N2 - Slane Bypass [planning decision pending]

SeanW

JupiterKid wrote: »

That seems to be the real agenda here.

Hard to say what his agenda really is, but it's painfully clear he has one. Seriously, there's a National Primary Road going over a 400 year old, 1 Lane bridge, (that happens to be in the middle of an urban area, albeit a small one, not to mention the bridge can't be widenened because it's listed) and the poster in question is opposing a bypass on the basis than an HGV ban would solve everything, or that the bypass would come within 10 miles of the Newgrange region or whatever the hell he's on about.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

JupiterKid wrote: »

That seems to be the real agenda here.

Hard to say what his agenda really is, but it's painfully clear he has one. Seriously, there's a National Primary Road going over a 400 year old, 1 Lane bridge, (that happens to be in the middle of an urban area, albeit a small one, not to mention the bridge can't be widenened because it's listed) and the poster in question is opposing a bypass on the basis than an HGV ban would solve everything, or that the bypass would come within 10 miles of the Newgrange region or whatever the hell he's on about.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Lol he has an agenda but nobody opposing him does!?

...This is a silly path of discussion to go down, it's a personal attack which is against the rules here. You're supposed to play the ball and not the man.

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

Lol he has an agenda but nobody opposing him does!?

...This is a silly path of discussion to go down, it's a personal attack which is against the rules here. You're supposed to play the ball and not the man.

Not being a moderator here or anything, but there's a report button if you actually have a problem...

monument

MYOB wrote: »

monument wrote: »

And there's loads of others points on the north and south side with about the same kind of trips or longer.

You selecting a route (that isn't the most direct by any means) from two random points is not comparable to being unable to cross a river for a 30km round trip.
Edge to edge of the Dublin HGV ban is *far* less than 30km. You aren't going to find a single routing through it that's made 30km longer.

Please show us a more direct route outside the HGVs ban area.

I actually tried to make my route selection start/end points realistic -- one industrial estate to one district centre.

MYOB wrote: »

monument wrote: »

What toll-free alternatives are you talking about?

All routes used to cross the Liffey in west Dublin prior to the M50 being built. Which are available to cars *and* HGVs.

Again: Please show the routes you are talking about.

MYOB wrote: »

monument wrote: »

Let's not get away from my valid point -- The points you made were factually incorrect and I've backed that up.

Nothing I said was factually incorrect. Selective "backing up" on your part is the lie here.

To add - the entire area inside the Dublin 5-axle ban is regional roads; Slane is a National Primary

The Dublin 5-axle ban still allows vehicles of a weight, size and handling characteristics which are not suited for Slane - which would almost inevitable get a 5 tonne ban instead.

The two are completely incomparable.

There you go again making factually incorrect statements.

You say inside the Dublin ban area there's only regional roads, but there are clearly a ton of national routes.

monument

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

monument wrote: »

Lol he has an agenda but nobody opposing him does!?

...This is a silly path of discussion to go down, it's a personal attack which is against the rules here. You're supposed to play the ball and not the man.

Not being a moderator here or anything, but there's a report button if you actually have a problem...

You might take your own advice?!

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

You might take your own advice?!

I just made a statement of fact, I could hardly be acting as a mod if I linked to the charter for example.

ardmacha

You say inside the Dublin ban area there's only regional roads, but there are clearly a ton of national routes.

A tonne of former national routes, perhaps.

L1011

monument wrote: »

Please show us a more direct route outside the HGVs ban area.

I actually tried to make my route selection start/end points realistic -- one industrial estate to one district centre.

And you went out of your way to reach the M50 and out of your way from the M50.

monument wrote: »

Again: Please show the routes you are talking about.

Does your use of mapping software not extend to looking either side of an existing bridge?

Trucks did, and can still, cross the Liffey at Chapelizod, Lucan, Islandbridge (albeit there's not many places to go outside of the 5-axle ban from there) or by routing around the problem entirely by going through (well, around) Maynooth and heading north/south of the Liffey as required from there.

This is what they did prior to the M50 being built, as the M50 was an entirely new routing.

monument wrote: »

There you go again making factually incorrect statements.

You say inside the Dublin ban area there's only regional roads, but there are clearly a ton of national routes.

There are no national routes of any description inside the 5-axle ban zone.

Nothing factually incorrect - you may wish to stop claiming that.

SeanW

monument wrote: »

Lol he has an agenda but nobody opposing him does!?

...This is a silly path of discussion to go down, it's a personal attack which is against the rules here. You're supposed to play the ball and not the man.

Ok, how about this - take a glance at a map of the area ... the bypass would have gone nowhere near Newgrange and that's obvious to anyone with half a brain. You'd have to be blind, or a complete moron - or blinded by an agenda - not to see that the bypass could not possibly have come anywhere near Newgrange.

And if you want to talk about playing the ball not the man, then I'm afraid that boat has already sailed when tuathal posted this bilge about the people of Slane.
Some choice nuggets:

They allowed their village to be used as a toll-bypass

That would have been rather difficult because it assumes there was already an excellent road, i.e. a bypass, that was toll free and the authorities decided to toll it, what happened instead was that a new Motorway was built 10 miles away, and the people of Slane were supposed to do ... what exactly? How exactly did their village suddenly become a toll rat run when there was never a toll previous and the tolled road didn't exist previously?

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.
(translation: we told them "you little people should be delighted with an HGV ban")

Instead, nothing came back but personall abuse, false accusations and aggresive behaviour.

If my understanding of tuahtal's posts is correct, it's quite understandable that the people of Slane might have reacted as they did.

And my personal favourite:

tuathal wrote:

The people of Slane ... got what they deserve.

I think that sums it up very nicely.

Look, Irish law is clear, before you put up a toll or an HGV ban, there must be alternative route that contains neither. The river in question doesn't have a whole lot of high quality toll free crossings to play around with.

And even if that could be got around and you could legally just put up "5 axle ban" signs around the village, that wouldn't change the fact that a National Primary Road goes through Slane on a set of very steep inclines, a severe bend or two and 400 year old, 1 lane bridge that can NEVER be modified.

Tuathal should just change his/her screenname to "Fuck Slane" and be done with it.

monument

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I just made a statement of fact, I could hardly be acting as a mod if I linked to the charter for example.

Ok. Grand.

ardmacha wrote: »

A tonne of former national routes, perhaps.

When exactly were the N11, N1, N2, N3, and N4 in the ban area downgraded from National Primary status?

National primary roads are defined by legislation, so you should be able to find the changes on http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/

MYOB wrote: »

And you went out of your way to reach the M50 and out of your way from the M50.

No, it's just the most direct legal route around the ban area from the northside to the southside.

And I could have got longer distances (ie somewhere further east both on the northside and southside).

MYOB wrote: »

Trucks did, and can still, cross the Liffey at Chapelizod, Lucan, Islandbridge (albeit there's not many places to go outside of the 5-axle ban from there) or by routing around the problem entirely by going through (well, around) Maynooth and heading north/south of the Liffey as required from there.

In short: You can't give an alternative route, can you?

Chapelizod, and Islandbridge: Main Street / Martin's Row have a 3 ton ban, the park excludes commercial traffic and all roads east of the park are in the ban area, so none of those work with the kind of trips we're talking about.

Lucan, Maynooth: Brings you way out of the way, way less direct than the M50.

MYOB wrote: »

There are no national routes of any description inside the 5-axle ban zone.

Nothing factually incorrect - you may wish to stop claiming that.

SeanW wrote: »

And if you want to talk about playing the ball not the man, then I'm afraid that boat has already sailed when tuathal posted this bilge about the

Sure, then he is just as bad.

SeanW wrote: »

Look, Irish law is clear, before you put up a toll or an HGV ban, there must be alternative route that contains neither. The river in question doesn't have a whole lot of high quality toll free crossings to play around with.

Open to correction, but there is no law on this. If I'm wrong, you should be able to quote the law or case law.

L1011

monument wrote: »

When exactly were the N11, N1, N2, N3, and N4 in the ban area downgraded from National Primary status?

National primary roads are defined by legislation, so you should be able to find the changes on http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/

Look and you will find. They've been detrunked.

monument wrote: »

No, it's just the most direct legal route around the ban area from the northside to the southside.

Its not the most direct. That's blantantly obvious by looking at it.

monument wrote: »

In short: You can't give an alternative route, can you?

I've given alternative routes and you attempt to dismiss it as you're annoyed.

These are the routes that were used before the M50 opened and are still available should traffic not wish to pay the tolls. You do realise that before the M50 was built there were *no* bridges there, right?

monument wrote: »

An outdated map shows what, exactly?

Are you going to continue to compare a part-time 5-axle ban that was brought in when a free alternative route was built to a proposed "HGV" (presumably actually a 5T ban) with absolutely no alternative route? Because that *is* factually incorrect - unlike your repeated, unproven claims against me of that.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

Look and you will find. They've been detrunked.

If so please prove it. A link or the name of the act would be great!

MYOB wrote: »

Its not the most direct. That's blantantly obvious by looking at it.

I've given alternative routes and you attempt to dismiss it as you're annoyed.

These are the routes that were used before the M50 opened and are still available should traffic not wish to pay the tolls. You do realise that before the M50 was built there were *no* bridges there, right?

It's simple: If there is a more direct route around the ban area please post a link to Google Maps showing it or describe the route.

As a reminder: The start/end points we were talking about are the Dublin Industrial Estate and the Swan Centre in Rathmines.

MYOB wrote: »

An outdated map shows what, exactly?

The map is from a 2011 NRA report and the roads are shown the same way on the updated OSI maps on http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/

MYOB wrote: »

Are you going to continue to compare a part-time 5-axle ban that was brought in when a free alternative route was built to a proposed "HGV" (presumably actually a 5T ban) with absolutely no alternative route? Because that *is* factually incorrect - unlike your repeated, unproven claims against me of that.

The free alternative is only for traffic to/from Dublin Port, it does not allow HGVs to avoid the ban area when going from the northside to the southside.

At the time of the HGV ban in the city it was also claimed that "there is no alternative".

SeanW

monument wrote:

Open to correction, but there is no law on this. If I'm wrong, you should be able to quote the law or case law.

IANAL, but I'm reasonably sure the government cannot just slap up an HGV ban without considering alternative routes, anymore than it can slap on a Motorway Regulation Order or a toll charge on a road that does not have an alternative route.

But like I said, it doesn't matter: an HGV ban won't do anything to counter the fact that the roads in the Slane area are totally unsuited to their use in the 21st century and cannot be fixed without new construction.

I really find it bizarre that anyong thinks an HGV ban is a suitable substitute for a bypass in this context.

monument wrote: »

If so please prove it. A link or the name of the act would be great!

Two things:

One, a recent thread on the matter: here

and Two, a link to the Ministerial Order.

L1011

monument wrote: »

If so please prove it. A link or the name of the act would be great!

Roads Act 1993 (Classification of National Roads) Order 2012.

monument wrote: »

The free alternative is only for traffic to/from Dublin Port, it does not allow HGVs to avoid the ban area when going from the northside to the southside.

The only through traffic of any consequence in the area was to/from Dublin Port.

The same cannot be said of a National Primary Route.

monument wrote: »

At the time of the HGV ban in the city it was also claimed that "there is no alternative".

A free alternative of far higher standard was provided from the day the ban came in

Pushing up to a 30km round trip traffic towards the M1 (non-free) or R132 (poor standard) / M3 (non-free) or R147 (poor standard) across poor standard roads is not an alternative.

If you want to continue to compare these, you can only compare it to a ban on the "R135" through Slane once an N2 bypass has been built.

L1011

monument wrote: »

It's simple: If there is a more direct route around the ban area please post a link to Google Maps showing it or describe the route.

As a reminder: The start/end points we were talking about are the Dublin Industrial Estate and the Swan Centre in Rathmines.

Take the R148 (former N4) in for starters - your route goes hilariously out of the way (Tallaght? Why?) to try and prove a point.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

IANAL, but I'm reasonably sure the government cannot just slap up an HGV ban without considering alternative routes, anymore than it can slap on a Motorway Regulation Order or a toll charge on a road that does not have an alternative route.

There's nothing stopping them legally from putting a HGV ban in.

SeanW wrote: »

But like I said, it doesn't matter: an HGV ban won't do anything to counter the fact that the roads in the Slane area are totally unsuited to their use in the 21st century and cannot be fixed without new construction.

I really find it bizarre that anyong thinks an HGV ban is a suitable substitute for a bypass in this context.

Sure a HGV ban would do something -- it would take the main hazard off the bridge crossing and the roads leading up to it, including the hill in the village.

SeanW wrote: »

Two things:

One, a recent thread on the matter: here

and Two, a link to the Ministerial Order.

MYOB wrote: »

Roads Act 1993 (Classification of National Roads) Order 2012.

Thanks -- did not realise the change had happened.

Good move overall, but will be a bit annoying when talking about the routes (N1 etc is easier to remember).

MYOB wrote: »

The only through traffic of any consequence in the area was to/from Dublin Port.

You're claiming there's more local HGV traffic going from one side of Slane to the other than there is local HGV traffic (excluding port traffic) going from the northside within the M50 to the southside within the M50? Seems highly unlikely.

MYOB wrote: »

The same cannot be said of a National Primary Route.

National Primary Roads can be reclassified

MYOB wrote: »

Take the R148 (former N4) in for starters - your route goes hilariously out of the way (Tallaght? Why?) to try and prove a point.

Because that's what Google suggests.

I only picked the start / end points and a random way-point on the M50.

SeanW

monument wrote: »

There's nothing stopping them legally from putting a HGV ban in.

Ok, great, where are trucks going to go? especially the ones that are destined for/coming from the immediate area?

Sure a HGV ban would do something -- it would take the main hazard off the bridge crossing and the roads leading up to it, including the hill in the village.

But is it a substitute for a bypass, that is what I asked?

I am not aware of any precedent in Ireland (or anywhere else for that matter) where a lorry ban was imposed and there was not a better alternative route provided (Maynooth town R148 has toll free M4, Dublin City Centre has Port Tunnel, again toll free for lorries.) Enfield, on unclassified road, also has a lorry ban, but it has an R148 free bypass in addition to the tolled motorway running in paralell.

In short, I have never heard of an Irish HGV ban that did not have a high quality, toll free alternative close at hand, that HGV bans are always considered part of a plan that involves a bypass/alternative route, and Slane would be totally unprecedented if the Fuck Slane (a.k.a Save Newgrange) campaign were listened to.

Also, how do you propose that an HGV ban would solve the fundamental problems of the total inadequacy infrastructure in the local area, problems outlined above?

L1011

monument wrote: »

You're claiming there's more local HGV traffic going from one side of Slane to the other than there is local HGV traffic (excluding port traffic) going from the northside within the M50 to the southside within the M50? Seems highly unlikely.

There is far more 5T+ traffic going along the N2 on routes which being sent to the N3 corridor or N1 corridor is a huge imposition; than there is 5 axle traffic going from small industrial estates to small shopping centres.

You still seem to be believing that the Dublin ban is banning the same kind of traffic - when its not. Many vehicles that are allowed in Dublin are still completely inappropriate for Slane.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

monument wrote: »

There's nothing stopping them legally from putting a HGV ban in.

Ok, great, where are trucks going to go? especially the ones that are destined for/coming from the immediate area?

Around, just like the same traffic elsewhere.

SeanW wrote: »

But is it a substitute for a bypass, that is what I asked?

Why should it have to be?

SeanW wrote: »

I am not aware of any precedent in Ireland (or anywhere else for that matter) where a lorry ban was imposed and there was not a better alternative route provided (Maynooth town R148 has toll free M4, Dublin City Centre has Port Tunnel, again toll free for lorries.) Enfield, on unclassified road, also has a lorry ban, but it has an R148 free bypass in addition to the tolled motorway running in paralell.

In short, I have never heard of an Irish HGV ban that did not have a high quality, toll free alternative close at hand, that HGV bans are always considered part of a plan that involves a bypass/alternative route, and Slane would be totally unprecedented if the Fuck Slane (a.k.a Save Newgrange) campaign were listened to.

In Dublin going from the southside to the northside or to the port is tolled at the Westlink. This is a completely new and much longer route for traffic that used to be able to use the N4 and the quays etc to the port.

SeanW wrote: »

Also, how do you propose that an HGV ban would solve the fundamental problems of the total inadequacy infrastructure in the local area, problems outlined above?

It would massively reduce the safety issue which is the core fundamental problem.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

monument wrote: »

You're claiming there's more local HGV traffic going from one side of Slane to the other than there is local HGV traffic (excluding port traffic) going from the northside within the M50 to the southside within the M50? Seems highly unlikely.

There is far more 5T+ traffic going along the N2 on routes which being sent to the N3 corridor or N1 corridor is a huge imposition; than there is 5 axle traffic going from small industrial estates to small shopping centres.

You still seem to be believing that the Dublin ban is banning the same kind of traffic - when its not. Many vehicles that are allowed in Dublin are still completely inappropriate for Slane.

Well then take the traffic which use to go from the N4 etc and along the quays to the port -- that traffic now has a long detour and a toll.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

monument wrote: »

You're claiming there's more local HGV traffic going from one side of Slane to the other than there is local HGV traffic (excluding port traffic) going from the northside within the M50 to the southside within the M50? Seems highly unlikely.

There is far more 5T+ traffic going along the N2 on routes which being sent to the N3 corridor or N1 corridor is a huge imposition; than there is 5 axle traffic going from small industrial estates to small shopping centres.

You still seem to be believing that the Dublin ban is banning the same kind of traffic - when its not. Many vehicles that are allowed in Dublin are still completely inappropriate for Slane.

Well then take the traffic which use to go from the N4 etc and along the quays to the port -- that traffic now has a long detour and a toll.

L1011

monument wrote: »

Well then take the traffic which use to go from the N4 etc and along the quays to the port -- that traffic now has a long detour and a toll.

As much traffic has been saved from a toll (that which was going to access the M50N via the R148 outbound; and that which needed the EastLink which is now free for banned traffic) as has been made pay a toll. And, as has been shown here, no traffic actually *has* to use the WestLink.

You're really getting desperate with the scrabbling now.

The two bans are completely and utterly incomparable - so please stop desperately trying.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

As much traffic has been saved from a toll (that which was going to access the M50N via the R148 outbound; and that which needed the EastLink which is now free for banned traffic) as has been made pay a toll. And, as has been shown here, no traffic actually *has* to use the WestLink.

You're really getting desperate with the scrabbling now.

The two bans are completely and utterly incomparable - so please stop desperately trying.

The Eastlink is free for banned traffic for access to/from the south second of the port and the port tunnel. It is not for north-south traffic.

Nobody is been made use the M50? Stop with the nonsense, what were already claimed as alternatives are [a] are not allow or are even longer detours than the M50, and none of them are of the "high quality" other posters here talk of.

The Dublin ban and a possible Slane ban are far more alike than you like to think, and I'm not desperately trying anything -- it's quite easy to pick holes in the anti-ban viewpoint.

L1011

monument wrote: »

The Dublin ban and a possible Slane ban are far more alike than you like to think, and I'm not desperately trying anything -- it's quite easy to pick holes in the anti-ban viewpoint.

The "anti-ban viewpoint" shows prescisely where you're coming from here. Lets ignore the actual needs and slap an ban on and hope that stuff magically disappears...

I'm not anti-ban. I'm stating that a ban is impossible without the bypass. Two completely different things.

You are trying to compare two vastly different things and try to weasel out of situations relating to it when challenged - e.g. by providing convoluted versions of routes to make them appear longer or claiming that the roads which were used prior to the M50 being built aren't actually alternatives to it.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

The "anti-ban viewpoint" shows prescisely where you're coming from here. Lets ignore the actual needs and slap an ban on and hope that stuff magically disappears...

I'm not anti-ban. I'm stating that a ban is impossible without the bypass. Two completely different things.

You're not anti-ban and, sure, war is peace, and slavery is freedom... Fine, if it helps your sensibilities, let's call it the impossible viewpoint.

There was also an impossible viewpoint with the Dublin ban, but yet it has been possible.

MYOB wrote: »

You are trying to compare two vastly different things and try to weasel out of situations relating to it when challenged - e.g. by providing convoluted versions of routes to make them appear longer or claiming that the roads which were used prior to the M50 being built aren't actually alternatives to it.

The then N4, including the quays, was one of the main routes to the port and now that is cut off due to the ban.

MYOB wrote: »

- e.g. by providing convoluted versions of routes to make them appear longer

As I said Google suggested it -- please link to a better routing if you have one, but it does not seems like you do, does it?

MYOB wrote: »

or claiming that the roads which were used prior to the M50 being built aren't actually alternatives to it.

The quays is within the ban area; routes west of the M50 are even further out of the way and do not meet the high quality requirement set down by other posters; and both the Chapelizod Bridge and Islandbridge don't legally bring HGVs anywhere too far north because the park has a commercial traffic ban, Main Street Chapelizod has a 3t ban and all ways around the park to the east are within the ban area.

Can you actually dispute what I'm saying or are you just going to try some more vague digs or vague claims?

L1011

monument wrote: »

There was also an impossible viewpoint with the Dublin ban, but yet it has been possible.

All I remember was the calls to get the EastLink toll removed for banned traffic - which it was

monument wrote: »

The then N4, including the quays, was one of the main routes to the port and now that is cut off due to the ban.

And the DPT replaced that.

monument wrote: »

As I said Google suggested it -- please link to a better routing if you have one, but it does not seems like you do, does it?

Do you not read my posts? Go in by the N4 to the SCR. Takes a large chuck of the distance off. As opposed to going to Tallaght...

monument wrote: »

Can you actually dispute what I'm saying or are you just going to try some more vague digs or vague claims?

I've disputed all of it

You act as if the routes that were used before the M50 have suddenly ceased to exist, hand-wave them away (Lucan) because they don't suit your argument.

I'm not going to even argue this with you any more - you appear to be determined to compare two incomparables. May have to get you some apples and oranges from the fruit and veg shop when I'm next there...

monument

MYOB wrote: »

And the DPT replaced that.

Just like the M1 and M3 can / have replace/d the N2 as a route!

MYOB wrote: »

Do you not read my posts? Go in by the N4 to the SCR. Takes a large chuck of the distance off. As opposed to going to Tallaght...

The SCR is in the ban area!

MYOB wrote: »

I've disputed all of it

As above, with so many errors!

MYOB wrote: »

You act as if the routes that were used before the M50 have suddenly ceased to exist, hand-wave them away (Lucan) because they don't suit your argument.

You are still somehow acting as if going to Lucan via back roads is an alternative to the M50 to get to/from the northside to the southside inside the the M50?! :rolleyes:

MYOB wrote: »

I'm not going to even argue this with you any more - you appear to be determined to compare two incomparables. May have to get you some apples and oranges from the fruit and veg shop when I'm next there...

You're not going to argue because you're clearly wrong on many points. But hey, talk to you some other time when you can again tell me black is white and white is black.

L1011

monument wrote: »

Just like the M1 and M3 can / have replace/d the N2 as a route!

Except they haven't. The N2 is still a National Primary. Dublin port, however, wasn't even on a primary until it got the M50 DPT. If they "have" replaced the N2, why are people not using it?

monument wrote: »

The SCR is in the ban area!

SCR on to the canal is not. Would have thought you'd know the ban area well enough - clearly not.

monument wrote: »

As above, with so many errors!

Erm, no.

monument wrote: »

You are still somehow acting as if going to Lucan via back roads is an alternative to the M50 to get to/from the northside to the southside inside the the M50?! :rolleyes:

Its the route that those who don't want to pay the M50 toll take; and its what was there before the M50, so you can drop the rolleyes.

monument wrote: »

You're not going to argue because you're clearly wrong on many points. But hey, talk to you some other time when you can again tell me black is white and white is black.

You're the one who keeps crying wrong when, well, it isn't. Haven't been wrong on anything, and when you're shown that you just ignore it. Odd that...

You're completely and utterly unarguable with. Single issue pusher who won't see beyond that.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

Except they haven't. The N2 is still a National Primary. Dublin port, however, wasn't even on a primary until it got the M50 DPT. If they "have" replaced the N2, why are people not using it?

The N2 can be downgraded if that makes you feel any better.

Or we can wait a few years -- the Dublin ban area included national roads for what, six years?

MYOB wrote: »

SCR on to the canal is not. Would have thought you'd know the ban area well enough - clearly not.

[1] Three ton ban applies to that section of the SCR



[2] traffic on the canal craws for half of the day...

[3] and there's also a right turn ban from the canal onto the Rathmines Road.

The route Google suggests starts to look ok.

MYOB wrote: »

Its the route that those who don't want to pay the M50 toll take; and its what was there before the M50, so you can drop the rolleyes.

:rolleyes:

If such a poor route which takes HGVs so far out of the way is an alternative for Dublin, then something like it or better is ok for Slane?

MYOB wrote: »

You're the one who keeps crying wrong when, well, it isn't. Haven't been wrong on anything, and when you're shown that you just ignore it. Odd that...

Yes, you have been wrong. Wrong about the SCR, wrong about Islandbridge (which I forgot is also in the ban area), etc

MYOB wrote: »

You're completely and utterly unarguable with. Single issue pusher who won't see beyond that.

Go on, forget the rules and try to attack me, because you're not doing very well defending all of the flaws in your arguments.

icdg

monument wrote: »

The N2 can be downgraded if that makes you feel any better.

I'd imagine any HGV ban, if it were to happen, would also involve detrunking of the N2 between the end of the Ashbourne bypass and Ardee, and reclassifying the N33 as N2. You'd be left with a fairly major re-signing job in order to sign Derry traffic to go by the M1, but it could be done. There'd be the problem of what to do with the M2, (which would become a fairly major white elephant, as I'd imagine its traffic volumes would significantly decrease) but I'd keep it motorway and under NRA control, probably as either the M34 or M88.

L1011

monument wrote: »

The N2 can be downgraded if that makes you feel any better.

Or we can wait a few years -- the Dublin ban area included national roads for what, six years?

The N2 isn't going to be downgraded through Slane - until there's a bypass. The Dublin downgrade was only done once there was a bypass of the entire city, including a port access route.

The N2 is a through route at Slane. Once again, you're trying to compare unlike situations.

monument wrote: »

[1] Three ton ban applies to that section of the SCR

Seeing as its part of one of the escape routes from the start of the signing of the 5-axle ban (Johns Road West), I think you may have the wrong section of the SCR. If not, DCC have got some incredibly bad information on their site, particularly as they show ban-area entry points for permit-holding vehicles along there (http://www.dublincity.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/map_hgv_restricted_zone.pdf)... also, your link doesn't work.

monument wrote: »

The route Google suggests starts to look ok.

Come in the former N7 then. The route Google "suggested" (with your helpful placing of a route marker) is still an unrealistic route chosen to try and buffer a weak argument. An argument made even weaker, seeing as a delivery vehicle to an inner suburban shopping centre is unlikely to be a 5-axle vehicle to begin with.

monument wrote: »

If such a poor route which takes HGVs so far out of the way is an alternative for Dublin, then something like it or better is ok for Slane?

There is nothing even vaguely comparable for Slane. The nearest edge-to-edge diversionary route is 30km across lethal rural roads.

monument wrote: »

Yes, you have been wrong. Wrong about the SCR, wrong about Islandbridge (which I forgot is also in the ban area), etc

Islandbridge was one of a number of routes I mentioned as being where all traffic went before the M50 - that is all.

monument wrote: »

Go on, forget the rules and try to attack me, because you're not doing very well defending all of the flaws in your arguments.

You're the one who's spent posts after posts claiming I'm wrong, when I haven't been. You're the one attacking, and providing a brutally flawed argument - not me.

Using rolleyes and claiming "wrong" repeatedly when you are the one who is wrong is about the worst form of debate possible.

If you think calling you a single issue pusher is an attack, you may want to make posts that aren't just obviously anti-motorised-traffic on here, as that is all I have ever seen you do on this forum. A statement of fact is not an attack.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

The N2 isn't going to be downgraded through Slane - until there's a bypass. The Dublin downgrade was only done once there was a bypass of the entire city, including a port access route.

The N2 is a through route at Slane. Once again, you're trying to compare unlike situations.

M1 and M3 can and do act as a wider area bypass, just like the M50 acts as a very wide area bypass.

MYOB wrote: »

Seeing as its part of one of the escape routes from the start of the signing of the 5-axle ban (Johns Road West), I think you may have the wrong section of the SCR. If not, DCC have got some incredibly bad information on their site, particularly as they show ban-area entry points for permit-holding vehicles along there (http://www.dublincity.ie/SiteCollectionDocuments/map_hgv_restricted_zone.pdf)... also, your link doesn't work.

Their map might not be clear, but there are no escape route where the N4 meets the SCR, just the turn back the junction allows. The ban has to be seen in the context of the 3-ton no entry streets/road restrictions.

MYOB wrote: »

Come in the former N7 then. The route Google "suggested" (with your helpful placing of a route marker) is still an unrealistic route chosen to try and buffer a weak argument. An argument made even weaker, seeing as a delivery vehicle to an inner suburban shopping centre is unlikely to be a 5-axle vehicle to begin with.

Try pushing the way-point back north of the Westlink -- the route stays the same!

I never said the Swan shopping centre, but the area -- which is just one example area... I can fine areas which would make the distance over 30km if you want? And I've seen deliveries been made to smaller inner suburban shopping centres by 5-axle vehicles.

MYOB wrote: »

Islandbridge was one of a number of routes I mentioned as being where all traffic went before the M50 - that is all.

...

You're the one who's spent posts after posts claiming I'm wrong, when I haven't been. You're the one attacking, and providing a brutally flawed argument - not me.

Using rolleyes and claiming "wrong" repeatedly when you are the one who is wrong is about the worst form of debate possible.

"Trucks did, and can still, cross the Liffey at Chapelizod, Lucan, Islandbridge..."

Your full quote is here.

MYOB wrote: »

If you think calling you a single issue pusher is an attack, you may want to make posts that aren't just obviously anti-motorised-traffic on here, as that is all I have ever seen you do on this forum.

You're attacking the poster rather than the points, that's what I mean when I say attack. ...At this stage surely you know that's against the rules on boards?

L1011

I'm not even going to bother. Still fiddling around trying to claim apples equal oranges and looking for tiny holes.

monument

You already said "I'm not going to even argue this with you any more" and my reply to that stands: You're not going to argue because you're clearly wrong on many points. But hey, talk to you some other time when you can again tell me black is white and white is black.

MYOB wrote: »

I'm not even going to bother. Still fiddling around trying to claim apples equal oranges and looking for tiny holes.

You call them "tiny holes" but you know there are major flaws with your argument, but you want to hold on to the HGVs in Slane as banning them weakens the case for a bypass.

And no -- I'm not a zealot anti-motorist, there has and was a good case for bypasses in many cases around the country. I just don't see a strong case when the M1 and M3 are so close by and the detour isn't long at all.

SeanW

monument wrote: »

Why should it have to be?

If I understand some other posters correctly, e.g. Save Newgrange brigade, an HGV ban is viewed as a replacement for, not an accompliment to, a bypass.

This is unprecedented in Irish history.

In Dublin going from the southside to the northside or to the port is tolled at the Westlink. This is a completely new and much longer route for traffic that used to be able to use the N4 and the quays etc to the port.

False. The Westlink toll is only legal in the firstplace because it was a totally new road that was tolled, other Liffey crossings in the area (which do exist) are themselves the alternative, just as they are also the alternative for Learner drivers, mopeds, etc.

When I lived in Dublin I dodged the M50 toll a few times, not a great idea unless you know what your doing but it can be done, as there are several free Liffey crossings as well as some N3-N4 routes that do not involve crossing the Liffey at all.

So the West Link has alternatives and the City Centre HGV ban required the Dublin Port tunnel.

There is no precedent for an HGV ban without a bypass.

It would massively reduce the safety issue which is the core fundamental problem.

The fundamental problem is that the road is crap and totally unsuited for use as a National Primary Road. Heck, from what I understand, most Tertiary roads are better than the N2 through Slane.

That can only be rectified by constructing a bypass.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

If I understand some other posters correctly, e.g. Save Newgrange brigade, an HGV ban is viewed as a replacement for, not an accompliment to, a bypass.

This is unprecedented in Irish history.

So what? The M1 and M3 are so close they can be used as bypasses -- maybe unlike them I'd even suggest road upgrades to help this.

Precedented can also be changed.

SeanW wrote: »

False. The Westlink toll is only legal in the firstplace because it was a totally new road that was tolled, other Liffey crossings in the area (which do exist) are themselves the alternative, just as they are also the alternative for Learner drivers, mopeds, etc.

Learning drivers, mopeds etc are allowed in the park, the 5-axil the ban area, and on roads with weight restrictions.

SeanW

monument wrote: »

So what? The M1 and M3 are so close they can be used as bypasses -- maybe unlike them I'd even suggest road upgrades to help this.

The M1 is tolled, with an alternative route through Drogheda town that is, to my mind, totally unacceptable even as is at present. M3 is too far away and it's also riddled with tolls.

Precedented can also be changed.

IANAL, but precedent in this case is probably derived from law.

Learning drivers, mopeds etc are allowed in the park, the 5-axil the ban area, and on roads with weight restrictions.

There are a number of feasible alternative routes that I tried when I was in Dublin and I'm pretty sure at least one of them allows lorries. If there wasn't, the West Link couldn't legally toll lorries, just as the DPT cannot.

The City Centre HGV ban rests on the existance of the Dublin Port Tunnel being toll free for lorries, and it also rests of the propriety and legality of the West Link toll which had already been established.

The City Centre HGV ban is not a precedent for Slane.

Also, I'd like to ask you one question:
Do you favour, or oppose, an N2 bypass for Slane? Why, or why not?

lucernarian

monument wrote: »

So what? The M1 and M3 are so close they can be used as bypasses -- maybe unlike them I'd even suggest road upgrades to help this.

Precedented can also be changed.

You made this point earlier but this is being made on the back of not even knowing how much traffic would use that bridge if a ban was enforced and if there would need to be local exemptions etc. It seems to me that the bridge is not even suitable for any regular motorised transport. If there were less than 800 vehicles likely to use the bridge per day after HGV bans and so on then the existing arrangement could work. But more than that will still be too much on such a decrepit bridge!

Slane Resident

It never ceases to amaze me that the people who claim to know best how to solve the Slane situation, contradicting the opinions of local people and road engineers, have no problem admitting they know nothing about the area. Google maps? Give me a break.

L1011

monument wrote: »

You already said "I'm not going to even argue this with you any more" and my reply to that stands: You're not going to argue because you're clearly wrong on many points. But hey, talk to you some other time when you can again tell me black is white and white is black.

I don't see the point of ever debating with someone who jumps with joy claiming a victory when someone else gets fed up with dealing with them.

monument wrote: »

but you want to hold on to the HGVs in Slane as banning them weakens the case for a bypass.

There is never going to be a HGV ban without a bypass. Face it.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

The M1 is tolled, with an alternative route through Drogheda town that is, to my mind, totally unacceptable even as is at present. M3 is too far away and it's also riddled with tolls.

No matter what way you want to dress it up a tolled route (the M50) is the main alternative to the city ban area!

SeanW wrote: »

IANAL, but precedent in this case is probably derived from law.

No, it's not. Provide proof if it is.

SeanW wrote: »

There are a number of feasible alternative routes that I tried when I was in Dublin and I'm pretty sure at least one of them allows lorries. If there wasn't, the West Link couldn't legally toll lorries, just as the DPT cannot.

The City Centre HGV ban rests on the existance of the Dublin Port Tunnel being toll free for lorries, and it also rests of the propriety and legality of the West Link toll which had already been established.

The DPT and Eastlink were concessions within a plan which forced a lot of traffic by the Westlink.

SeanW wrote: »

Do you favour, or oppose, an N2 bypass for Slane? Why, or why not?

I'm not strictly against a bypass, but like the inspector's report, I'd question the need for the higher spec version the NRA were pushing.

MYOB wrote: »

I don't see the point of ever debating with someone who jumps with joy claiming a victory when someone else gets fed up with dealing with them.

There is never going to be a HGV ban without a bypass. Face it.

You're back again?! I'm not jumping with joy or claiming victory.

MYOB wrote: »

There is never going to be a HGV ban without a bypass. Face it.

Bypass for HGVs = M1 and M3.

Slane Resident wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me that the people who claim to know best how to solve the Slane situation, contradicting the opinions of local people and road engineers, have no problem admitting they know nothing about the area. Google maps? Give me a break.

I'm just after giving you post the 'thanks' -- it's so funny. Why can't you deal with points rather than attacking people?

L1011

monument wrote: »

I'm not strictly against a bypass, but like the inspector's report, I'd question the need for the higher spec version the NRA were pushing.

Higher spec? Do you actually know what the current valid road specifications in Ireland are? Because if you did, you'd know that there is no lower spec available. Even if the road was pointlessly reduced to being single carriageway, more land and a larger bridge would be needed - and its the bridge that everyone seems to be claiming is "massive".

A Type 2 DC has a narrower (17.9M) land take than a Type 1 SC (18.3M). Type 2 and 3 SC are below the standard required for the traffic figures.

I'm not even going to dignify your other attempts to rehash the same ground with a response.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

Higher spec? Do you actually know what the current valid road specifications in Ireland are? Because if you did, you'd know that there is no lower spec available. Even if the road was pointlessly reduced to being single carriageway, more land and a larger bridge would be needed - and its the bridge that everyone seems to be claiming is "massive".

A Type 2 DC has a narrower (17.9M) land take than a Type 1 SC (18.3M). Type 2 and 3 SC are below the standard required for the traffic figures.

From the inspector's report:

The reality is that the projected traffic volumes on the Slane Bypass in the EIS are on the margin between those appropriate to a single carriageway road and those appropriate to a type 2 dual carriageway.

MYOB wrote: »

I'm not even going to dignify your other attempts to rehash the same ground with a response.

I thought you said you were going to stop talking to me ages ago?

L1011

monument wrote: »

From the inspector's report:

The reality is that the projected traffic volumes on the Slane Bypass in the EIS are on the margin between those appropriate to a single carriageway road and those appropriate to a type 2 dual carriageway.

The single in question in that report is the Type 1 Single that is of a larger profile than a Type 2 Dual.

Will you read my posts in future before trying to (pathetically) "prove me wrong"?

monument

MYOB wrote: »

The single in question in that report is the Type 1 Single that is of a larger profile than a Type 2 Dual.

Will you read my posts in future before trying to (pathetically) "prove me wrong"?

I'm talking about what the NRA proposed and what the ABP inspector said, I don't feel any need to prove you wrong and you have said a number of times that you don't want to debate with me.

It's more than just about the profile and land take.

L1011

monument wrote: »

I'm talking about what the NRA proposed and what the ABP inspector said, I don't feel any need to prove you wrong and you have said a number of times that you don't want to debate with me.

It's more than just about the profile and land take.

The ABP inspector said that the decision was marginal between a DC and a *larger profile* SC. Where does that suggest that the NRA went for a higher spec as you claim?

monument

MYOB wrote: »

monument wrote: »

I'm talking about what the NRA proposed and what the ABP inspector said, I don't feel any need to prove you wrong and you have said a number of times that you don't want to debate with me.

It's more than just about the profile and land take.

The ABP inspector said that the decision was marginal between a DC and a *larger profile* SC. Where does that suggest that the NRA went for a higher spec as you claim?

DC is a large spec road than a SC.

L1011

monument wrote: »

DC is a large spec road than a SC.

So you'd prefer if they built a wider, more expensive and less safe road scheme then?

monument

MYOB wrote: »

monument wrote: »

DC is a large spec road than a SC.

So you'd prefer if they built a wider, more expensive and less safe road scheme then?

To what end does this logic go to? Bring up every N road to motorway standard?

L1011

monument wrote: »

To what end does this logic go to? Bring up every N road to motorway standard?

You could answer the question

You said you'd prefer a bypass of a lower spec.

The only lower spec that can take the traffic levels is dearer, wider and less safe.

Do you actually prefer that?


Motorway specifications are not cheaper and narrower profile than what was proposed so I don't see why you're trying to bring that in.