Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
04-03-2013, 10:37   #676
Sponge Bob
Banned
 
Sponge Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 24,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by monument View Post
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.
Sponge Bob is offline  
Advertisement
04-03-2013, 10:49   #677
monument
Moderator
 
monument's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 13,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sponge Bob View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sponge Bob View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sponge Bob View Post
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.
monument is offline  
04-03-2013, 11:03   #678
lucernarian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by monument View Post
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...
lucernarian is offline  
Thanks from:
04-03-2013, 11:15   #679
monument
Moderator
 
monument's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 13,546
In a hurry, so quickly....

Quote:
Originally Posted by To_be_confirmed View Post
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!


Quote:
Originally Posted by To_be_confirmed View Post
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by To_be_confirmed View Post
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.
monument is offline  
04-03-2013, 11:20   #680
Slane Resident
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 111
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.

Last edited by Slane Resident; 04-03-2013 at 11:50. Reason: Edited once to add in last two sentences, and second time to fix a spelling mistake.
Slane Resident is offline  
Advertisement
04-03-2013, 11:35   #681
Sponge Bob
Banned
 
Sponge Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 24,822
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 is offline  
Thanks from:
04-03-2013, 12:38   #682
Sponge Bob
Banned
 
Sponge Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 24,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by monument View Post
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.

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."
Sponge Bob is offline  
04-03-2013, 15:47   #683
Slane Resident
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sponge Bob View Post
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.
Slane Resident is offline  
04-03-2013, 16:06   #684
L1011
Moderator
 
L1011's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by monument View Post

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.
L1011 is offline  
Advertisement
04-03-2013, 22:13   #685
lucernarian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,079
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...
lucernarian is offline  
(2) thanks from:
04-03-2013, 23:21   #686
Slane Resident
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 111
what would a coordinated HGV ban across the region entail?
Slane Resident is offline  
Thanks from:
05-03-2013, 16:40   #687
Aquarius34
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,594
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.
Aquarius34 is offline  
05-03-2013, 17:07   #688
Sponge Bob
Banned
 
Sponge Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 24,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquarius34 View Post
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.
Sponge Bob is offline  
05-03-2013, 17:12   #689
Aquarius34
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sponge Bob View Post
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.
Aquarius34 is offline  
05-03-2013, 17:14   #690
ardmacha
Registered User
 
ardmacha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,455
Quote:
Build another bridge alongside then.
you could build another bridge about 1km away, a higher one, so without the steep slopes on either side.
ardmacha is offline  
Thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet