got what they deserve.

Gee, I wonder why. With the benefit of hindsight, if someone had come to Longford and said "ye don't need a bypass, we can dick around with traffic restrictons and that will solve all your problems" I'd have ****ed them into the Camlin river and told them to swim back to their hippy commune or Dublin 4 or wherever they came from. Save Newgrange etcs. position would be infantile and bizarre if it were not so serious.

monument · 13-01-2013 3:43pm

SeanW wrote: »

There is serious ideological opposition to a bypass for Slane.

Well done Sean. Back to your usual self of attacking posters rather than posts, and all you can drag up from me is a quote related to using a HGV ban as a solution.

A quote you're using out of context!

If there was ever an ideologue around these parts it's you.

SeanW wrote: »

Gee, I wonder why. With the benefit of hindsight, if someone had come to Longford and said "ye don't need a bypass, we can dick around with traffic restrictons and that will solve all your problems" I'd have ****ed them into the Camlin river and told them to swim back to their hippy commune or Dublin 4 or wherever they came from. Save Newgrange etcs. position would be infantile and bizarre if it were not so serious.

I never realised there was a road like the M1 passing within 10km of one side of Longford and a road like the M3 passing within 15km of the other side!

Can you tell me where these hidden motorways are? They'd be really handy getting home to Mayo!

:rolleyes:

SeanW · 13-01-2013 4:06pm

I was primarily attacking tuathal, he and everyone else in Save Newgrange has been the most vociferous in presenting an HGV ban as an alternative to a bypass. As for you, I am not satisfied that you disagree with that, nor that you share the view that a bypass is needed as a matter of the highest urgency.

If there was ever an ideologue around these parts it's you.

Having witnessed what happened here in Longford when the N5 bypass opened, I may be best suited to understand the concerns of the people of Slane. The town used to be choked with traffic and HGVs were part of the towns 'furniture.' The transition was literally as noticeable as the difference between night and day. This town was basically given back to its local people, and I think the same should happen to Slane. ASAP. And I make no apologies for making that view abundantly clear.

Can you tell me where these hidden motorways are? They'd be really handy getting home to Mayo!

Well, the M6 is only 30 km away and I read some people from Southern Mayo use the N60, N61 and M6 from Athlone to get to Dublin in preference to the N5 - by Save Newgrange standards that would make it a perfect alternative route! Heck, the N61 even crosses the N5 at Tulsk!

But you're right, there are very serious differences between Longford and Slane that make any attempt at comparison ludicrous.

The N5 only ever sent 5000 vehicles per day through Longford. The N2 sends 10000 through Slane.
The existing road network inside Longford town is dramatically better than that of Slane. It was much, much better able to handle a given volume of pre-bypass traffic than Slanes roads are, in a manner that was much more conducive to satisfying the interests of all concerned.
Even if there was an overwhelmingly good reason not to build a bypass on a new alignment (which there is in NEITHER case), there were existing roads that could have been upgraded, perhaps with short new alignments. Chiefly the Lisbrack road (L1001), which had seen use as an unofficial bypass for cars. Slane has nothing of the sort.

monument · 13-01-2013 5:01pm

I live in a town which has little chance of being bypassed any time soon and has heavy HGV traffic. I cycle to work, shopping and to my son's creche on the road most heavily trafficked with HGVs.

There's no way I have some kind of ideological opposition to bypasses in general or one at Slane.

I completely disagree that HGV ban a long-term alternative to a bypass, but it is true that I don't share idea that it is needed at the "highest urgency". If there was truly such an urgency based on safety there'd be a long-distance HGV ban in place long before now: We won't agree on this point and there's no point going around in circles yet another time.

SeanW wrote: »

I was primarily attacking tuathal,

He or she has not posted here in nine months. Well done.

SeanW wrote: »

Well, the M6 is only 30 km away and I read some people from Southern Mayo use the N60, N61 and M6 from Athlone to get to Dublin in preference to the N5 - by Save Newgrange standards that would make it a perfect alternative route! Heck, the N61 even crosses the N5 at Tulsk!

30km = three times the distance of between the M1 and Slane and twice the distance between Slane and the M3, and Longford has no alternative the other side. Even if the N3 north of Longford was motorway it would be 40km away.

Nobody is making those type of arguments and the distances are quite larger than others have suggested for Slane. So, you're making up nonsensical and trying to claim others support them.

Along with dragging up posts from somebody who has not posted in nine months, this is all desperate stuff.

Slane Resident · 18-01-2013 12:05am

You persist in dragging up these motorways as if they have any relevance. The M1 and M3 would be relevant if their termination was Slane. There are any amount of motorways in Dublin - does that mean we don't need to build more? It's the final destination that counts, not the random villages on the way. HGVs will continue to use the N2 because the M1 and M3 do not go where they want to end up. You do understand that a road to Galway, a road to Kerry and a road to Donegal can all start in the same place, but that doesn't mean they're interchangeable, right?

monument · 18-01-2013 12:28am

Slane Resident wrote: »

You persist in dragging up these motorways as if they have any relevance. The M1 and M3 would be relevant if their termination was Slane. There are any amount of motorways in Dublin - does that mean we don't need to build more? It's the final destination that counts, not the random villages on the way. HGVs will continue to use the N2 because the M1 and M3 do not go where they want to end up. You do understand that a road to Galway, a road to Kerry and a road to Donegal can all start in the same place, but that doesn't mean they're interchangeable, right?

I'll quote it once again: "...45% of goods vehicles crossing Slane Bridge are longer distance movements that could be encouraged to transfer to the M1." And that's says nothing of some of the regional goods vehicles which could pushed to do the same.

All of this was mentioned before. This is going around in circles

Let's just agree to agree to disagree.

Slane Resident · 18-01-2013 9:35am

You raised this point a page previously. I answered it:

"That is in the event of a HGV ban in Slane, which will result in diversion of goods vehicles onto unsuitable roads. It does not suggest the M1 is a simple alternative - it states that 20% of HGVs could use the M1, with a further 25% potentially being potentially rerouted the M1 if a Slane ban was in place. Of course if the N2 is closed to them, 25% may take an alternate route, even if its out of their way, or if they have to travel unsuitable minor routes to get there. That's not the same as suggesting that 45% of HGV users could simply reroute."

You didn't deal with what I stated, just repeated as you're doing now. Going around in circles is inevitable if you persist in ignoring discussion by just reiterating your point ad infinitum. But you're a lone voice here, and it's very obvious why. The situation is untenable.

monument · 18-01-2013 10:00am

Slane Resident wrote: »

You raised this point a page previously. I answered it:

"That is in the event of a HGV ban in Slane, which will result in diversion of goods vehicles onto unsuitable roads. It does not suggest the M1 is a simple alternative - it states that 20% of HGVs could use the M1, with a further 25% potentially being potentially rerouted the M1 if a Slane ban was in place. Of course if the N2 is closed to them, 25% may take an alternate route, even if its out of their way, or if they have to travel unsuitable minor routes to get there. That's not the same as suggesting that 45% of HGV users could simply reroute."

You didn't deal with what I stated, just repeated as you're doing now. Going around in circles is inevitable if you persist in ignoring discussion by just reiterating your point ad infinitum. But you're a lone voice here, and it's very obvious why. The situation is untenable.

Your point has been replied to before. That's why we're going round and round.

Again: Nobody is suggesting it's a "simple alternative" where 45% of HGV users "could simply reroute." It would be planned in detail, and it could involve large scale downgrading of the N2 and, at the least, large-scale sign post changes from the M50 to well north of Slane. Regardless of what approch is taken, I agree it would not be a simple rerouting, but still not near impossible as you're trying to make it seem.

And the inspector was referring to 45% without a bypass -- why would that much traffic divert to the M1 if a bypass was in place???

You don't like my responces, but it's not true to say I have not responded.

You're not even going to agree to dissagree -- that's saying something! And you wonder why I'm the only one still bothering here?!!

Slane Resident · 27-02-2013 12:22pm

From the Bypass Slane page:

"Today (20th/2nd/2013) members of the Bypass Slane Campaign group attended the monthly meeting of the Slane Electoral Area Councillors. At this meeting a motion was passed rescinding the Councillors’ 2009 motion calling for a ban on HGVs through Slane. The motion was rescinded in view of the recent traffic management studies undertaken by Meath County Council since the Slane bypass was refused. It is clear from these studies that a ban on HGVs through Slane will not work, as it would provide only minimal safety benefits for the village and cause road safety issues elsewhere, through risk transference to Kentstown and Duleek. We call on the Councillors to table a motion for a new application for the Slane bypass to be submitted to An Bord Pleanála as a matter of urgency.

History: In April 2009, a motion calling for a ban on HGVs through Slane was unanimously passed by Meath Councillors directly after, and in response to, an horrific pile-up in the centre of Slane village in March of that year. It was a genuine and heart-felt, if somewhat naïve, attempt by Councillors to respond to the danger presented by the N2 through Slane, a danger successive governments had largely ignored for years. It is clear that the Councillors never intended for a ban on HGVs to be an alternative to a bypass for Slane, but objectors focused on this motion to argue against the need for a new road for the village. At the Oral Hearing in 2011, Fine Gael Councillor, Anne Dillon-Gallagher clarified the Councillors’ position when questioned by Mr Colm O’hEochaigh, SC for Mr John Rogers (objecting), she advised that it was never the Councillors’ position that a ban would replace a bypass. However, the motion proved unhelpful and caused sufficient confusion to contribute towards a refusal of the planning application."

Irish and Proud · 27-02-2013 12:59pm

Slane Resident wrote: »

From the Bypass Slane page:

"Today (20th/2nd/2013) members of the Bypass Slane Campaign group attended the monthly meeting of the Slane Electoral Area Councillors. At this meeting a motion was passed rescinding the Councillors’ 2009 motion calling for a ban on HGVs through Slane. The motion was rescinded in view of the recent traffic management studies undertaken by Meath County Council since the Slane bypass was refused. It is clear from these studies that a ban on HGVs through Slane will not work, as it would provide only minimal safety benefits for the village and cause road safety issues elsewhere, through risk transference to Kentstown and Duleek. We call on the Councillors to table a motion for a new application for the Slane bypass to be submitted to An Bord Pleanála as a matter of urgency.

History: In April 2009, a motion calling for a ban on HGVs through Slane was unanimously passed by Meath Councillors directly after, and in response to, an horrific pile-up in the centre of Slane village in March of that year. It was a genuine and heart-felt, if somewhat naïve, attempt by Councillors to respond to the danger presented by the N2 through Slane, a danger successive governments had largely ignored for years. It is clear that the Councillors never intended for a ban on HGVs to be an alternative to a bypass for Slane, but objectors focused on this motion to argue against the need for a new road for the village. At the Oral Hearing in 2011, Fine Gael Councillor, Anne Dillon-Gallagher clarified the Councillors’ position when questioned by Mr Colm O’hEochaigh, SC for Mr John Rogers (objecting), she advised that it was never the Councillors’ position that a ban would replace a bypass. However, the motion proved unhelpful and caused sufficient confusion to contribute towards a refusal of the planning application."

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

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

Sponge Bob · 27-02-2013 1:06pm

Irish and Proud wrote: »

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

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

monument · 27-02-2013 5:12pm

Irish and Proud wrote: »

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

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

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

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

SeanW · 28-02-2013 2:14am

monument wrote: »

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

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

As I&Ps post has shown, the view is largely that it's either/or relating to bypass vs. HGV ban. I.E. its either an HGV ban, or a bypass. Not both. To recap:

An HGV ban is viewed by anti-bypass people as a replacement for a bypass not a precursor, this confusion WILL spill into any debate on the bypass as it may have done in the case of the ABP refusal.
An HGV ban would inevitably send lorries on roads even less suited to heavy goods traffic, over roads and bridges that are equally as bad or worse than the main road.
An HGV ban is likely to be illegal given that there is no precedent for it, e.g. towns (including Lucan for the M50) that have not been able to impose HGV bans on their main streets without their being a toll-free alternative nearby.

lucernarian · 28-02-2013 10:13am

SeanW wrote: »

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

As I&Ps post has shown, the view is largely that it's either/or relating to bypass vs. HGV ban. I.E. its either an HGV ban, or a bypass. Not both. To recap:
An HGV ban is viewed by anti-bypass people as a replacement for a bypass not a precursor, this confusion WILL spill into any debate on the bypass as it may have done in the case of the ABP refusal.

An HGV ban would inevitably send lorries on roads even less suited to heavy goods traffic, over roads and bridges that are equally as bad or worse than the main road.

An HGV ban is likely to be illegal given that there is no precedent for it, e.g. towns (including Lucan for the M50) that have not been able to impose HGV bans on their main streets without their being a toll-free alternative nearby.

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

antoobrien · 28-02-2013 11:45am

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

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

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

Victor · 01-03-2013 11:18pm

antoobrien wrote: »

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

Behave

Moderator

monument · 04-03-2013 2:04am

SeanW wrote: »

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

As I&Ps post has shown, the view is largely that it's either/or relating to bypass vs. HGV ban. I.E. its either an HGV ban, or a bypass. Not both. To recap:
An HGV ban is viewed by anti-bypass people as a replacement for a bypass not a precursor, this confusion WILL spill into any debate on the bypass as it may have done in the case of the ABP refusal.

An HGV ban would inevitably send lorries on roads even less suited to heavy goods traffic, over roads and bridges that are equally as bad or worse than the main road.

An HGV ban is likely to be illegal given that there is no precedent for it, e.g. towns (including Lucan for the M50) that have not been able to impose HGV bans on their main streets without their being a toll-free alternative nearby.

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

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

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

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

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

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

lucernarian · 04-03-2013 9:38am

monument wrote: »

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

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

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

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

monument · 04-03-2013 10:11am

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

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

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

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

Sponge Bob · 04-03-2013 10:22am

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

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

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

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

monument · 04-03-2013 10:55am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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

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

Not even half of these factors together are not mirrored at the other bridge crossings.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The solution is obviously to widen some bridge somewhere but the serial objectors won't tell us which one. Here is an example of an alternative route that is (ahem) 'suitable'

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

Here's a more than suitable bridge!

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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

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

Slane Resident · 04-03-2013 10:59am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Sponge Bob · 04-03-2013 11:25am

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

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

monument · 04-03-2013 11:28am

Slane Resident wrote: »

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

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

Slane Resident wrote: »

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

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

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

Sponge Bob · 04-03-2013 11:37am

monument wrote: »

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

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

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

monument · 04-03-2013 11:49am

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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

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

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

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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

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

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

lucernarian · 04-03-2013 12:03pm

monument wrote: »

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

Not even half of these factors together are not mirrored at the other bridge crossings.

This might sound like a further "attack" on someone with a different opinion but when hypocritical suppositions are being made by yourself, it really becomes frustrating.

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

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

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

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

monument · 04-03-2013 12:15pm

In a hurry, so quickly....

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

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

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

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

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

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

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

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

That would still be the job of a bypass.

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

Slane Resident · 04-03-2013 12:20pm

Monument.

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

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

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

Can we just examine this statement for a minute?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sponge Bob · 04-03-2013 12:35pm

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

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

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

Sponge Bob · 04-03-2013 1:38pm

monument wrote: »

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

Logic can be so funny.

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

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

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

Who has a problem with this bit then!

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

Slane Resident · 04-03-2013 4:47pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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

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

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

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

L1011 · 04-03-2013 5:06pm

monument wrote: »

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

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

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

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

lucernarian · 04-03-2013 11:13pm

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

Slane Resident · 05-03-2013 12:21am

what would a coordinated HGV ban across the region entail?

Aquarius34 · 05-03-2013 5:40pm

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

Sponge Bob · 05-03-2013 6:07pm

Aquarius34 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

I dont want to trash Mellifont either.

Aquarius34 · 05-03-2013 6:12pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

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

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

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

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

I dont want to trash Mellifont either.

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

Build another bridge alongside then.

ardmacha · 05-03-2013 6:14pm

Build another bridge alongside then.

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

Sponge Bob · 05-03-2013 6:18pm

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

I suggest the R168 becomes N51 instead. The interminable wrangling over the Slane Bypass, by some great irony, was well decribed by Irelands third greatest 20th Century Poet whose home town it was. Not Séamus Heaney but Francis Ledwidge

Oh what a pleasant world 'twould be,
How easy we'd step thro' it,
If all the fools who meant no harm,
Could manage not to do it!

Aquarius34 · 05-03-2013 6:40pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

You need to get the height and approach geometry spot on in Slane.

I suggest the R168 becomes N51 instead.

The N51 is there to serve major towns along the route and thus connect to the N52 in which links the North east to the south and Midlands. The N51 needs to be upgraded and not downgraded. Especially since the N52 from Birr to Mullingar is of a high standard now. Navan itself has a partial N51 bypass now. If any roads need proper upgrade and focus now it would be the N52 and N51. Navan and Drogheda are very large towns and the N51 itself is very under spec.

Sponge Bob · 05-03-2013 8:39pm

Aquarius34 wrote: »

The N51 needs to be upgraded and not downgraded. Especially since the N52 from Birr to Mullingar is of a high standard now.

Navan and Drogheda are very large towns and the N51 itself is very under spec.

Eh , have you read ANY of this thread at all.?????

The N51 east of Slane CANNOT be upgraded. It has to be moved north first.

Aquarius34 · 05-03-2013 9:09pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Eh , have you read ANY of this thread at all.?????

The N51 east of Slane CANNOT be upgraded. It has to be moved north first.

A new offline section can be built, yes, whatever. You seem to be going off on a tangent here.

monument · 05-03-2013 10:46pm

MYOB wrote: »

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

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

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

If I'm a campaigner you are too. If posting on boards somehow counts as being a campaigner there's a hell of a lot of campaigners out there.

A broken record also springs to mind. Honestly, can you not grow up and give up your non-stop polarised nonsense, as well as your consistent attacking of posters rather than the point?

L1011 · 05-03-2013 10:54pm

monument wrote: »

A broken record also springs to mind.

Indeed, you continually trying to drag back to an unworkable HGV ban you seem obsessed with.

Sponge Bob · 05-03-2013 11:29pm

HGV in NRA planning terms includes fairly small trucks and buses...not just Artics and Lowloaders dragging 40 ton Caterpillars behind etc. I don't think you can ban the lot of them from Slane TBH.

http://www.nra.ie/RepositoryforPublicationsInfo/file,17943,en.pdf

NRA Final Report National Roads Traffic Management Study 2010

In identifying the importance of national roads to freight movement, it is useful to examine the
proportion of freight vehicles using key roads as a fun
ction of total traffic movement. Figure 3-6
below highlights the proportion of HGVs on the nation
al network in 2006. HGVs are defined as
goods vehicles with three or more axles (OGV1 and OGV2)
.

As illustrated, a number of interurban routes display t
ypical values of 10-15% HGVs. It is clear,
however, that routes on the approach to Dublin exper
ience the highest proportion of HGVs, with a
large proportion of those routes experiencing between 1
5-30% HGVs such as the M1, N2, M4,
M7, M8, N9 and N81. The dominance of HGVs on Dublin r
outes reflects the importance of Dublin
Port in handling 50% of all Ireland’s imports and exp
orts and two thirds of containerised trade to
and from Ireland. Trade levels through the Port
reached a record high of almost 31 million tonnes

Furthermore there is a sort of centre of activity.

Analysis of HGV activity highlights a high proportion o
f HGV’s on the National Secondary Road
Network connecting the Midlands with the North East and
Northern Ireland via Monaghan, and
also from Dundalk to Northern Ireland via Monaghan.
This suggests that Monaghan is located in
a strategically important ‘crossroads’ on the National
Road Network

Sadly Monaghan is on the wrong side of Slane from Dublin Port but luckily Monaghan is not a World Heritage Site so why not move Monaghan???? Simples!

Anyway I

monument · 06-03-2013 9:49am

MYOB wrote: »

Indeed, you continually trying to drag back to an unworkable HGV ban you seem obsessed with.

It takes two to tango, so there's more than one broken record playing here. I've looked to agree to disagree but clearly more headstrong poster can't even accept that.

The "unworkable" idea is just one viewpoint. It's not a proven fact and it's not indisputable. But people confusing facts and views is common place so your apprent mistake is forgivenable.

Sponge Bob · 06-03-2013 10:58am

To be honest the selective targeting of the N2 and leaving out the need to sort the N51 from West of Slane to Drogheda as well ( and for which road a HGV ban was not proposed ...only for the bridge)...strikes me as bad and egregiously selective planning anyway.

Banning North south traffic while leaving west east traffic gnashing and thundering through solves nothing really. Planning a partial bypass while ignoring the need for a wider solution to both N road axes through Slane and east of it is equally bad planning.

Starting a full Bypass of Slane with the north south axis first is not bad planning as long as one admits it is a partial solution only and cannot fully deliver absent the rerouting of the N51 as well.

The N51 is the ONLY major road in Ireland that runs THROUGH a World Heritage Site...to be joined soon by the N5 perhaps. Naturally once something is inside the site that changes everything in planning terms and so it should. But it hasn't in Slane and the anti message has constantly been that the people of Slane are somehow wrong in wishing to live peacefully and safely in their own homes.

They have that right and only fully bypassing Slane for all N Roads will deliver that to them. The only alternative really is to fully upgrade the N52 including an N52 Ardee bypass and send the trucks thataway as well as on the M1 and M3.

By far the most costly element would be upgrading the N52 from a few miles north of Mullingar to north of Ardee ( and possibly the N33 to 2+2 as well) ...that and many more will die and be injured in Slane before one finishes even an Ardee bypass for the N52.

But were one to do so one could contemplate a more rigid HGV ban in Slane along with a permissive tagging regime for the remainder.

Slane Resident · 06-03-2013 11:50pm

I'm really interested to find out how these rigid HGV bans or complete regional bans are going to work. Not being argumentative, maybe I'm just not seeing something that others are. I don't see how blocking HGVs from the entire region will work - not for through-travel, deliveries, or the indigenous industries.

Sponge Bob · 07-03-2013 12:12am

First of all I dont think a HGV ban can work absent a bypass on the dangerous N2 side and then a HGV ban can't work absent at least a partial N51 Bypass either...seeing as the N51 actually goes through a World Heritage site....unlike either the old N2 or the N2 Bypass.

Then the fact remains that Slane is between Navan and the nearest A and E unit so traffic will still use Slane itself ...often travelling fast even if there is a HGV ban unless there is a complete bypass of the N51 as well.

Slane is on the main road betwen Drogheda and the Midlands/West so that traffic should be given an alternative route before full bans are put in place anyway. The problem with that is that the logical alternative route ( N52 Ardee - Mullingar) is another diabolical road that needs upgrading from south of Delvin to north of Ardee, each and every inch of it save for the Kells Bypass. That will take years, sure it took 10 years to do the Mullingar - Tullamore section of that road including bypassing the pair of them

Consequently the only short term relief I can see,and of any real use, is bypass Slane N2 as proposed and also N51 west and send the N51 HGV traffic north and east to the M1 seeing as the N51 east to Drogheda cannot be upgraded unless you drop it into a cut and cover tunnel and cover it with clay or something.

What I would do is regularly block the traffic lights in every direction on fridays until it makes the national media and get some proper attention on yourselves instead of letting the heritage lot get all the headlines in the Times making ye out to be a pack of philistines for asking for a bypass. If there is an election on at the same time ...all the better.

Have one of those Enda Kenny specials, a 5 point plan. ready for the meeja. No need to go to Dublin when you can make the point at the traffic lights in the middle of Slane.

N2 - Slane Bypass [planning decision pending]

Comments