HGV ban would resolve Slane problem

Dear sir - About your article 'Save Newgrange 'campaign of misinformation' on Slane bypass condemned', published on Wednesday, 3rd February. As I see it, there is no need for the parties involved to be at each others throat. Slane and Newgrange can be safe in just three to four months. The core of the problem is getting the traffic out of Slane. That means that all the north-south traffic should be on the M1. But apparently trucking companies can save the price of one new rig in a year by avoiding the toll on the M1. So it is clear why they take the N2. Now before we continue, every time I write the word "ban", I would like you to read it as 'HGV - but local traffic allowed - ban'. Meaning that all traffic, including HGVs, delivery trucks, large vans, tractors, horse and cart and even RVs, resident to the area, will be allowed, including normal cars that are not from the area. Doing so, only the HGVs that cause the problems will be banned. Some say that imposing a ban in Slane would move the problem elsewhere. I say put bans on all possible black points along the N2 and force the HGVs on the M1. Some say that the Meath County Council can not impose a ban because they would be legally liable and could expect legal claims. I say look at other places where these bans are in place, do they face legal claims? Meath County Council has authority to institute a HGV ban. A county council, in its capacity as a roads authority, is in full charge of all roads within its area of responsibility. In this case, both the Minister for Transport and the National Roads Authority have put pressure on and given support to Meath County Council to institute a ban on HGVs. Having passed a resolution to this effect, it now is up to the county council to do so. If the elected members of the council, would institute a ban on HGVs passing through Slane, then this is perfectly legal and no court is going to rule against that. Especially because this ban is designed to save lives. The Slane-bypass that is so hoped for, will make it easier for HGVs to take the N2 and avoid the M1 toll. The toll-dodgers will save a lot of time. It will make the centre of Slane safe, but it will cause more traffic and problems elsewhere on the N2. There is a by-pass in Ashbourne, now a by-pass in Slane, then what? A by-pass in Ardee? And then? In the end the M1 will be deserted because the N2 is turned in one long dual-carriage way. To build this bypass will take three to four years. To pose a 'HGV - but local traffic allowed - ban' in all key places along the N2 would take three to four months if all local councils are willing. And the government would be happy because it means extra income from the toll. Not to forget the money saved for not having to build by-passes in Slane, Ardee and who knows where else? Everyone would then be happy: Slane because it can finally begin re-building the save, historical town it used to be; Newgrange because it will not lose its World Heritage status; the council and the government because they have to spend a lot less; the truckers because the long drive north or south over the M1 is less stressful than going over the N2. But they will keep it to themselves and will never admit it to the one unhappy party in this: the trucking companies. But just remember: if anyone comes to you with arguments against this proposal, ask them to put the following sentence in front of it: "I think the 22 people killed in Slane are acceptable because ..." See how their arguments sound then. PS - I wonder what would be the effect on traffic in Slane, if the government would make the M1 toll-free for just 22 days... one day for each person killed in Slane. Just as a test... Hoping common sense will win this Cath na Bóinne. Yours, Marc Gijsemans, Belgium. (Via email).