Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1. Preface
Ardfinnan Community Council (Charity No. 20079260)
9th February 2018
Page 1 of 155
1. Preface
Ardfinnan Community Council (Charity No. 20079260)
Observation AGAINST Tipperary County Council Proposed works to Ardfinnan
Bridge - Reference Number: ABP '300422'17
Background
Ardfinnan village is a vibrant and scenic village located in the heartlands of County Tipperary.
The village is nestled under the watchful eyes of the Knockmealdown Mountains and was once
upon a time the only crossing point over the River Suir for miles in either direction. In an
article written by Eoghan Harris in the Sunday Independent dated the 12th September 2010 the
author best describes a first impression view of our village as follows:
“Ardfinnan takes the breath away. Surrounded by four mountain ranges, it sits in a
sweet valley of the Suir which winds slowly through it in a long S, sweeping beneath a
broad curving stone bridge with Ardfinnan Woollen Mills brooding above it, while
higher still, half hidden by trees, the windows of Ardfinnan Castle keep watch”1.
While the scars of the economic crash are evident throughout the area, our community have
always maintained a positive and optimistic outlook since 2008. With factories, chemists,
restaurants, shops and service stations all closing their doors between the years 2008-17, our
community certainly absorbed more than its fair share of difficult times. However, our
community has always maintained a positive outlook. After all, we are a community with a
heritage that lured the Mulchahy, Redmond & Co. Woollen Mills to establish operations in
Ardfinnan in 1869. At its height, it employed hundreds of people throughout Tipperary,
Waterford and Cork. In 1974, Atari established operations in Ardfinnan employing over 300
workers. The above companies were closely followed by operators such as Moy Isover and
Munster Paper Sacks Limited, to name but a few.
Following on from the above, the whole purpose of highlighting same is not to inundate the
reader with historical tales of Ardfinnan Village. The purpose is to remove from the readers
1 https://www.pressreader.com/ireland/sunday-independent-
ireland/20100912/283506497305004
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 2 of 155
mind, the stigma associated with the term ‘village’. It is vitally important that we remove the
shackles of that description at the outset of our observation.
We are a village and we are extremely proud to call ourselves such. However, by the same
token we are no ordinary village and same is not of our making. With Ardfinnan’s industrial
history, naturally settlements were established around our local community. Our parish is
Ardfinnan, Ballybacon & Grange, with a population of circa 2,500 citizens2. Ardfinnan is
situated between Cork and Kilkenny. We are located 15 km from Clonmel (eastbound), the
largest town in Tipperary and largest inland town in Ireland. Travelling the R670 for 8km will
bring you to the historical town of Cahir. Travelling Westbound from Ardfinnan towards Cork
will take you through the towns and villages of Clogheen, Ballypooren and Mitchelstown.
Every day, commuters from the above towns and villages travel through Ardfinnan and over
Ardfinnan Bridge onwards to their destinations for employment and other purposes. Therefore,
when reading the traffic volumes passing though Ardfinnan daily, (e.g. 3,893 vehicles crossed
the bridge on the 19th day of January 2017, see our Engineers Report in Section 6 for further
details), and considering the above description, you get a clearer understanding as to why so
many vehicles pass through our scenic village on a daily basis.
It is extremely important to set out at this juncture, that Ardfinnan Community is not associated
with rebellion nor dramatics. It has never sought to get in the way of progress, nor picketed
against improvements towards employment, or progressive development toward the
betterment of our community. Ardfinnan is a community associated with working on projects
that serve to protect the common good. Even throughout the economic downturn, members of
our community set aside the stigma associated with same and engaged in ambitions projects to
assist worthy charitable causes. As a community, we have always sought to engage our
energies towards projects for the betterment of our community and/or our neighboring
communities.
The below table serves to highlight only some of the projects & funds raised over the last
number of years by member of Ardfinnan Community and received through the kind donations
of members of our community and surrounding communities in such difficult and harsh
economic times:
2 http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/population/
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 3 of 155
Fig. 1.1.
Fig 1.2.
Fig 1.3.
5The queue of tractors travelling over Ardfinnan
3 https://www.facebook.com/South-Tipperary-Tractor-Run-Ardfinnan-108226935868704/
4 https://www.facebook.com/South-Tipperary-Tractor-Run-Ardfinnan-108226935868704/
5 John O’Neill, resident of Ardfinnan Community
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 4 of 155
reader into the events and multifunctional
use that Ardfinnan Bridge is susceptible to,
on an annual basis.
Fig 1.4.
Again, the above only serves to inform the reader that Ardfinnan Community is one that seeks
to focus its energies into charitable projects that better our community. We are not a community
that seeks to engage in meaningless battles with our Local Authority for irrational or illogical
reasons, nor do we have a history of doing so. We are a community who take great pride in our
history, culture and traditions. We are a community that received its education from the
classrooms of Ardfinnan National School, Grange National School and/or schools that have
since succumb to closure and deterioration. We are a community of hard-working people who
go about our daily lives with honestly and integrity and we simply seek same in return.
However, when our voices are not heard, when our opinions are not taken into consideration,
when others seek to impose measures that will negatively impact our daily lives, then our
voices will be heard, and our community will rally to protect itself.
As a Community Council, we are the custodians of our heritage and we are the voice of our
local community. We can assure the reader, we are simply seeking to protect our community,
our way of life, our tradition and our future. The hierarchy of Tipperary County Council have
put forward proposals that will seek to endanger our community. We implore the reader to
carefully consider our concerns, and our alternative proposals, that seek to keep our community
secure in the years ahead.
While our observation is our version of events, our side of the two-headed coin, we seek to put
forward a version with honesty and integrity. Where possible, we have obtained factual data
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 5 of 155
and surveys to assist our views and proposals. We simply ask that any reader take due
consideration of our observation and revert accordingly.
_________________________
Thomas O’Mahoney,
Chairperson
Ardfinnan, 9th February 2018
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 6 of 155
ACC ©
2.1. Introduction
ARDFINNAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL (CHARITY NO.
20079260)
9TH FEBRUARY 2018
Page 7 of 155
2.1. Introduction
Ardfinnan Community Council (Charity No. 20079260)
Observation AGAINST Tipperary County Council Proposed works to Ardfinnan
Bridge - Reference Number: ABP '300422'17
Background
In December of 2015, Ardfinnan was hit by a flood that required the closure of Ardfinnan
Bridge. The scale of the flooding was slightly greater that previous floods, which would usually
occur in Ardfinnan at least twice annually (See Section 2.2. on Previous Flooding). Following
on from the flooding of 2015, Tipperary County Council commissioned a structural
engineering review of Ardfinnan Bridge. The results of same can be seen under Tipperary
County Council proposals to An Bord Pleanála. In brief, it held that significant deterioration
of the bridge was evident and same required serious remedial works.
Because of the flooding of 2015, Ardfinnan Bridge also saw the introduction of a reduced
carriageway to a one-lane system and the implementation of a temporary traffic signaling
system and a temporary pedestrian walkway across the bridge. The Council held that these
measures were necessary to reduce the load capacity on the bridge until same was fixed. These
measures were communicated to Ardfinnan residents as temporary measures only. Once the
remedial works were carried out on the bridge, it was the intention of the Council to restore
the traffic flow to a two-way system. Or so we presumed!
Please see below pictures taken to highlight the scale of the 2015 flood:
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 8 of 155
Fig 2.1.1. Fig 2.1.2.
Again, flooding is not an unusual occurrence in Ardfinnan and we are prone to serious flooding
twice annually. The impact and scale of the flooding is dependent on the rainfall each year, but
on average Ardfinnan National School will usually close for between one or two days annually
because of flooding and heavy rainfall.
The temporary traffic lights and one-way system stayed in situ for almost one year before
rumors circulated.
On the 26th November 2016, several residents informed members of Ardfinnan Community
Council that Tipperary County Council had submitted a request for funding to the Department
of Transport to fix Ardfinnan Bridge, However, it was also rumored, that the Council had
submitted, as part of their plans, an application for the following:
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 9 of 155
3. Funding to reduce the two-lane carriageway to a single-lane carriageway, and,
4. The construction of a 1.8 mtr wide concrete footpath for pedestrians.
Naturally, residents of Ardfinnan were outraged that such a decision could be taken without
any public consultation, and absolutely no engagement with local businesses or the Principal
of Ardfinnan National School (to name but a few). The latter was a major concern for residents
as the installation of the temporary traffic lights was causing major disruptions to the National
School. There were grave health and safety issues arising on an almost daily basis. However,
the N.S did not oppose the temporary lighting system in early 2016, as same was deemed to be
a temporary measure only.
Nobody in Ardfinnan was of the understanding that Tipperary County Council would
attempt to transform the temporary system into a permanent one!
On the 6th December 2016 a subcommittee of Ardfinnan Community Council together with
locally elected councillors from the district attended a meeting with Tipperary County Council
on the subject matter of Ardfinnan Bridge. Tipperary County Council were represented by
Senior Engineers and the Director of Roads and Services (DOS). At the relevant meeting the
Council provided a presentation to the members of Ardfinnan Community Council setting out
their proposed works for Ardfinnan Bridge. The presentation was designed by Punch
Engineering and the presentation was provided by the then acting Senior Engineer of Tipperary
County Council. The above points 1-4 were absolute. These were Tipperary County Council
proposals in full, with no real room for alteration.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 10 of 155
At the meeting, members of Ardfinnan Community sought answers to flaws clearly visible in
the Councils proposals, based on firsthand accounts of the issues and the volumes of
complaints received from local community members and traffic commuters. However, the
alleviation of these issues could not be explained to the satisfaction of the community members
or local councillors in attendance. By the end of the meeting, promises of traffic counts, safety
assessments, and engagement with the principal of Ardfinnan National School were all
promised prior to any official application issuing from Tipperary County Council to the
Department of Transport.
However, while the meeting did not yield fruit from an Ardfinnan Community perspective,
Tipperary County Council gave their verbal assurance, copper fastened by a firm handshake
that no application would be made to the Department for Funding under Tipperary
County Councils proposals without public consultation.
A False Promise
On Saturday the 10th December 2016, the Chairperson of Ardfinnan Community Council was
requested to attend a meeting with a sitting TD of Dail Éireann. At that meeting, the
Chairperson was handed Tipperary County Councils application for funding to the Department
of Transport, which was submitted some 14 days prior to Ardfinnan Community Council
attending with Tipperary County Council on the 6th December.
The application set out Tipperary County Councils proposals in full, and their request for circa
€600,000 to €700,000 in funding to carry out works as proposed in points 1-4 above.
The timelines are significantly relevant here and need to be reconfirmed to the reader:
26th November 2016 – Rumors circulated and a meeting is convened with Tipperary
Co. Co.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 11 of 155
6th December 2016 – Members of Ardfinnan Community Council attend with members
of Tipperary Co. Co. where assurances were provided that no application would be
submitted without public consultation.
10th December 2016 – sitting TD provides fundamental written proof that Tipperary
County Council’s application was submitted ever before they met with member of
Ardfinnan Community Council.
Please now view Tipperary County Council’s Application Letter to the Department of
Transport dated 15th November 2016 contained in Appendix A. The proof is irrefutable, no
public consultation, coupled with the above account, highlights how the levels of mistrust
manifested itself between all relevant parties.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 12 of 155
Subsequent Meeting
Following revelations that Tipperary County Council had already sought funding from the
Department of Transport, Ardfinnan Community Council sought a subsequent meeting with
same. The meeting was convened on the 7th of March 2017. At that meeting the elected sub-
committee put forward alternative proposals to Tipperary County Council together with
questions regarding the Councils own proposal. Some high-level risks regarding Health &
Safety were put forward to the Council following consultation by Ardfinnan Community
Council’s with their own Engineers and Safety Experts.
In summary, all the concerns contained in Section 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 below were voiced and
strenuously advocated to the Council. Without exception, none of the concerns set out below
were considered sufficiently important for the council to warrant a change to their existing
proposals. However, in the interest of honestly and transparency Tipperary County Council
proposed to have a Senior Engineer and a Health and Safety member attend Ardfinnan National
School to view the relevant concerns regarding parking and traffic calming measures. This did
not happen! No meeting ever took place with Ardfinnan National School. You will also note
the same promise was provided at a subsequent meeting dated the 3rd October 2017 (see
Section 3.2) to the principal of Ardfinnan NS.
On the 7th March 2017, Ardfinnan Community Council were left under no illusions from
Tipperary County Council, their proposal in full would be submitted to the various departments
for approval. They would provide our proposals as a measure of good will, and they would
also request further funding from the Department to obtain funds for our proposals. We do not
intend to delve into this detail, as it will only serve to bore the reader. However, we would
draw your attention to the observation of Mr. Noel Coffey, which sets out the engagements in
some detail as between the relevant parties from March 2017 to November 2017.
Certainly the news that Ardfinnan Bridge is set to receive €800,000 is great news
although I hope that the County Council will finally listen to what the people of
Ardfinnan are actually looking for from that money”.
Independent TD Mattie McGrath comment to the Tipperary Times in February
2017
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 13 of 155
What happened next?
Following on from the above, please note a summary of events subsequent to our meeting on
the 6th March:
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 14 of 155
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 15 of 155
ACC ©
Page 16 of 155
2.2. Previous Flooding in Ardfinnan
Ardfinnan Flooding
While it was the flooding of December 2015 that prompted the Local Authority to carry out a
structural review of Ardfinnan Bridge, it is equally important to observe that regular flooding
occurs in Ardfinnan on a yearly basis. You will note the contents of the pictures set out below
with various descriptions of same
*NB - It is worth drawing to the reader’s attention that the traffic signal in the above
picture 2.2.1. is relocated some 50 meters west of the Councils proposed location and
were the council originally and currently have the temporary traffic signal situated.
This was required to keep the junction open. You will note, once the lights become
permanent, this signal cannot be moved.
Please look carefully at the River Suir sign on Fig 2.2.2. and please pay close
attention to our friendly geese on the green embankment, also on Fig 2.2.2.
Fig 2.2.5 - Drawing 162272-016 of TCC– This is Tipperary Co. Co. proposal for Lights
1. You will note that Tipperary County Council intend to erect and place two traffic
signals within 1-2 ft. from the River Suir sign contained in Fig 2.2.2.
2. You will note that Tipperary County Council intend to install the Loop Detector into
the roadway to the right-hand side of the referenced signage at Fig 2.2.2.
The reliability of the installed traffic Light system is certainly in question. In this section,
we only focus our attention on the impact of flooding. Naturally, water is one of the
most damaging minerals regardless of the technology. Assumption = defective signal
lighting with potential downtime at least twice annually.
Over time, we assume that water damage will impact the proposed signaling system,
i.e. Traffic Light Control Box. Assumption = defective Control Box with potential
downtime at least twice annually.
The loop detectors, and control box will be prone to substantial water coverage at least
twice to three times annually. The area in which the signals are situated are prone to
flooding on heavy rain days with storm water generating on the side of the road. On
such occurrences, the local council require a pumping device to be in operation as set
out in Fig 2.2.7. below. This device pumps the water from the road into the green, which
flows into the River Suir. Assumption = defective loop detectors with potential
downtime at least twice annually.
Tipperary County Council refused to take into consideration our concerns around the flooding
impacts toward the electronics of the traffic signal plan.
See below picture taken of 1995 Flood to highlight the long history of flooding in Ardfinnan:
Given the annual flooding of Ardfinnan, serious consideration has not been considered with
regard to the potential impact of the water damage to the lighting system, the potential
downtime for the lighting system and the impact to the community.
We refer the reader’s attention to Ardfinnan Community Council’s own independently
commissioned Engineering Report, at Section 6, wherein our engineers have highlighted
serious issues regarding the junction intervisibility zone. You will note designers should
aim to achieve the greatest level of intervisibility for both drivers and pedestrians. However,
given the nature and span of Ardfinnan Bridge, if the lighting system fails, traffic on either
side of the bridge cannot see the opposite side for oncoming traffic. This will be highlighted
in greater detail in a later section.
If the traffic signals fail because of flooding (or any other reasoning), junction intervisibility
becomes critical, as it will be vital that motorists achieve visibility to the opposing traffic
signal to determine if it is safe to cross the bridge. However, this cannot be achieved due to
the 120 mtr span of the bridge and because of the proposed poor signal layout.
“The river is the centre of our community, our community probably began here
because of the river. It is a first-class amenity on our doorstep and as locals we
interact with it every day of our lives. We do not dominate the river, it dominates us,
and the river is not a sleepy benign presence, all interactions with it carry a risk. If
you take the river for granted and ignore its dangers and destructive capabilities then
inevitably a heavy price will be paid, sometimes where human beings are concerned
the ultimate one. TCC, by completely ignoring the risks from flooding at the location
where they want to situate their lights, are taking the river for granted, and in the
process, are putting the safety and lives of the people who use the bridge every day at
risk.”
Taken from the Observation of Noel Coffey to ABP dated 7th February 2018.
Page 24 of 155
2.3. Business Closures
Ardfinnan Flooding
Between 2008-17 Ardfinnan has suffered more than most small rural
communities with business closures.
Many members of Ardfinnan Community have voiced serious concerns in their observations
to ABP regarding the devastating effects the reduction of a one-way system could cause to our
community. At this juncture, it is important to take the reader through many closures of
facilities and industries in our community since 2008.
Fig 2.3.7.
Fig 2.3.8.
The above closures would destroy the spirit of any community and we can certainly inform the
reader, it took many a year, for the people, and families of Ardfinnan and the surroundings
communities to recover. Many have still not!
However, as you will see in the images contained in Section 2.4., the community spirit
persevered. The factory workers within the walls of Moy Insulation and Munster Paper Sacks
did not strike when the powers that be made the faithful decisions to relocate profit-yielding
businesses out of the Republic and into more tax efficient jurisdictions. This is the nature of
business and beyond our control. It is the way of private enterprise. The people of Ardfinnan
did all they could to support local family businesses throughout the economic recession, but
alas, some family operators were forced to close their doors in recent years.
Please note, we are not a naïve community, we understand how the world revolves and how to
revolve within it. However, in the height of its peak, Moy Insulation had almost 50 HGV
passing through its gates daily. Ireland was in the peak of the boom and when insulation could
not be produced quickly enough, the insulation was imported from Moy Insulations factory in
Sweden in order to meet the demands of the Irish market. The indirect employment generated
from these companies (Munster & Moy) was equally important. Their loss spelt the loss for
many businesses set out above. The passing trade and footfall was simply lost!
It is relevant because we are not a community of cynics nor pessimists. We are a community
of optimists. Prior to Tipperary County Councils proposals, we were a community optimistic
that the vacant factories of Moy Insulation and Munster Paper Sacks would open their doors
once more. With the implementation of a one-way system and permanent traffic lights, it’s a
serious concern as to what type of industry will be prepared to enter those premises, especially
given the issues highlighted under Section 3.1. below.
Page 30 of 155
2.4. Our Community
Ardfinnan Community
“Tipperary County Council has failed to understand the significance of the bridge in
Ardfinnan and what it means to the people of our community. Ardfinnan GAA Club
has a long and cherished history of using the bridge as a home coming focal point.
We have walked the bridge with many victorious team down through the years. We
have carried many coffins across the bridge at the request of our members families.
This tradition has taken place for over 100 years and means so much to our
community. The lack of money should not be the reason we, as a community lose
what we hold and cherish most.”
Taken from the Observation to ABP from Ardfinnan GAA Club dated the 5th February
2018.
Ardfinnan is an active and vibrant village all year round with many activities ongoing
throughout the village. The net effect of these activities results in high volumes of traffic
travelling over and back the Bridge. Again, by viewing the below images of activities over
recent years, it will give the reader perspective of our sense of community spirit that we value
and cherish so much. When not in flood, the Green of Ardfinnan can be a hive of activity
throughout the year.
Fig 2.4.4. – A Summer field-day (June 2017) in Ardfinnan Green to raise vital funds for a new
playground.
Fig 2.4.7. – The Munster Way Cycle in 2013 – Cyclists safety is very important to the people
of Ardfinnan and is not being considered under Tipperary County Councils current proposal.
Fig 2.4.9. – Ardfinnan Christmas Village – Raising much needed funds for our local Hospice
Unit
Fig 2.4.10 - The Tractor Run’s from 2004 – Present (some photos)
Taken from the observation of Michael Hennessy to ABP dated 6th February 2018
“There is a great opportunity to make a real difference to the local villages and
surrounding areas by carrying out the correct works on the bridge at Ardfinnan and
certainly not what is currently being proposed by Tipperary County Council.”
Taken from the Observation of Patrick (Patsy) Ryan to ABP dated the 6th February
2018
Page 37 of 155
Ardfinnan Community Council (Charity No. 20079260)
3.1. Issue A – Clonmel Side of
Background
“As a young female road user, who has to work late night shifts at a restaurant,
I am subject to stopping in a very isolated part of the village which is totally
unnecessary, and therefore is a major safety concern to myself and my parents”.
Ardfinnan Bridge
Taken from the observation of Jane O’Mahoney as submitted to ABP dated the 6th
March 2018.
It is essential that the reader become aware that Part A, the Clonmel side of Ardfinnan Bridge
is a major concern to all members of the community, together with road users both inside and
outside the community. This is our attempt to illustrate to the reader the dangers associated
with the proposed works on the Clonmel side of Ardfinnan Bridge.
The level of danger and near-miss accidents associated with this section of Ardfinnan Bridge
has become all too apparent since the implementation of the temporary traffic system in late
2015. As road users become more accustomed to the road layout, there appears to be a false-
sense of security developing, especially over recent months. Tipperary County Council is now
seeking to make the current temporary measures permanent. As a result, the current issues
facing all users of Ardfinnan Bridge will remain.
The most recent event that caused a congestion on Ardfinnan Bridge was Thursday evening at
4.45 pm on the 8th February 2018. You will note a car on the Ardfinnan side of the bridge broke
the traffic signals and therefore caused vehicles to meet in the middle. Again, this is not an
isolated incident and you should note the image in Fig 3.1.1 & 3.1.2. below
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 38 of 155
Fig 3.1.1 – Just last night, the below image was the scene for motorists travelling home from
work. You will note the lights are green and have been green for some time, but motorist cannot
pass because a motorist broke the lights on the opposite side of the Bridge. – Picture provided
by John Darmody dated 8th February 2018.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 39 of 155
Fig 3.1.2. The lack of
intervisibilty zone between
the junctions is the primary
cause for the congestion here.
You will also note from the many the observations submitted, the above issue has happened
on two separate occasions concerning EMERGENCY SERVICE VEHICLES passing
through Ardfinnan on emergency call outs.
“We were walking along Barrack Street when a small Ambulance (Car type) with
a flashing light passed by us, we observed the ambulance had to stop at the red
light as there was oncoming traffic and that delay is not acceptable in a matter of
possible life and death. There is no possibility for an Emergency vehicle being
allowed to complete its journey with current one lane situation as oncoming traffic
are unable to assist and avoid the path of the Emergency vehicle comment from
observation”.
Taken from the Observation of Eamon & Sinead O’Mahoney dated the 9th February
2018.
South Tipperary General Hospital is some 18 km from Ardfinnan, but St. Theresa’s Hospital
(see Fig 1.4. in our ‘Preface’ Section) in Clogheen is located only 7 km from Ardfinnan.
Frequently, patients from St. Theresa’s hospital require immediate transportation to South
Tipperary General Hospital (not to mention ordinary members of the public). Therefore, the
passing of emergency vehicles over Ardfinnan Bridge is not an isolated occurrence. It’s a
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 40 of 155
frequent occurrence because of Ardfinnan’s location, centered between the two named
hospitals. This again was communicated to the Council, but alas, appears to have fallen on deaf
ears! As a community, we are shocked and appalled at such gross disregard for human life. It
also begs a very interesting question. How did the above scenario not even factor as a potential
disadvantage in Tipperary County Councils proposals to the NMS?
Remember reader, the only disadvantage advanced by Punch Engineering under Tipperary
County Councils proposals “is a 60 second delay at the traffic lights”.
The above image at 3.1.2. was presented to Tipperary County Council at the
meeting referenced in Section 2.1. ‘Introduction’ above.
The Director of Services concluded the above matter was a “policing issue”.
Following on from the above, please now imagine you are travelling from Clonmel through
the village of Ardfinnan after a long hard day in the office. It’s Ireland, so imagine it’s raining
outside and your wipers are set to a setting of no. 2 on your vehicle control panel. Matt Copper
is whining on the radio as you are simply trying to get home.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 41 of 155
As you travel through Ardfinnan (at a good time) i.e. without any traffic, your view will be as
set out in Fig 3.1.4 below
Fig 3.1.4. – A clear view - taken from the observation of Colm Flynn
1. Ardfinnan Garda
Station is on your immediate
right
2. Ardfinnan Credit
Union is also on the right
with the blue signage
overhead.
3. 24-hr service station
is ahead in the distance and
you are driving up a slightly
elevated road surface (a hill).
Following on from the above clear view, you will notice there are parked cars on both sides of
the roadway. These are located on a bend in the road, i.e. the point where the road is at its most
dangerous.
Now let us view what happens on a quiet day when another vehicle travels against you!!
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 42 of 155
of Cahir. Therefore, motorists join the main road from Clonmel to Ardfinnan at this
junction (top of the hill).
Now, let us head back to the scenario of our journey home from Clonmel and listening to Mr.
Copper rabbiting on the radio. You now approach the top of the hill at Fig 3.1.6. below
Fig 3.1.6.
1. You cannot
see the traffic lights
– nor can you even
see Ardfinnan
Bridge.
2. The red car
in front of you, is
only 15 mtrs away.
3. To your
immediate right is the junction and roadway from the town of Cahir.
Again, let us journey forward around the bend where the building of Munster Paper Sacks
Limited still blocks our view of the traffic lights.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 43 of 155
Queueing
The below picture has been taken from the 24 hr service station:
1. You will notice the build-up of traffic is caused by only 5 cars (in view) and two cars
(out of view). The current traffic lighting system operates at a 80 second delay. This is
needed, even though the council propose a 60 second delay in their proposal.
2. The Bridge is almost 120 mtrs in span, this is not from traffic signal to traffic signal. It
is simply the span of the Bridge. Therefore, queueing is a major factor and 60 seconds
is an unrealistic benchmark to set.
THE FACTS
“But I want to talk about facts. I want to be clear, I do not want to play mind
games too early, although they seem to want to start.”
Quotation taken from, then Liverpool Manager, Rafa Benitez on the 9th January
2009
Once it became apparent that Tipperary County Council were not going to listen to the
concerns of the community council, local Councillors, TD’s, members of the community, etc.,
regarding the serious safety concerns with speed, queuing and traffic volumes on the Clonmel
side of the Bridge, we decided to gather our own facts. The facts are contained our Engineer
Report at Section 6, but a summary from same is as follows (this only relates to Issue A):
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 44 of 155
What are the stand-out concerns from the above facts?
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 45 of 155
2. 72% of all vehicles travelling Westbound, i.e. from Clonmel, are travelling over and
above the speed limit. These are not small numbers, 3,097 over a three-day period
travelling from one direction only.
3. Almost 31% of vehicles travelling into “the blind spot”, are travelling at speeds
between 60 and 80 kph (1,300 vehicles over a three-day period).
NOW, let us revert to our earlier scenario… Can you still visualise yourself travelling through
the village of Ardfinnan? Now imagine you are in the 72% category of motorists travelling
between speeds of 60-80kph into the above junction??? … and by-the-way, IT’S STILL
RAINING OUTSIDE!!!
“I have also been involved in an accident at the bridge due to the lights… I was
the third car waiting in line at a red light and I could see a couple of cars behind
me in my rear-view mirror. The light turned green and the two cars in front of
me began driving over the bridge and I was following behind. I saw a truck
coming across the bridge in the opposite direction and the first two cars in the
row stopped and I also managed to stop. Unfortunately, the car that was behind
me was unable to stop in time and ended up hitting into the back of my car.
Obviously, I got a shock, and I got out of the car as did the driver of the car that
had hit into me and she was very upset but thankfully we were both unhurt but
definitely shaken by what had happened.”
Taken from the observation of Patreece Ryan as submitted to ABP dated the 6th
March 2018.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 46 of 155
ACC ©
Page 47 of 155
Ardfinnan Community Council (Charity No. 20079260)
Observation AGAINST Tipperary County Council Proposed works to Ardfinnan
3.2. Issue B – School Side of
Background
“The current traffic light system is causing much speeding of traffic to ‘beat the
lights’ around a busy school area”
Ardfinnan Bridge
Taken from the observation of Pearl Betts in her official role as Chairperson of
Ardfinnan National School Parents Association as submitted to ABP dated the 6th
February 2018.
When reading the above quotation, it is extremely unpalatable to comprehend that any motorist
would consider increasing their speed passing a National School to jump/break lights… but
this is happening!
Ardfinnan National School is located on its present site going back to the early 1800s. It is
situated on the Main Street between Brett Bros Animal Feed Supplier and The Holy Family
Church. The temporary traffic lights erected by Tipperary County Council and the proposed
permanent traffic lights are located in very close proximity to the school. The main traffic
signals are directly adjacent the service gate entrance to the school.
At present, the current enrollment of pupils attending Ardfinnan National School totals 235.
We think the reader will agree, this is certainly a significant volume of pupils attending a rural
primary school. There are also 18 teachers employed together with 7 Special Needs Assistants.
This brings total staff numbers to 25.
Before the introduction of a temporary traffic signaling system at Ardfinnan bridge, traffic-
flow was never a problem outside the school (save the ordinary busy period). The problems
outside the school would be like many problems witnessed outside any other large national
school. However, there was always ample parking, with disabled parking bays facilitating
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 48 of 155
access for those students that required collection from same. Bus operators could align in an
orderly method to collect the children on the safe side of the road (children would exit the bus
onto the footpath).
Traffic stopping at a red light outside the school (at drop off and pick up times) resulted in a
seismic shift in the safety of students, staff, parents and motorists and caused utter
pandemonium to an already confined area. The 80 second delay has caused traffic to back up
the entire length of the village as can be seen from the below pictures. This in turn has created
significant health and safety risks, and hazards to all road users in the area.
1. The traffic backup is compounded by the fact that the parking spaces along the Main
Street, particularly on the green side are inaccessible. Please see the parked car on Fig
3.2.1. below.
2. Motorists now use the Church yard has a turning point/roundabout. This has become
extremely dangerous.
3. The Church yard is being used as a roundabout by parents dropping off and collecting
children from school. Reports of cars and busses speeding past the school to make a
green light are all too apparent, as you will read from the many observations already
submitted to your department.
Pictures taken by Noel Coffey with express permission from the Principal of Ardfinnan NS
Fig 3.2.1.
1. Traffic moving away from Ardfinnan NS is
stationed at the Red Light
2. Oncoming Car – The first car is seeking to
park on the right-hand side to collect children.
3. The jeep is parked awaiting entrance to
Bretts Gain Store – but parking in Bretts is full at
the time.
4. Other cars behind must avoid the parked
car and the signaling car.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 49 of 155
Fig 3.2.2. – backed up through Main Street
Ardfinnan National School fought extremely hard to establish an Autistic Spectrum Disorder
Special Unit that accommodates 12 pupils. Some of these students travel from Carrick on Suir,
Cahir and Clonmel to attend this unit. This is down to the commendable work and effort carried
out by the fantastic staff of Ardfinnan National School and we are extremely proud of the work
and services they provide in this area.
The current difficulties imposed by the delays, the noise and chaos as they arrive and depart
school daily is causing unnecessary distress to these vulnerable children, whose whole sense
of the world and feelings of security is based on predictable routines and a calm environment.
This has been greatly compromised as a direct result of the current chaos associated with the
traffic lights and is completely unacceptable.
At present, two school bus transport vehicles provide service to the pupils attending the Special
Unit.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 50 of 155
Fig 3.2.3. – You will note the
approximate location whereby two
disabled parking bays are
facilitated outside Ardfinnan NS.
The two bays are located adjacent
the proposed traffic lights –
Tipperary County Council have
made no provision for their
replacement in their proposals.
In total there are five private bus companies that operate services for students to accommodate
Ardfinnan NS. More than 50 children use school busses daily. Currently, Ardfinnan NS have
parking facilities for 2 busses located almost directly across the road from the traffic lights.
Children must egress from school busses into the path of oncoming traffic, only protected by
the excellent school bus drivers, who put themselves between the children and the passing
traffic. This is totally unacceptable and extremely dangerous.
Fig 3.2.4 – Kids egressing from the bus onto the main road – parents and kids travelling across
the road in front of oncoming traffic
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 51 of 155
Fig 3.2.5. - Kids egressing from the bus onto the main road
Please note a delegation from Ardfinnan, which included one representatives from Ardfinnan
Community Council, the Principal of Ardfinnan National School together with a head-
teacher, and local Public Representatives all met with officials of Tipperary County Council,
including the Tipperary County Council CEO on the 3rd day of October 2017. All the problems
and concerns set out above were strenuously highlighted to all representatives of the Council
present. A promise was made that an engineer would visit the school within a week to assess
the bus parking situation and all traffic management issues, with a view to addressing the
difficulties. This visit never happened despite numerous reminders being issued through a
local Public Representative. There are no plans in the Tipperary County Council’s proposals
to address the school bus parking issue or all other issues of concern.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 52 of 155
Parking
As stated, 25 staff are employed by Ardfinnan National School. Each staff member drives to
work each day and therefore the N.S require 25 parking spaces adjacent the school daily.
Parking outside or in close proximity to the school has become very difficult and dangerous
due to the congestion and chaos. As a direct result of the traffic lights, parents, grandparents,
child minders and children must contend with dangerous road conditions trying to get from
their cars to the school grounds twice daily.
90 children cross the bridge daily to attend Ardfinnan National School. Many families cross as
pedestrians which includes school and non-school going children, including the use of buggies.
A painted walkway, with plastic bollards 5 meters center-to-center is not an adequate
protection for any pedestrian on Ardfinnan Bridge. In fact, the pollards only 5 meters center-
to-center is an inducement for children to weave in-and-out of the pollard, thereby placing
vulnerable users at an even greater risk.
One of the main issue raised by engineers for Ardfinnan Community Council in their report at
Section 6 below highlights some flaws in the Councils proposals where they have failed to
provide a suitable footpath for wheelchair access. Under the Councils proposals, two
wheelchairs are unable to pass in opposite directions. This is in direct contravention of the
relevant guidelines. We would also like to make special mention to the Observation of Stefan
Grace which you have in your possession. Stefan is a person of impeccable character who was
unfortunate to lose his sight some years ago. However, this man’s work for charitable
organisations knows no bounds. He is a beacon for any person facing difficulties with sight
loss, a man who has travelled the world for noble causes and fundraising activities. A man who
encapsulates the spirit of the Ardfinnan Community. However, his issues are so real it makes
you wonder how Tipperary County Council can overlook same!
Under our proposals, pedestrians do not need to cross the main road on the Clonmel side of the
Bridge, as the pathway continues safely around the bend at Munster Paper Sacks. Equally, the
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 53 of 155
pathway continues from the Bridge to the School and past Bretts on the School side of the
Bridge. The pedestrian and vulnerable bridge user have right of way at all times under our
proposals, with a dropped kerb access for Bretts, Hallys and Munster Paper Sacks on either
side.
Under Tipperary County Council’s proposals, once the pedestrian exits Ardfinnan Bridge, it
becomes extremely dangerous on the School side of the Bridge, as the pedestrian must navigate
a dangerous junction, with no right of way.
Ardfinnan Church;
Ardfinnan Church yard has become a drop off point for school children and a roundabout for
traffic that cannot turn on the street. It has become a dangerous place for church users and
children. Morning mass is attended by 30 to 40 people daily (mostly over 65 years of age).
There is chaos and congestion within and outside the church yard at school times. Funerals are
also experiencing difficulties as the graveyard is across at the far side of the bridge.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 54 of 155
ACC ©
Page 55 of 155
Ardfinnan Community Council (Charity No. 20079260)
Observation AGAINST Tipperary County Council Proposed works to Ardfinnan
Bridge - Reference Number: ABP '300422'17
3.3. Value For Money (VFM)
At this juncture, it is imperative that we consider project spend on a VFM basis. As can be
seen from our engineer report, “VFM is generally achieved when the ratio of benefit to cost is
optimal for any given activity” – Section 6. Again, and where possible Ardfinnan Community
Council attempted to attain the relevant information in an open and transparent manner.
Therefore, following on from our engineers physical inspections and observations of the
proposals and current traffic data collected from onsite testing by a Metro Count MC5600-
VT5900 Vehicle Counter System, you will note a brief synopsis of their report:
Appraisal Criteria
Project Options Comments to be made
Sore for VFM only
3rd Place
Please note that Tipperary County
Council have agreed to apply for funding
1. Tipperary Co.
for the next 3 years to the Department for
Co Proposal
Slightly Negative a Cantilevered Structure. Therefore, if
successful, their existing proposals would
be removed, and the current project costs
would be best described as “public
money not well spent”
*1st Place
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 56 of 155
this option, we have seen same in
Ballyconnell and our preferred option is
for a Cantilevered structure. However,
this presents a greater VFM out
3. Cantilevered
Bridge Slightly Positive
On a VFM basis, Tipperary County Council’s proposal ranked in 3rd place when compared
against other comparables. An independent walkway ranked first with a cantilever bridge
ranking 2nd.
The VFM section is truly outside the scope of this writers’ ability to interpret, but based on the
information gathered (which Tipperary County Council did not bother to attain), the VFM
preference is not resting in the County Councils favour.
“To continue with the plan to install lights and single lane traffic on the bridge,
would be an act of gross negligence by both the Co. Council and An Board
Pleanala”
Taken from the Observation of Ciaran Walsh dated the 5th February 2018
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 57 of 155
ACC ©
4. Our Proposals
ARDFINNAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL (CHARITY
NO. 20079260)
9TH FEBRUARY 2018
Page 58 of 155
4. Ardfinnan Community Council Proposal
Ardfinnan Community Council (Charity No. 20079260)
Observation AGAINST Tipperary County Council Proposed works to Ardfinnan
Bridge - Reference Number: ABP '300422'17
Taken from the observation of Bobby Carrigan submitted to ABP dated 4th February
2018
In April of 2017 it became apparent that Tipperary County Council would not consider any
proposed alterations to their original application for works associated with Ardfinnan Bridge.
Ardfinnan Community Council had sought the Councils bona fide attempts to present a
proposal to ABP for either;
1. A cantilevered bridge as seen in Macrcoom, Co. Cork, Thurles, Co. Tipperary and
Carrick-on-Shannon, Co. Leitrim, or,
2. An independent walkway bridge as seen in Ballyconnell
The Council refused to draw up any plans or designs for the above options.
As previously stated in an earlier section, Tipperary County Council stated from the 6th
December 2016 onwards that their proposals, regardless of cost, was the most sensible and
sustainable solution for the issues on and around Ardfinnan Bridge. Again, and it is not the
intention to smear or insult any public servant or any member of our local authority in any
way. However, it is critical to our observation to ABP that the following statement be repeated
to highlight the hierarchy of Tipperary County Council views of Ardfinnan Community
Councils proposals in early 2017.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 59 of 155
“The construction of a cantilever bridge or independent walkway on Ardfinnan
Bridge would mean the construction of a luxury item afforded to the people of
Ardfinnan”
Statement by the Director of Roads and Service for Tipperary County Council at
a meeting between members of Ardfinnan Community Council and Tipperary
County Council convened at Clonmel Borough Council on the 7th March 2017
Many of the documents circulated by Tipperary County Council have centered on costs or lack
of costs – “the money simply isn’t available”. However, it is critically important to highlight
to the reader’s the following timeline and events showing the council’s bad faith in dealing
with members of the public/community:
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 60 of 155
Regardless – Even though the local authority had
knowingly submitted their application on the 15th
November 2016, the representative at a meeting on the
6th December 2016, gave verbal assurances “no
application would be submitted without public
consultation”
7th March 2017 An additional meeting was held with Tipperary County
Council following revelations they mislead members of
the community on the 6th December 2016, and we
sought confirmation as to why the Minster increased the
allocation of funding? Could Tipperary County Council
advance their own funds to make up the shortfall
towards our proposals?
From that point From the above date, it became all too apparent the
County Council had no intention of engaging in a
proactive manner. According to the Council, we simply
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 61 of 155
didn’t know what we were taking about. Our ideas were
to lavish and without foundation!
18th April 2017 On the 18th April 2017, Ardfinnan Community Council
had to engage the official services of an Engineering
Consultancy Firm in order to put forward our proposals
to the County Council.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 62 of 155
Surely a few designs on our intended proposals
wouldn’t have been too much to request.
However, owning to the invaluable connections within the community and the concerns
received from relevant engineering firms, sample plans were submitted to Tipperary County
Council for their consideration. Please see attached Ardfinnan Community Council Design
Plans under Ref: SKE-C-0001-0002 under APPENDIX B.
It is important to highlight that Tipperary County Council needed to submit their intended
plans to the National Monument Services (NMS) for approval. Ardfinnan Community Council
simply sought clarification, would the NMS approval our proposals also? Remember reader,
Tipperary County Councils original application dated the 15th November stated the NMS
would be highly unlikely to approve either a cantilever structure or independent walkway,
hence the County Councils submission for their current proposal.
Therefore, Ardfinnan Community Council requested through the lobbying of elected officials,
that our proposals be submitted to the NMS for consideration and seek official approval or
refusal on same.
Please note the contents of Tipperary County Council Senior Engineer request for designs from
Ardfinnan Community Council pre-attending the NMS meeting.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 63 of 155
TCC to ACC -
“it is essential that the Community or your Engineers answer the following
questions, so that I have sufficient information to bring before the NMS for their
comments.
1. What is the approximate location of the walkway? Upstream or Downstream
of the existing National Monument? (a line on a map would suffice)
2. What type of walkway was proposed? (a pencil sketch of the cross section or
an elevation would suffice)”
Question received via email from Eamon Lonergan Senior Engineer dated 18th April
2017
In response to the above questions, Ardfinnan County Council engaged our engineer to answer
same. You will note the below reply and also the relevant drawings referenced above at Ref:
SKE-C-0001-0002 under APPENDIX B
ACC Reply
Reply 1: At this stage of the process, the new footway structure is to be located
downstream of the existing bridge. The downstream location is preferred as it
provides greater options for reintegrating pedestrians into the existing footway
infrastructure on the north of the River Suir.
Reply 2: SKE-C-0001 highlights a typical cross section for an independent
structure. The width of the new structure is 1.8m to keep costs to a minimum. SKE-
C-0002 is an architects impression as to how an existing bridge would look with a
new cantilevered structure, this was provided for a different project. I thought it
might be beneficial for the National Monument Service to have an image of how
Ardfinnan Bridge might look with an new cantilevered structure (type of
cantilevered structure may vary but the general concept is clear). Obviously due to
resources not available, we cannot provide this level of information for Ardfinnan
Bridge.
Reply issued from Ardfinnan Community Council with drawings dated 19th April
2017
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 64 of 155
The Chairperson of Ardfinnan Community Council then requested the specific time and date
of the meeting between the NMS and Tipperary Co. Co. A rough time and date was provided
by the Senior Engineer. The Chairperson then requested could he attend the meeting (part of
which was to be held at Ardfinnan Bridge). The request was denied. The Chairperson
subsequent requested if he or any member of Ardfinnan Community Council could attend in a
watching brief capacity? Note the two email exchanges below:
“Can you confirm whether any specific date has been scheduled for your meeting
with the NMS? Ardfinnan Community Council (ACC) are seeking an update on
matters and who will be attending the relevant meeting? Would the council be
reluctant to allow a member of the ACC attend the meeting (as a watching brief
capacity only)
Please note ACC have been in contact with Minister Shane Ross who sought an
update on matters also.”
“…Regarding your request to have a member of the ACC attend the meeting, I trust
you will appreciate and understand that my first responsibility is to brief the elected
members of Clonmel BD on the meeting...”
Upon meeting the NMS, and upon FOI requests, no concrete approval or refusal of any
application was issued from the NMS. In essence they had no issue with any of the proposed
works save costs. They made reference to structural changes to the bridge as a result of our
proposals, but same was obvious from day one.
Therefore, the NMS did not refuse our proposals and for Tipperary County Council to advocate
same, is simply untrue.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 65 of 155
Where we ended up
At this juncture, there is no point in going through the engagement with Tipperary County
Councils and Ardfinnan Community Council following the above. The circle of mistruths told
were coming back to haunt the representatives of Tipperary County Council. In the end,
Ardfinnan Community Council were informed that we would have an opportunity to put
forward our observation to An Bord Pleanála for review. The Council were not engaging any
further in the matter.
Therefore, the wheels were set in motion for our community to come together to try and battle
the proposals put forward by Tipperary County Council. On the 9th January 2017 Tipperary
County Council unveiled their plans to the public. Following receipt of same, Ardfinnan
Community Council, together with their engineers and valued members of the community
began work on their own proposals.
“My main concern is cars breaking the lights… one night in particular I was out
walking my dog when a car broke the light from the village side which resulted in the
oncoming traffic meeting the car in the middle of the bridge! The car that broke the
lights tried to reverse but as it was dark, visibility was very poor, which resulted in
knocking over the bollards that separate pedestrians from the road”
Taken from the observation of Louise Boyle submitted to ABP dated 8th February 2018
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 66 of 155
ACC ©
Page 67 of 155
4.1. Cantilever Bridge
Ardfinnan Community Council (Charity No. 20079260)
Observation AGAINST Tipperary County Council Proposed works to Ardfinnan
Bridge - Reference Number: ABP '300422'17
“I believe our safety concerns should be acknowledged with great urgency and
considered a number one priority in the construction of a new pedestrian bridge
whether cantilever or independent on the downward stream side.”
Taken from the Observation of Deirdre Egan to ABP dated 3rd February 2018
Members of Ardfinnan Community do not wish to deface the structure of Ardfinnan Bridge.
This scenic structure holds a special place within the community and we are extremely proud
of the history it represents. However, our options are limited! Pedestrian safety is an issue and
one we must face with practical and safe solutions.
CANTILEVER STRUCTURE
The installation of a cantilever structure would accommodate the needs and safety requirement
of the community. It would accommodate the free-flowing two-way traffic system and ensure
the safety of pedestrians crossing Ardfinnan Bridge. You will note the Health and Safely
concerns as set out in previous sections and we do not intend reiterating same but the below is
intent on highlighting the safetly concerns taken into concideration both on and off the Bridge
in Ardfinnan.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 68 of 155
Overview
Benefits
You will note that our engineers have highlight serious concerns with Tipperary County
Councils proposals.
1. They do not facilitate for pedestrian safety once they exit the red pathway under their
proposals. One might state, reluctantly, you are neither safe on the bridge nor safe upon
exiting the bridge under Tipperary Co. Co. current proposal.
2. What is extremely interest, under Tipperary Co. Co. plans, one of the key issues was
the ability for wheelchair users and prams to pass each other on the bridge. Under the
Tipperary County Councils current proposals, and as highlighted by our own engineers,
the distance is not sufficient to allow to wheelchairs to pass, see section 6 below.
3. The continuation of 2m wide footpath on the Clonmel side of Ardfinnan Bridge will
ensure pedestrian safety as people will no longer need to cross the main road at a very
dangerous section of the carriageway.
4. The reduction in the carriageway will act as a natural speed reducing measure. These
measures have been incorporated nationwide and are extremely effective. Given the
results from traffic survey (some 72% of drivers approaching the locally-called “blind
spot” are travelling in excess of 50kmh), this is a measure that will ensure the safety of
pedestrians.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 69 of 155
5. The dropped kerb access ensures the pathway is maintained but vehicles using the Brett
grainstore, Munster Paper Sacks and Hally’s Storage shed will be able to gain access.
“I see county councils widening bridges all over the country and not making
them one way. There is amble room for a two way system and a cantilever bridge
would be feasible on the Southside of the bridge.”
The above statement was taken from the observation as received from Sean Barrett
dated the 20th January 2018
Required Change
Our proposal will require a greater spend but in the long run will have a significant
Value for Money saving for the project.
Our proposal provides greater safety to users both on and off the bridge (pedestrians,
motorists and cyclists)
Our proposal requires foresight, the foresight our ancestors had some 250 years ago
when they decided (due to the growing horse and cart boom) to widen Ardfinnan
Bridge from a one lane carriageway to a two-lane carriageway.
Our proposal requires additional money, but again, as evidenced in our engineering
report, the DFV principles still outweigh those as proposed under Tipperary Co. Co.
current proposal
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 70 of 155
ACC ©
Page 71 of 155
Ardfinnan Community Council (Charity No. 20079260)
4.2. Independent Walkway
Observation AGAINST Tipperary County Council Proposed works to Ardfinnan
Bridge - Reference Number: ABP '300422'17
Members of Ardfinnan Community do not wish to deface the structure of Ardfinnan Bridge.
As previously stated, this scenic structure holds a special place within the community and we
are extremely proud of the history it represents. Therefore, Ardfinnan Community Council also
proposed an independent walkway should a cantilever bridge not be acceptable by the NMS.
Therefore, the community was steadfast in its pursuit in seeking any alternative solution except
the inherently dangerous proposal by Tipperary County Council.
Independent Walkway
The installation of an Independent Walkway would accommodate the needs and the safety
requirement of the community. It would accommodate the free-flowing two-way traffic system
and ensure the safety of pedestrians crossing Ardfinnan Bridge. You will note the Health and
Safely concerns as set out in previous sections and we do not intend reiterate same but the
below is intent on highlight the safetly concerns taken into consideration both on and off the
Bridge in Ardfinnan.
Overview
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 72 of 155
2. The existing bridge carriageway will be maintained for two-way vehicular traffic.
Therefore, there is no longer a necessity for traffic lights, or an inducement for drivers
to jump lights or speed up on approaching Ardfinnan National School or approaching
the much-eluded to ‘blind spot’ or ‘visibility poor area’ on the Clonmel side of
Ardfinnan Bridge. This is a major issue as can be discerned from the volume of
observations highlighting same to ABP.
3. A 3m pedestrian footway connecting the bridge to the existing footway on the south
side.
4. A dropped kerb access is to be maintained for existing side road and business.
5. A 2m pedestrian footway connecting the bridge to the existing footway on the north
side.
6. The carriageway is to be reduced to 6m to act as a form of traffic management to slow
traffic down.
Benefits
You will note that our engineers have highlight serious concerns with Tipperary County
Councils proposals and have recommended that the construction of an Independent Walkway
is the most efficient solution. You will also note the Assessment was completed in reference
to the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport ‘Common Appraisal Framework for
Transport Projects and Programmes’.
1. They do not facilitate for safety of Pedestrian once they exit the red pathway under
their proposals. One might state, reluctantly, you are neither safe on the bridge nor safe
upon exiting the bridge under Tipperary Co. Co. current proposal.
2. What is extremely interest, under Tipperary Co. Co. plans, one of the key issues was
the ability for wheelchair users and prams to pass each other on the bridge. Under the
Tipperary County Councils current proposals, and as highlighted by our own engineers,
the distance is not sufficient to allow to wheelchairs to pass, see section 6 below.
3. The continuation of 2m wide footpath on the Clonmel side of Ardfinnan Bridge will
ensure pedestrian safety as people will no longer need to cross the main road at a very
dangerous section of the carriageway.
4. The reduction in the carriageway will act as a natural speed reducing measure. These
measures have been incorporated nationwide and are extremely effective. Given the
results from traffic survey (some 72% of drivers approaching the locally-called blind
spot are travelling in excess of 50kmh), this is a measure that will ensure the safety of
pedestrians.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 73 of 155
5. The dropped kerb access ensures the pathway is maintained but vehicles using the Brett
grainstore, Munster Paper Sacks and Hally’s Storage shed will be able to gain access.
Project Change
The following will require a greater spend but in the long run will have a significant
Value for Money saving for the project.
It provides greater safety to users both on and off the bridge (pedestrians, motorists and
cyclists)
It requires foresight, the foresight or ancestors had some 250 years ago when they
decided (due to the growing horse and cart boom) to widen Ardfinnan Bridge from a
one lane carriageway to a two-lane carriageway.
It requires additional money, but again, as evidenced in our engineering report, the
DFV principles still outweigh those as proposed under Tipperary Co. Co. current
proposal.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 74 of 155
ACC ©
5. Conclusion
ARDFINNAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL (CHARITY
NO. 20079260)
9TH FEBRUARY 2018
Page 75 of 155
7. Conclusion
Ardfinnan Community Council (Charity No. 20079260)
Observation AGAINST Tipperary County Council Proposed works to Ardfinnan
Bridge - Reference Number: ABP '300422'17
A Chairpersons Conclusion
I sincerely hope and trust that upon reading the volumes of issues (from observations received)
that community members of Ardfinnan face daily, you can now come to understand this is far
greater than a community’s simple dislike or disapproval for traffic lights. This is about a
people’s voice not being heard. This is about decisions being taken that will harm a community
for generations to come.
The fundamental risks associated with the lack of planning by Tipperary County Council is
evident on an initial inspection of Ardfinnan Bridge. The Council simply thought the
temporary traffic system introduced in December 2016 would be an acceptable permanent
solution to the people of Ardfinnan, without ever consulting with same prior to lodging their
initial application. From that point on, the Council became masters in ignorance and disrespect.
Ignorant of our community’s safety issues and disrespectful to our National School Principal,
who’s primary concerns were only for the safety and welfare of the children and staff under
her care. We know the excuse advocated, the money isn’t there, but it is! And to say otherwise,
further compounds the insults already foisted upon our community.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 76 of 155
When a problem presents itself, I always wonder how the problem could have been avoided in
the first place. In this instance, the problem could have been alleviated ever-so-easily. If only
Tipperary County Council engaged with the National School on safety, parking, egress of
school children from privately operated contractors, etc. If only the Council engaged with local
businesses, and obtained local knowledge on flooding and stacking requirement, etc. If only
the Council carried out traffic counts and speed tests, etc. If only… but they didn’t. They never
cared enough to do so. It was always only ever viewed as “a luxury item to be afforded to the
people of Ardfinnan”.
As I write this conclusion I think of all the elected members of Government and Local
Government that have attended Ardfinnan over the past 14 months to try and resolve the issue
with Ardfinnan Bridge; Minister Shane Ross visited Ardfinnan on two separate occasions and
allocated an additional €100,000 in excess of what Tipperary County Council originally
applied for; Micháel Martin TD, who stated the high attendance at Ardfinnan National School
and its close proximity to the Bridge and lights was frightening, and a glaring health and safety
issue; Mattie McGrath TD who has held regular meeting with Tipperary County Council on
our behalf as has Jackie Cahill TD, Seamus Healy TD, Michael Lowry TD and Alan Kelly
TD… all advocating a cantilever bridge or independent walkway. All nine local councillors
have lobbied the County Council to adopt the changes and still no shifting. As a community
we’ve taken to the streets via public protests and you can see the evidence contained in the
images above, and yet we are at this critical juncture. A community reliant on a stranger from
An Bord Pleanála, with the faith our future, the protection of our culture, heritage and way of
life in the palm of his hand.
The above are cards we have been dealt and you may have to wonder when you consider the
above preceding paragraph, that we may have all the hallmarks of local government, but we
certainly do not appear to have all the hallmarks of local democracy.
I am by no means an overly religious person, I am what Patt Short would best describe as “a
submarine Catholic, as I only surface for wedding and funerals”. However, in recent weeks,
since the seriousness of where we now stand, as this long drawn out process draws to a climax,
I find myself praying that our observations will be heard, for if not, I sincerely fear our
community we’ll be saying unfortunate prayers at an unfortunate time in the future”.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 77 of 155
In the Preface to this observation I quoted an article written by Eoghan Harris in the Sunday
Independent dated the 12th September 2010 and I wish to extract one sentence from the relevant
quotation:
“Ardfinnan takes the breath away”.
It really does!! I implore you to observe our concerns and listen to the observations of an
honestly and noble community. A community that has always acted with decency and integrity
throughout this entire process. I implore you to reject the proposals of Tipperary County
Council, as they truly do endanger the lives of our community.
I leave you with one final picture and I hope with you help, it’s a picture you can assist in
making a reality for the people of Ardfinnan.
As the elected representative of a wonderful community, that I have the privilege to represent
daily, I commend this observation into your capable hands.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 78 of 155
I thank you in advance for your kind consideration of same.
Kind Regards,
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary 9th February 2018 Page 79 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report
Page 80 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
Contents
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Purpose of Report .................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Project Objectives .................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Design Standards ..................................................................................................................... 3
2. Existing Conditions..................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Bridge History .......................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Constraints .............................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 Observations............................................................................................................................ 6
2.4 Traffic Survey Information ..................................................................................................... 11
2.6 Bus Network .......................................................................................................................... 13
3. Options........................................................................................................................................ 14
3.1 Option 1 - Do Nothing ............................................................................................................ 14
3.2 Option 2 - Traffic Signal Junction with Associated Improvements ........................................... 15
3.3 Option 3 - Independent Bridge Structure with Associated Improvements .............................. 20
3.4 Option 4 - Cantilevered Bridge Structure with Associated Improvements ............................... 22
3.5 Option Costs .......................................................................................................................... 24
4. Option Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 25
4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 25
4.2 Option Assessments............................................................................................................... 25
4.3 Assessment of Options........................................................................................................... 26
5. Conclusions and Recommendations............................................................................................. 32
5.1 Conclusions............................................................................................................................ 32
5.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 33
Appendix A: Drawings………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Appendix B: Traffic Survey Results ATC 1 …………………………………………………………………………………………….
Appendix C: Traffic Survey Results ATC 2 …………………………………………………………………………………………….
Appendix D: Examples of Pedestrian Access on Bridges in Ireland ………………………………………………………
Page 81 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
1. Introduction
Tipperary County Council submitted an application to An Bord Pleanála for approval to carry out
rehabilitation works to the bridge structure in Ardfinnan, Co. Tipperary. The application included the
provision of a new pedestrian footway and traffic calming measures aimed at improving pedestrian
safety on the bridge.
The application was made to An Bord Pleanála on 4th of December 2017. Ardfinnan Community
Council engaged a Civil Engineer (BEng in Civil Engineering with Construction Management) with
over 10 years’ experience working in the Traffic and Local Roads Department of a Design
Consultancy to carry out a review of the proposal submitted by Tipperary County Council to An Bord
Pleanála and to identify alternative solutions to deliver improvements to the road network for all
modes of transport.
Page 82 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
The information submitted by Tipperary County Council provides detailed information on repairing
the existing bridge structure with limited information and assessment of options in relation to design
improvements for all modes of transport. The purpose of this report is to identify suitable
improvements for the bridge structure in Ardfinnan to deliver improvements to the road network for
all modes of transport within the community.
Improvements have been developed and assessed having reviewed each proposal against:
· Traffic Count Survey Information,
· Vehicle Tracking, and
· Site Observations.
Page 83 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
2. Existing Conditions
Having reviewed the information submitted by Tipperary County Council there is nothing to state
that the National Monument Service would be adverse to alterations to the existing bridge
structure.
Ardfinnan Bridge has similar properties to Macroom Bridge, Co. Cork and Carrick on Shannon Bridge,
Co. Leitrim. Both bridges are listed as National Monuments and have been altered to provide
pedestrian provision, see Appendix A for further information.
2.2 Constraints
Local Business
Businesses are directly impacted by alterations to the road network in the vicinity of Ardfinnan
Bridge. The businesses include:
A. Brett Brothers Ltd.,
B. Ardfinnan County Council Depot,
C. Hally & Sons Ltd.,
D. Commercial Property,
E. 24hr Service Station,
F. Mack Cleaners.
All other businesses within the local community are indirectly impacted by alterations to the road
network in the vicinity of Ardfinnan Bridge. Figure 2.1 highlights the location of the businesses
mentioned.
Page 84 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
Flooding
Ardfinnan has been affected by flooding from River Suir. A flood event in December 2016 damaged
Ardfinnan Bridge resulting in the introduction of a temporary traffic management system to protect
the bridge from further damage. Figure 2.2 and 2.3 highlight flooding on the R665 - Main Street
Ardfinnan.
Page 85 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
2.3 Observations
Observations were made during a site visit on 18th January 2018. A temporary traffic management
system is in place on Ardfinnan Bridge. The traffic management system includes a traffic signal
junction where access is limited to one lane with pedestrian facilities on the bridge. Figure 2.4
highlights the traffic management system on the north side of Ardfinnan Bridge.
The pedestrian facilities include temporary bollards to segregate pedestrians from general traffic.
The width of the temporary footway is 1.5m, a similar width to what is proposed for the permanent
footway on Tipperary County Council drawing no: 162272-014. Figure 2.5 highlights children from
Ardfinnan National School walking across the bridge with the aid of their Special Needs Assistances
(SNA’S). It highlights an inadequate footway width as an adult walking whilst holding a child’s hand
requires the full width of the footway.
At the south side of Ardfinnan Bridge there are no facilities for pedestrians from the finish of the
temporary traffic management system to the existing footway. This creates a dangerous
environment for vulnerable pedestrians requiring safe access to the existing footway and Ardfiannan
National School. Figure 2.6 highlights the current situation which is similar to the proposed solution
by Tipperary County Council as per drawing no: 162272-016.
Page 86 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
Page 87 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
Figure 2.6: Temporary Traffic Management System with No Access to Existing Footway
Ardfinnan National School is located on the south of Ardfinnan Bridge; figure 2.7 highlights its
location in proximity to Ardfinnan Bridge. The school day is from 9.30am to 3.30pm. Parents were
observed dropping off/collecting their children at the school gates. The increase in traffic volume
during these periods increased traffic congestion on approach to the traffic signals, highlighted in
figure 2.8. The situation creates an unsafe environment for children and parents as the number of
vehicles travelling in numerous directions caused confusion. Vehicles were observed passing the first
traffic signal in order to do a “U Turn”. The “U Turn” was completed to allow parents drop their
children to Ardfinnan National School in a safe manner.
Page 88 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
There is no barrier to visibility on approach to the traffic signals on the south side of the bridge; the
traffic signal head is visible for approximately 230m. Vehicles were observed increasing their speed
on approach to the traffic signals in order to cross the bridge within the signal cycle. Figure 2.9
highlights non-compliance with the temporary traffic management system which results in
hazardous conditions and a number of near miss incidents. The bus circled is non-compliant with the
Page 89 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
traffic signals on the north side of Ardfinnan Bridge and creates delays to traffic on the south side.
The traffic signal cycle time is 80 seconds therefore vehicular traffic risk being non-compliant with a
red signal in order to drive through the junction within the cycle time.
10
Page 90 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
Queues of traffic form on the north side of Ardfinnan Bridge as a result of the traffic signals. It was
observed that a queue length of approximately 7 cars creates an unsafe situation for queuing traffic.
The 7th car in the queue is stopped in an area where a minimum forward visibility of 45m can not be
achieved, i.e. the last car in the queue is located in a blind spot increasing the likelihood of a crash.
Figure 2.10 highlights vehicles located in an area where forward visibility can not be achieved.
ATC1
A summary of the data surveyed for ATC 1 located on the south side of Ardfinnan Bridge is
highlighted in table 2.1.
Wednesday 17th Jan Thursday 18th Jan Friday 19th Jan
Total Traffic Volume 3530 3620 3893
Traffic Volumes Eastbound 1775 1841 1945
Traffic Volumes Westbound 1755 1774 1948
85th Percentile Speed 46.53 km/h 45.53 km/h 45.54 km/h
Table 2.1: Traffic Flow Summary
Eastbound Westbound
Speed KPH No. in Range Percentage No. in Range Percentage
05-20 201 3.67% 218 3.98%
20-30 835 15.25% 930 16.98%
30-40 2205 40.26% 2591 47.31%
40-50 1767 32.26% 1521 27.77%
50-60 487 8.89% 200 3.65%
60-70 77 1.41% 15 0.27%
70-80 10 0.18% 2 0.04%
80-90 2 0.04% 0 0.00%
90-100 0 0.00% 0 0.00%
Total 5584 100% 5477 100%
Table 2.2: Speed Survey Data
11
Page 91 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
Table 2.2 highlights the speed ranges at which vehicles travelled in both directions over the three
day survey period. A review of the vehicle speeds highlighted:
· 10.52% (576) of vehicles travel above the speed limit of 50kph when travelling eastbound,
· 3.96% (217) of vehicles travel above the speed limit of 50kph when travelling westbound.
ATC1 highlights a total of 793 traveling above the speed limit of 50kph on the R665 - Main Street
Ardfinnan.
ATC2
A summary of the data surveyed for the ATC 2 located on the north side of Ardfinnan Bridge is
highlighted in tables 2.3.
Monday 22nd Jan Tuesday 23rd Jan Wednesday 24th Jan
Total Traffic Volume 2806 2847 2875
Traffic Volumes Eastbound 1419 1423 1448
Traffic Volumes Westbound 1387 1424 1427
85th Percentile Speed 62.82 km/h 63.36 km/h 62.91 km/h
Table 2.3: Traffic Flow Summary
Table 2.4 highlights the speed ranges at which vehicles travelled in both directions over the three
day survey period. A review of the vehicle speeds highlighted:
· 54.72% (2320) of vehicles travel above the speed limit of 50kph when travelling eastbound,
· 72.77% (3097) of vehicles travel above the speed limit of 50kph when travelling westbound.
ATC2 highlights a total of 3097 traveling above the speed limit of 50kph on approach to the
temporary traffic signal junction and the new proposed traffic signal junction.
12
Page 92 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
As the majority of vehicles are non-compliant with the speed limit of 50kph it creates dangerous
conditions for all road users and indicates the provision for vulnerable road users should be carefully
considered.
ATC’s distinguish the number of heavy goods vehicles recorded, they categorise them into OGV1 and
OGV2. Vehicles categorised as OGV1 include 2-axle rigid trucks and 3-axle rigid trucks. Vehicles
categorised as OGV2 include 3-axle articulated vehicles, 4-axle rigid vehicles, 4-axle articulated
vehicles, 5-axle articulated vehicles and 6 (or more) -axle articulated vehicles. Table 5 highlights the
total number of HGVs in both directions for ATC 1 and ATC 2 over the three day survey period.
ATC1 ATC2
OGV1 OGV2 OGV1 OGV2
Eastbound 121 31 266 116
Westbound 188 40 203 51
Total 309 71 469 167
Table 2.5: Speed Survey Data
13
Page 93 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
3. Options
A number of options have been identified to deliver improvements to the road network for all
modes of transport within the community. These are discussed in detail within this chapter and
assessed in Chapter 4.
The rehabilitation works proposed to the existing bridge structure by Tipperary County Council are
included within all of the options identified, the works are necessary to prevent further damage to
the bridge structure. The repair works include scour repairs, repointing of masonry and gabion wall
repair.
Overview
Ardfinnan Bridge has no provision for pedestrians or cyclists. This creates an unsafe situation for
venerable road users trying to cross the bridge as they have to mix with vehicular traffic. Provision
for pedestrians and cyclists is required to prevent accidents in the future.
14
Page 94 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
15
Page 95 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
Option 2 provides a pedestrian footway on the existing bridge but the width of the footway doesn’t
comply with minimum standards as set out in DMURS. A minimum footway width of 1.8m is
required; it’s based on the minimum width required for two wheelchairs to pass each other. 1.8m
also provides the minimum width required for two pedestrians to pass each other comfortably. As
highlighted in section 2 of this report, the proposed footway width of 1.46m does not provide
adequate footway width. The proposed solution does not adequately address pedestrian safety as
there is no protection between the pedestrian and live traffic with flexible bollards, @5m c/c, the
only form of protection between vehicular traffic and pedestrians.
According to the DMURS, the minimum level of forward visibility required along a street for a driver
to stop safely, should an object enter its path, is based on the Stopping Sight Distances (SSD). The
SSD has 3 constituent parts:
· Perception Distance: The distance travelled before the driver perceives a hazard.
· Reaction Distance: The distance travelled following the perception of a hazard until the driver
applies the brakes.
· Braking Distance: The distance travelled until the vehicle decelerates to a halt.
16
Page 96 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
The speed limit of R665 is 50kph and in most cases the speed limit is aligned with the design speed.
However, in this instance, the results of an ATC highlight an 85th percentile speed of 63kph; this
increases the forward visibility required. Installing traffic signals where vehicles are required to
queue in an area where a forward visibility of 45m can not be achieved creates an unsafe
environment for all road users. The introduction of a yellow box limits the number of vehicles
required for vehicles to form a queue of traffic within the area mentioned, this was observed
occurring regularly during the peak periods.
TII Publications state that “Relaxations below Desirable Minimum Stopping Sight Distance (DMSSD)
shall not be permitted on the immediate approaches to the junction” and “The majority of accidents
occur at or in the vicinity of junctions”.
Having reviewed the proposal submitted by Tipperary County Council the location of the “Traffic
Signal Lights Control Box” is adjacent to the bund highlighted in figure 2.1 and 2.2. The location of
the “Traffic Signal Lights Control Box” is within an area prone to flooding, maintenance of the traffic
signal junction will be required after flood events.
17
Page 97 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
· Junction intervisibility can not be achieved at the proposed traffic signal junction; intervisibility is
required to ensure a level of safety for all road users of the junction. Designers should aim to
achieve the greatest level of intervisibility for both drivers and pedestrians within the junction
intervisibility zone.
· Hally & Sons Limited own a commercial property located to the north of the bridge where access
is required for commercial vehicles. The proposed traffic signal layout locates the property
access point within the traffic signal junction without a signal phase for vehicles exiting the
property. The location of the yellow box highlighted on drawing no: 162272-014 does not align
with the access point to the commercial property. Firgue 3.3 highlights the proposed location for
the traffic signals on the north side of Ardfinnan Bridge.
Figure 3.3: Proposed Traffic Signals Location North Side of Ardfinnan Bridge
· Brett Brothers Ltd. collect grain from farmers in the surrounding areas. During the summer peak
periods the proposed design doesn’t give consideration to the stacking required for the number
of farm vehicles accessing and exiting the business.
· Without relevant traffic volume information a robust model using LINSIG (the industry standard
traffic signal modelling program) can not be achieved and thus the signal arrangement will not
perform to maximum efficiency. This is required to determine the impacts of a traffic signal
junction at this location.
18
Page 98 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
· Given that queuing will occur platoons of vehicles will cross the bridge at one time in any given
cycle, with high HGV volumes this platoon is likely to continue after the bridge with and HGV’s
likely to hold up vehicles for onward journeys.
· Having traffic signals without a crossing point on the south side of the bridge is not advisable
with the close proximity of the school, this is a potential conflict for vulnerable road users and
pedestrians.
· The provision of significant green timings and intergreen timings will be required to facilitate the
safe movement of vehicles across the structure. This creates a number of road safety concerns
namely, non-compliance of the red signal due to extended delay for vehicles on all approaches,
i.e. motorists speeding on approach to traffic signals to cross the bridge within green timings to
avoid delays.
· A microsimulation model is the most robust method of gaining journey time, queuing and other
congestion.
19
Page 99 of 155
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
Overview
20
The carriageway width is to be reduced to 6m on the north side of Ardfinnan Bridge with the aim of
decreasing vehicle speeds on approach to Ardfinnan Bridge. Drawing no: ARD_PRE_SHT_0002A
highlights a swept path analysis with a design vehicle of a Large Articulated Vehicle (15.400m). Two
articulated vehicles can pass with the provision of an over run area.
Greater footway connectivity is provided for pedestrians on the north and south side of Ardfinnan
Bridge. This allows vulnerable road users to access Ardfinnan National School on dedicated
footways. The width of the footways provided is a minimum of 2m which complies with the standard
set out in DMURS.
21
Overview
· 3m cantilevered structure for pedestrians and cyclists on the downstream end of the existing
bridge structure.
· Existing bridge carriageway to be maintained for two way vehicular traffic.
· 3m pedestrian footway connecting the bridge to the existing footway on the south side. A
dropped kerb access is to be maintained for existing side road and business.
· 2m pedestrian footway connecting the bridge to the existing footway on the north side. The
carriageway is to be reduced to 6m to act as a form of traffic management to slow traffic down.
22
Greater footway connectivity is provided for pedestrians on the north and south side of Ardfinnan
Bridge. This allows vulnerable road users to access Ardfinnan National School on dedicated
footways. The width of the footways provided is a minimum of 2m which complies with the standard
set out in DMURS.
23
An outline cost estimate for the construction a cantilevered bridge has been produced based upon a
rate of €2500/m2 and a rate of €3500/m2 for an independent footbridge.
24
4. Option Assessment
4.1 Introduction
It is important that each of the options is assessed in a consistent and comprehensive manner to
establish which of the options meets the project objectives.
Key Performance
Appraisal Criteria Project Objective Measured By
Indicator
Safety To improve road safety for Legibility of junction layout, Qualitative assessment
all modes of transport. provision for vulnerable
road users and safety for all
road users.
Economy To ensure value for money Ratio of benefit to cost to Qualitative assessment
(VFM is achieved when the deliver improvement for all
ratio of benefit to cost is road users.
optimal for any given
activity).
Accessibility & Social To improve accessibility for Better provision for Qualitative assessment
Inclusion pedestrians and cyclists. pedestrian and cyclist,
movements.
Functioning route for Volume over capacity (V/C) Increase in utilisation of
vehicular movement assessment at junctions. capacity
including public transport. V/C is a measure that
reflects mobility and quality
of travel of a road or a
section of a road. It
compares roadway demand
(vehicle volume) with
roadway supply (carrying
capacity). For example, a
V/C of 0.85 indicates that
the road or junction is
operating at its capacity.
Environment To reduce the negative Yes /No Yes/No
impact of transport on the
public realm.
Table 4.1: Assessment Framework
25
Each of the proposed options has been scored against the criteria outlined in Table 5. The tool that
has been used to facilitate this is a graphic representation, where a colour scale of red to green is
used. The most favourable ranking for a particular issue is coloured green, with the least favourable
coloured red. Table 6 below shows this colour grading and the associated scoring. Any option that
receives a red ranking should not be considered as a viable solution.
Moderately Positive
Slightly Positive
Neutral
Slightly Negative
Moderately Negative
Highly Negative
Table 4.2: Appraisal Criteria Scoring Chart
26
Option 1 - Do Nothing
Criteria
Criteria Project Objective Assessment of Option
Score
Safety To improve road safety for Ardfinnan Bridge has no provision for pedestrians or cyclists
all modes of transport. which creates an unsafe situation for pedestrians or cyclists
attempting to cross the bridge.
Accessibility & To improve accessibility for Ardfinnan Bridge has no provision for pedestrians or cyclists
Social Inclusion pedestrians and cyclists. which creates an unsafe situation for pedestrians or cyclists
trying to cross the bridge.
Functioning route for Two way vehicular movement on Ardfinnan Bridge will be
vehicular movement maintained. The temporary traffic management system will
including public transport. be removed from the Ardfinnan Bridge.
Environment To reduce the negative Rural setting of Ardfinnan Village will be maintained.
impact of transport on the
public realm.
27
Safety To improve road safety for Introducing traffic signals on Ardfinnan Bridge creates an
all modes of transport. unsafe situation as forward visibility can not be achieved on
approach to the junction. The 85th percentile speed is
greater than the speed limit of 50kph.
Vehicles increase their speed on approach to the traffic
signals in order to cross the bridge within the signal cycle.
Ardfinnan Primary School is located in an area where
vehicles increase their speed.
Economy To ensure value for money The proposed solution doesn’t represent value for money
(VFM is achieved when the even though it is the cheapest. Inadequate pedestrian
ratio of benefit to cost is provision will be provided which has a negative on vehicular
optimal for any given movement and safety.
activity).
Construction costs include traffic signal junction, new
signage, road markings and new footway.
Accessibility & To improve accessibility for A 1.46m pedestrian footway will be provided on Ardfinnan
Social Inclusion pedestrians and cyclists. Bridge; the footway width is inadequate and doesn’t meet
the required standard as set out in the DMURS. The width is
inadequate for wheelchairs/prams to pass each other.
Functioning route for The traffic signal junction has a negative impact on
vehicular movement functioning vehicular movement as queues will form on
including public transport. both sides of Ardfinnan Bridge, increasing the overall
journey time for vehicles.
Environment To reduce the negative Stationary vehicles at junctions increase the amount of
impact of transport on the emissions released into the atmosphere. The traffic signal
public realm. junction will generate queues which results in stationary
vehicles increasing the amount of harmful emissions being
released into the atmosphere.
28
Safety To improve road safety for A 3m shared use independent bridge structure will be
all modes of transport. provided for pedestrians and cyclists. The footway network
and connectivity will be improved on both the north and
south side of the bridge with the provision of new footways.
Functioning route for Two way vehicular movement on Ardfinnan Bridge will be
vehicular movement maintained. The temporary traffic management system will
including public transport. be removed upon repair of Ardfinnan Bridge.
Environment To reduce the negative Rural setting of Ardfinnan Village will be maintained. The
impact of transport on the independent bridge will be designed to be sympathetic to
public realm. village environment and have no negative impact on the
existing bridge.
29
Safety To improve road safety for A 3m shared use cantilevered bridge structure will be
all modes of transport. provided for pedestrians and cyclists. The footway network
and connectivity will be improved on both the north and
south side of the bridge with the provision of new footways.
Functioning route for Two way vehicular movement on Ardfinnan Bridge will be
vehicular movement maintained. The temporary traffic management system will
including public transport. be removed upon repair of Ardfinnan Bridge.
Environment To reduce the negative Rural setting of Ardfinnan Village will be maintained. The
impact of transport on the cantilevered bridge structure will be designed to be
public realm. sympathetic to village environment but will have a negative
impact on the existing bridge. The bridge is recorded on the
National Inventory of Architectural Heritage and as a
National Monument and would require alterations to
incorporate a cantilevered bridge structure.
30
Independent Cantilevered
Option 1
Criteria Project Objective Traffic Signal Bridge Bridge
Do Nothing
Junction with Structure Structure
Associated
Improvements
31
5.1 Conclusions
The options identified for improvements for the bridge structure in Ardfinnan to deliver
improvements to the road network for all modes of transport within the community are identified
below:
Option 1 - Do Nothing
Option 2 - Traffic Signal Junction with Associated Improvements
Option 3 - Independent Bridge Structure with Associated Improvements
Option 4 - Cantilevered Bridge Structure with Associated Improvements
Option 3 was identified as the best option when assessed against the project objectives. The project
objectives where to improve road safety for all modes of transport, to ensure value for money (VFM
is achieved when the ratio of benefit to cost is optimal for any given activity), to improve accessibility
for pedestrians and cyclists, to deliver a functioning route for vehicular movement including public
transport and to reduce the negative impact of transport on the public realm.
The proposed solution submitted by Tipperary County Council to An Bord Pleanála makes the
temporary traffic management system currently in place on Ardfinnan Bridge, permanent. As
highlighted within Section 2 of this report, the temporary traffic managements system does not
adequately provide for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular traffic. More importantly, no further
consideration has been given to the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular traffic when it is
clear the temporary traffic management system is unsafe.
· Option 3 and 4 are the best options for improving road safety. An independent bridge structure
provides safe access for pedestrians and cyclists. Reducing the carriageway width acts as a traffic
calming measure to reduce vehicle speeds on approach to Ardfinnan Bridge. Option 2 improves
road safety for pedestrians but creates an unsafe situation for queueing traffic on the north side
of Ardfinnan Bridge.
· Option 3 delivers on value for money. Value for money is achieved when the ratio of benefit to
cost is optimal for any given activity. Option 3 is comparable in price to Option 4 but will cost
more than Option 2 and the Do-Nothing Option. In the overall context, the costs associated with
32
implementing Option 3 are considered to be relatively low given the overall benefits of provision
for pedestrians, cyclists, vehicular traffic and safety.
· Option 3 delivers on improvements to accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists a functioning
route for vehicular movement. The new bridge structure will provide greater connectivity and
permeability for pedestrians trying to cross the River Suir. The bridge connects to a new footway
on both the north and south side of Ardfinnan Bridge.
· Option 3 delivers on reducing the negative impact of transport on the public realm. Removing
the requirement for a traffic signal junction reduces the likelihood of queuing traffic which
decreases the amount of harmful emissions being released into the atmosphere. It maintains the
rural setting of Ardfinnan Village, the independent bridge will be designed to be sympathetic to
village environment and have no negative impact on the existing bridge.
5.2 Recommendations
Based on the assessment undertaken, it is recommended that Option 3 is incorporated to deliver
improvements to the road network for all modes of transport within the community. All options
were assessed on safety, economy, environment, integration accessibility and social inclusion.
33
Barry’s Bridge, Thurles, is registered as a National Monument. Permission was granted to alter the
bridge to provide pedestrian provision.
Macroom Bridge is registered as a National Monument. Permission was granted to alter the bridge to
provide pedestrian provision.
Carrick on Shannon Bridge is registered as a National Monument. Permission was granted to alter the
bridge to provide pedestrian provision.
Appendix B - Drawings
Option 2
WESTERN EASTERN
SIDE SIDE
LEGEND:
EXISTING RIVER
A
PROPOSED FOUR-ASPECT SECONDARY TRAFFIC LIGHT AS PER RTS 003
FA
OF TSM WITH FLASHING AMBER LIGHTS
PLAN VIEW
SCALE 1:500
EXISTING RIVER
FLASHING AMBER SIGNALS PROPOSED FOUR-ASPECT SECONDARY TRAFFIC LIGHT AS PER RTS 003
FA
OF TSM WITH FLASHING AMBER LIGHTS
FA
PROPOSED LOOP DETECTOR
VISIBILITY DISTANCE
TO PRIMARY SIGNAL = 65m > 50m
ACCORDANCE WITH TMS
CHAPTER 9
65m
RRM 017
PRIMARY TRAFFIC
LIGHT
RRM 020
RUS002
PLAN VIEW
SCALE 1:500
EXISTING RIVER
PRIMARY TRAFFIC
LIGHT
SECONDARY
TRAFFIC LIGHT
RRM 017
LOOP DETECTOR
RUS001
RRM 001
SECONDARY
TRAFFIC LIGHT
RRM004
LOOP DETECTOR
RRM 020
PLAN VIEW
SCALE 1:500
WEARING COURSE
BASE COURSE 70
Ø2 RETRO-REFLECTIVE WHITE PANEL
WITH BLUE BACKGROUND MATERIAL
(10 YEAR)
SUB-BASE TOP OF EXISTING
EXISTING PAVEMENT AFTER
PAVEMENT PLANNING
RETRO-REFLECTIVE FLUORESCENT RETRO-REFLECTIVE FLUORESCENT
MATERIAL (10 YEAR) MATERIAL (10 YEAR)
EXISTING PAVEMENT EDGE 6 YEAR DELAMINATION WARRANTY 6 YEAR DELAMINATION WARRANTY
EXISTING PAVEMENT SUBJECT TO NORMAL CONDITIONS. SUBJECT TO NORMAL CONDITIONS.
PROTECTIVE OVERLAY FILM (POF) PROTECTIVE OVERLAY FILM (POF)
B B TO BE BROKEN OUT
EXISTING PAVEMENT
980
980
TO BE RETAINED
550
TRANSVERSE JOINT BETWEEN PROPOSED FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT &
EXISTING ROAD
JOINT
JOINT
A SCALE NTS
FOOTPATH BUILD UP
350
100mm THICK C30 CONCRETE ON
350
CONCRETE TYPE ST2 CONCRETE TYPE ST2
50mm SAND BLINDING ON 150mm REFER TO ROAD
2300 (mm)
MOUNTING
FALL 2.5%
HEIGHT
CL 804 COMPACTED BUILD UP
150
250
350 350
2500 (mm)
MOUNTING
HEIGHT
SECTION A-A 125
SCALE 1:20 1x76mm Ø
GALVANISED STEEL
1x76mm Ø
GALVANISED
SELF-RIGHTING BOLLARD SIGN DETAILS
GROUND SCALE 1:10
GROUND POST STEEL POST
LEVEL
DOUBLE LAYER OF LEVEL
ROOFING FELT
70
COMPLYING TO IS 36
FOR FULL DEPTH OF NOTES : C30/37 CONCRETE C30/37 CONCRETE
70
JOINT SURROUND SURROUND
(D) 600
DEPTH
(D) 600
DEPTH
1. AT VEHICULAR ACCESS POINTS CONCRETE TO BE
70
70
100
SCALE: 1:20
EXISTING
VARIES
NOTES:
CONTRACTOR TO ALLOW FOR NEW 1. ALL EDGES OF EXCAVATED AREA TO BE SAW CUT PRIOR TO
PAVIOURS MATCHING EXISTING EXCAVATION AND AGAIN PRIOR TO REINSTATEMENT.
200mm MIN.
SAW CUT (NOTE1) 200mm 200mm
JOINT SEALANT MIN. MIN. 2. 100 C HOT BITUMEN BINDER 50 PEN OR COLD THIXOTROPIC
ORIGINAL SURFACE BITUMEN 50-70 PEN TO BE APPLIED TO ALL VERTICAL CUTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH B.S. 594 PRIOR TO APPLICATION OF
60mm CLOSE GRADED ASPHALT BITUMINOUS MATERIALS.
CONCRETE BINDER COURSE (20mm
NOMINAL SIZE) TO CLAUSE 906 OF THE 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE, PLACE AND MAINTAIN
1200
WARNING TAPE
NRA SPECIFICATION FOR ROADWORKS. WITH TRACER WIRE APPROPRIATE SIGNAGE TO HIGHLIGHT THE TEMPORARY
EXISTING
VARIES
VARIES
AT ABOUT 350mm SURFACE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PERMANENT SURFACE IS IN
200mm CLOSE GRADED ASPHALT FROM SURFACE PLACE. NOTE THAT ALL REINSTATEMENT SHALL BE REGARDED
CONCRETE BASE COURSE (20mm AS TEMPORARY UNTIL THE SURFACE DRESSING IS COMPLETE.
350mm
NOMINAL SIZE) TO CLAUSE 906 OF THE
200mm 200mm 4. ALL REINSTATEMENT TO EXTEND MINIMUM 150mm BEYOND THE
NRA SPECIFICATION FOR ROADWORKS,
Min. Min. FIRM EDGE OF THE EXCAVATION.
COMPACTED THICKNESS 100mm.
ALL EDGES TO BE CUT A MINIMUM OF
PRECAST KERB 250x125mm TO B.S. 7263 : 200mm FROM SIDES OF EXCAVATION 5. THE EXACT DATE OF REINSTATEMENT & THE CONTRACTOR'S
GRADE C15 LEAN MIX CONCRETE
PRECAST KERB PART 1 PRECAST KERBS TO BE LAID & METHOD STATEMENT FOR THE WORKS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO
250X125 TO B.S. IN-SITU CONCRETE MIX ST 4 LEVELLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH B.S. 7263 : AND APPROVED BY THE EMPLOYERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO
WARNING TAPE
7263 : PART 1 PART 2. COMMENCEMENT OF WORKS.
IN-SITU CLAUSE 804 GRANULAR MATERIAL
50 COMPACTED IN LAYERS IN 6. MINIMUM COVER IS 900mm IN GRASS MARGINS & LANDSCAPED
CONCRETE PAVEMENT PAVEMENT AS SPECIFIED
150
MIX ST 4 AS SPECIFIED ACCORDANCE WITH CLAUSE 802 AREAS. COVER TO BE INCREASED TO MINIMUM 1200mm IN
ROADS AND ROAD MARGINS.
125
PEA GRAVEL
LIGHTLY COMPACTED & LAID WATERMAIN/
NO ADDITIONAL MONIES SHALL BE PAID UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FOR
UNIFORMLY ALONG TRENCH BED. SURFACE WATER/
225
*150
ADDITIONAL FOR KERBS AND KERB ITEMS SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACTORS FIXED PRICE. THE
CONCRETE BLOCKS WHERE REQUIRED. *INCREASE PIPE BEDDING TO CONTRACTORS FIXED PRICE SHALL ALSO INCLUDE FOR:
FOR KERBS AND KERB WATERMAIN/ 200mm WHERE PIPE IS
1. TEMPORARY SHEET PILING TO SIDES OF EXCAVATION (IF
BLOCKS WHERE SURFACE WATER/ CONSTRUCTED IN ROCK
MINIMUM 300mm NECESSARY).
REQUIRED. REFER TO STANDARD DRAWING FOUL SEWER
300 No. 152401-003 FOR PIPE + PIPE O.D. 2. TIMBERING OF TRENCHES AND FOR UPHOLDING AND MAINTAINING
475
BEDDING DETAILS EXCAVATION.
3. BACKFILLING OF TRENCHES AND REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF
FLUSH KERB DETAIL STANDARD KERB DETAIL SURPLUS EXCAVATED MATERIALS.
Options 3 and 4
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
0
O R67
AD T
O
AL R
LOC
65
R6
GARDA STATION
PETROL STATION
MUNSTER PAPER SACKS
RIVER SUIR
MAC CLEANERS
HALLY'S BUILDERS
RIVER SUIR
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ISSUE/REVISION
665)
SIOBHANS SHOP REET (R
MAIN ST
BRETTS
ARDFINNAN HALL
ARDFINNAN SCHOOL
LETIAS PUB
SHEET TITLE
LOCATION PLAN
0 10 20 40 60 80
Page 126 of 155
100m
SHEET NUMBER
SCALE 1:1000 @ A1; 1:2000 @ A3 ARD_PRE_SHT_0000
ISO A1 594mm x 841mm
PROJECT
2017
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
NOTES
ISSUE/REVISION
SHEET TITLE
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
NOTES
ISSUE/REVISION
SHEET TITLE
CIVILS WORKS 01
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
VEHICLE PROFILE
12.2
5.46
3.9
1.3 3.22
8.3 1.4 1.8
ISSUE/REVISION
SHEET TITLE
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
NOTES
ISSUE/REVISION
SHEET TITLE
CIVILS WORKS 02
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
VEHICLE PROFILE
12.2
5.46
3.9
1.3 3.22
8.3 1.4 1.8
ISSUE/REVISION
SHEET TITLE
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
NOTES
ISSUE/REVISION
SHEET TITLE
CIVILS WORKS 03
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
VEHICLE PROFILE
12.2
5.46
3.9
1.3 3.22
8.3 1.4 1.8
ISSUE/REVISION
SHEET TITLE
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
NOTES
ISSUE/REVISION
FORWARD VISIBILITY
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
NOTES
ISSUE/REVISION
FORWARD VISIBILITY
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
670
TO R
OAD
AL R
LOC
65
R6
GARDA STATION
PETROL STATION
MUNSTER PAPER SACKS
RIVER SUIR
MAC CLEANERS
HALLY'S BUILDERS
RIVER SUIR
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ISSUE/REVISION
SIOBHANS SHOP
665)
REET (R
MAIN ST
ARDFINNAN HALL
ARDFINNAN SCHOOL
LETIAS PUB
SHEET TITLE
0 10 20 40 60 80
Page 136 of 155
100m
SHEET NUMBER
SCALE 1:1000 @ A1; 1:2000 @ A3 ARD_PRE_SHT_0007
ISO A1 594mm x 841mm
PROJECT
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
50 300
50 300 50 300
MORTAR NOT LESS THAN CLIENT
UPSTAND TO BE 0-6mm FOR FOOTWAY
10mm AND NOT MORE DROP CROSSINGS AND 25mm. FOR MORTAR NOT LESS THAN
THAN 40mm THICK VEHICULAR DROP CROSSINGS 10mm AND NOT MORE
ING
S EXIST
A
AS E
AS E XIST
XIST ING
ING
)
.33%
12 (8
T 1 IN
DIEN
GRA
MAX
BAC
+1 to K OF
FOO
900 6mm TWA
Y
AS S
ECIF
IED AS E
XIST
ING
900.
00
DAT
UM L
DROPPED KERB ARRANGEMENT EVE
L
SCALE NTS
ISSUE/REVISION
2000 OR AS SPECIFIED
150 150 150
EDGING DETAILS 30mm HRA 15/10 F surf 40/60
AS SPECIFIED SURFACE COURSE TO CLAUSE 910
ON GENERAL EDGING DETAILS SURFACE COURSE 30mm HRA 15/10 F surf 40/60
ARRANGEMENT 50mm AC 20 dense bin 40/60 rec AS SPECIFIED SURFACE COURSE TO CLAUSE 910
BINDER COURSE TO CLAUSE 906 Existing
DRAWINGS ON GENERAL road level 50mm AC 20 dense bin 40/60 rec
150mm TYPE 1 SUB-BASE TO ARRANGEMENT BINDER COURSE TO CLAUSE 906
CROSSFALL VARIES CLAUSE 803 DRAWINGS
150mm TYPE 1 SUB-BASE TO
CLAUSE 803
0 31/01/2018 ISSUED FOR INFORMATION
450 MIN.
BASE
EXISTING
FOOTWAY
MAKEUP
SUB-BASE
FORMATION LEVEL
150 150 150
SHEET TITLE
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
ARD_PRE_SHT_0008
ISO A1 594mm x 841mm
PROJECT
2017
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
670
T OR
OAD
AL R
LOC
65
R6
GARDA STATION
PETROL STATION
RIVER SUIR
MAC CLEANERS
HALLY'S BUILDERS
MUNSTER PAPER SACKS
ISSUE/REVISION
SIOBHANS SHOP
665)
REET (R
MAIN ST
0005 - PEDESTRIAN PROVISION NOT PROVIDED
ARDFINNAN SCHOOL 0 31/01/2018 ISSUED FOR INFORMATION
BRETTS I/R DATE DESCRIPTION
ARDFINNAN HALL
SHEET TITLE
0 10 20 40 60 80 100m
SHEET NUMBER
SCALE 1:1000 @ A1; 1:2000 @ A3 ARD_PRE_SHT_0009
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ February 2018
17 January 2018
Direction Time CAR LGV OGV1 OGV2 BUS Total Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vpp
1 2 3 4 5 5 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 85
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
E 0000 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0100 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0200 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0300 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0400 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0500 27 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 1 14 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.7
E 0600 28 3 0 0 0 31 1 1 6 10 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56.7
E 0700 120 20 4 0 1 145 0 4 43 59 35 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54.5
E 0800 190 12 2 1 0 205 0 10 74 104 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47.6
E 0900 174 15 7 4 1 201 16 84 72 25 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39.6
E 1000 97 6 2 2 0 107 1 5 49 40 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48.3
E 1100 87 7 2 1 0 97 3 13 23 40 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.6
E 1200 79 5 2 0 1 87 0 9 41 28 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47.8
E 1300 85 10 3 1 0 99 4 6 48 31 6 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46.8
E 1400 131 14 4 0 0 149 4 31 70 36 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44.8
E 1500 123 13 9 0 1 146 16 28 62 29 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47.8
E 1600 85 12 1 0 0 98 1 12 47 31 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46.1
E 1700 86 4 1 1 0 92 2 16 39 27 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47.2
E 1800 84 7 1 0 1 93 5 14 24 39 8 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49.6
E 1900 72 3 3 0 0 78 5 21 29 19 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45
E 2000 62 1 0 0 0 63 3 8 32 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
E 2100 24 0 0 0 0 24 1 3 5 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53.1
E 2200 13 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 3 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64.3
E 2300 6 1 1 0 0 8 0 0 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
Vehicles 1775 62 266 671 572 176 23 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 January 2018
Direction Time CAR LGV OGV1 OGV2 BUS Total Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vpp
1 2 3 4 5 5 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 85
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
E 0000 4 1 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0100 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0300 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0400 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0500 20 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 11 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.6
E 0600 34 2 0 0 0 36 0 0 5 14 13 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57.9
E 0700 134 18 7 1 0 160 0 4 46 71 34 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52.8
E 0800 183 9 1 1 0 194 0 11 67 97 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49.3
E 0900 191 9 7 1 0 208 23 52 92 35 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41.3
E 1000 101 9 4 1 0 115 4 14 59 32 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44.2
E 1100 79 7 3 2 0 91 0 14 44 27 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46.1
E 1200 100 9 3 0 1 113 4 36 41 26 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41.8
E 1300 94 6 2 0 0 102 1 7 40 42 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49.1
E 1400 130 8 5 0 0 143 6 29 65 41 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43.5
E 1500 117 9 5 2 1 134 6 29 62 35 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43.8
E 1600 82 9 7 0 0 98 3 11 33 40 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47.5
E 1700 104 5 1 0 0 110 3 9 49 36 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48.2
E 1800 83 7 1 0 0 91 3 15 39 29 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45.1
E 1900 87 3 0 0 0 90 11 20 29 24 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44.5
E 2000 62 7 1 0 0 70 3 10 31 16 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49.2
E 2100 37 2 0 0 0 39 7 10 13 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.4
E 2200 14 0 0 0 0 14 0 1 1 5 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54.7
E 2300 5 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
Vehicles 1841 75 272 719 594 155 22 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 January 2018
Direction Time CAR LGV OGV1 OGV2 BUS Total Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vpp
1 2 3 4 5 5 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 85
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
E 0000 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0100 5 1 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0200 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0300 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0400 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0500 26 3 0 0 0 29 0 0 3 11 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.9
E 0600 37 4 0 0 0 41 1 0 10 13 13 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57.5
E 0700 118 16 2 0 0 136 2 3 39 63 24 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53.1
E 0800 180 15 0 1 0 196 2 30 81 70 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46.8
E 0900 181 14 7 0 0 202 13 67 77 39 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.8
E 1000 83 8 0 4 0 95 2 11 49 27 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45.9
E 1100 106 6 5 2 0 119 3 16 51 41 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46.7
E 1200 101 12 4 1 1 119 2 10 54 45 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46.6
E 1300 111 8 3 2 0 124 0 13 67 34 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45.4
E 1400 140 11 4 1 0 156 11 31 78 31 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.5
E 1500 128 4 3 1 0 136 11 35 59 24 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.4
E 1600 117 8 1 1 0 127 2 20 61 34 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46
E 1700 97 4 1 0 0 102 6 15 48 26 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45.1
E 1800 105 6 1 0 0 112 3 27 47 29 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
E 1900 87 4 0 0 0 91 2 6 35 36 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49
E 2000 65 1 1 0 1 68 2 6 24 26 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.5
E 2100 34 2 0 0 0 36 1 4 12 15 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48.9
E 2200 25 1 0 0 0 26 1 2 9 8 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55.8
E 2300 12 1 0 0 0 13 0 0 4 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54.3
Vehicles 1945 64 297 808 590 151 32 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 January 2018
Direction Time CAR LGV OGV1 OGV2 BUS Total Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vpp
1 2 3 4 5 5 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 85
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
W 0000 9 1 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 5 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0100 16 1 0 0 0 17 0 0 3 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48.4
W 0200 5 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0300 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0500 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0600 4 2 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0700 18 4 5 0 2 29 1 0 10 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.4
W 0800 57 14 6 2 0 79 0 5 32 37 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48.1
W 0900 86 20 6 2 0 114 5 32 50 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41.4
W 1000 57 12 2 1 1 73 1 13 30 26 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44.6
W 1100 56 14 4 2 0 76 0 6 34 32 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44.9
W 1200 81 14 3 0 0 98 1 9 41 43 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46
W 1300 78 9 2 0 1 90 1 6 46 33 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44.9
W 1400 113 14 9 1 1 138 1 19 82 35 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41.9
W 1500 166 29 5 2 0 202 18 52 99 28 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40.9
W 1600 142 27 6 3 1 179 5 23 100 47 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43.4
W 1700 176 36 1 2 1 216 1 8 116 83 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44.3
W 1800 124 25 3 1 0 153 4 26 77 44 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43
W 1900 89 7 1 2 1 100 7 24 50 17 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41.7
W 2000 52 6 0 0 0 58 4 13 24 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43.3
W 2100 58 6 0 1 0 65 1 4 25 25 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.5
W 2200 28 1 0 0 0 29 0 0 2 18 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55.7
W 2300 12 1 0 0 0 13 0 0 2 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54.1
Vehicles 1755 50 240 824 559 73 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 January 2018
Direction Time CAR LGV OGV1 OGV2 BUS Total Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vpp
1 2 3 4 5 5 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 85
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
W 0000 6 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 1 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0100 14 2 0 0 0 16 0 0 3 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.5
W 0200 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0400 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0500 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0600 5 3 1 1 0 10 0 1 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0700 20 2 5 0 2 29 0 3 12 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45.2
W 0800 51 10 4 3 0 68 2 3 26 31 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45.6
W 0900 99 24 6 0 0 129 5 38 55 30 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.9
W 1000 49 13 11 1 1 75 7 25 30 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41
W 1100 72 16 6 0 0 94 2 15 56 17 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.3
W 1200 106 15 2 1 0 124 8 35 57 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41.8
W 1300 88 6 4 0 0 98 0 7 56 33 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44
W 1400 111 18 5 1 1 136 1 36 73 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41.7
W 1500 109 21 6 0 1 137 12 35 64 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41.4
W 1600 157 19 7 2 2 187 5 37 98 40 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.1
W 1700 154 31 5 0 0 190 8 25 91 63 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43.2
W 1800 144 18 5 0 0 167 8 39 84 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41.8
W 1900 91 19 1 0 0 111 15 23 51 17 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43.1
W 2000 56 10 2 0 0 68 4 12 25 24 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45.2
W 2100 56 9 0 0 0 65 8 14 31 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40.7
W 2200 28 3 0 1 0 32 0 1 7 23 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47.5
W 2300 22 1 0 0 0 23 0 0 7 11 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54.2
Vehicles 1774 85 349 831 447 58 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 January 2018
Direction Time CAR LGV OGV1 OGV2 BUS Total Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vpp
1 2 3 4 5 5 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 85
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
W 0000 9 2 0 0 0 11 0 0 3 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52.5
W 0100 15 1 0 0 0 16 0 0 3 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.3
W 0200 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0400 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0500 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0600 6 2 0 0 1 9 0 1 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0700 26 4 4 0 1 35 0 0 9 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49.5
W 0800 45 9 2 1 0 57 0 3 20 21 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52.3
W 0900 103 24 6 1 0 134 10 35 63 24 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41.3
W 1000 63 13 3 0 1 80 0 8 38 28 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45.1
W 1100 64 11 5 3 0 83 0 8 57 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41.5
W 1200 97 18 6 1 0 122 0 11 66 41 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44.4
W 1300 110 11 5 0 0 126 0 12 69 41 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44.2
W 1400 133 15 6 1 1 156 3 30 89 32 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41.6
W 1500 164 18 6 1 0 189 31 57 69 29 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40.7
W 1600 146 16 6 1 2 171 9 26 100 33 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.3
W 1700 162 31 4 1 0 198 11 61 101 23 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39.2
W 1800 143 17 6 0 0 166 13 50 71 31 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.2
W 1900 102 18 3 1 0 124 2 26 62 33 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.8
W 2000 86 12 0 0 0 98 3 9 50 34 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43.7
W 2100 69 9 2 0 0 80 1 3 36 35 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47.9
W 2200 54 6 1 0 0 61 0 0 16 37 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49.1
W 2300 26 0 0 0 0 26 0 1 10 11 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55.2
Vehicles 1948 83 341 936 515 69 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 January 2018
Direction Time CAR LGV OGV1 OGV2 BUS Total Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vpp
1 2 3 4 5 5 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 85
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
E 0000 8 1 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 1 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0100 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0200 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0400 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0500 2 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0600 6 2 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 2 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0700 26 7 2 0 1 36 0 2 0 14 12 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62.9
E 0800 50 7 4 1 0 62 1 1 3 23 23 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60.9
E 0900 81 10 2 2 0 95 0 3 8 40 30 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.9
E 1000 56 3 3 1 0 63 0 1 3 22 26 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61.6
E 1100 67 8 3 2 0 80 0 3 8 39 28 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56.4
E 1200 68 6 1 1 0 76 2 3 4 21 38 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58.8
E 1300 72 10 4 1 0 87 0 0 5 31 38 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60.3
E 1400 94 5 6 1 1 107 0 1 2 24 60 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60.9
E 1500 121 8 4 0 0 133 0 2 18 58 42 12 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 57.8
E 1600 121 12 5 0 0 138 0 6 11 60 49 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56.9
E 1700 155 15 5 2 0 177 0 0 27 68 66 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57.8
E 1800 123 9 1 1 0 134 0 1 4 49 71 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57.3
E 1900 56 4 2 0 0 62 0 1 1 19 29 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63.1
E 2000 55 7 0 0 0 62 0 2 5 17 27 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61.2
E 2100 45 3 0 0 0 48 0 2 2 18 17 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62.4
E 2200 23 3 0 0 0 26 0 0 2 6 9 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64.8
E 2300 9 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
Vehicles 1419 3 28 103 515 581 166 19 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 January 2018
Direction Time CAR LGV OGV1 OGV2 BUS Total Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vpp
1 2 3 4 5 5 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 85
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
E 0000 9 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 2 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0100 14 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 2 6 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69.5
E 0200 3 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0300 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0600 12 2 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 1 9 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.8
E 0700 27 5 2 0 1 35 0 0 0 14 16 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60.4
E 0800 47 4 2 1 0 54 1 0 3 17 21 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62.8
E 0900 90 16 4 1 0 111 0 2 6 39 47 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61
E 1000 50 4 5 0 0 59 0 2 8 25 17 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.1
E 1100 65 9 1 0 0 75 0 0 10 35 24 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56.1
E 1200 72 13 7 2 0 94 1 3 17 33 27 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.6
E 1300 70 8 0 1 0 79 0 1 7 24 34 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60.8
E 1400 109 8 1 1 1 120 0 1 10 49 43 14 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.8
E 1500 87 14 2 2 0 105 1 0 12 34 44 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.2
E 1600 132 17 8 1 0 158 1 4 15 60 66 11 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57.6
E 1700 133 11 3 2 0 149 0 0 12 58 62 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57.8
E 1800 119 7 1 2 0 129 0 0 3 38 67 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60.1
E 1900 75 5 4 2 0 86 0 0 11 30 31 12 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60.9
E 2000 55 5 0 0 0 60 0 0 1 26 23 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61.4
E 2100 36 3 0 0 0 39 0 0 1 15 13 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64.2
E 2200 17 5 0 0 0 22 0 0 1 6 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61.8
E 2300 14 1 0 0 0 15 0 0 2 2 8 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64.5
Vehicles 1423 4 13 120 509 570 177 27 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 January 2018
Direction Time CAR LGV OGV1 OGV2 BUS Total Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vpp
1 2 3 4 5 5 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 85
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
E 0000 8 1 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0100 15 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 1 6 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71.3
E 0200 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0500 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
E 0600 10 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 4 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71.6
E 0700 23 7 3 1 1 35 0 1 3 6 18 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62
E 0800 50 8 3 2 0 63 0 4 2 17 29 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62.5
E 0900 86 11 1 0 0 98 0 2 6 29 39 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61.4
E 1000 47 4 5 0 0 56 0 1 15 22 10 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.3
E 1100 64 8 1 2 0 75 4 6 9 19 29 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58.8
E 1200 65 7 5 1 0 78 0 1 7 39 20 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.8
E 1300 65 5 4 1 0 75 0 2 6 25 29 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60.5
E 1400 109 15 4 0 1 129 0 2 13 58 44 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57.5
E 1500 114 10 0 3 0 127 0 7 9 42 48 18 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60.9
E 1600 126 13 5 0 1 145 0 5 15 56 58 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56.8
E 1700 161 15 0 2 0 178 0 6 18 70 61 22 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58.1
E 1800 121 10 1 0 0 132 0 0 12 50 54 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59
E 1900 83 7 1 1 0 92 0 1 1 30 49 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.5
E 2000 41 3 0 2 0 46 1 0 3 17 19 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.8
E 2100 43 1 0 0 0 44 0 0 1 14 16 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66.8
E 2200 24 1 0 0 0 25 0 0 1 8 11 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65.4
E 2300 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 2 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.2
Vehicles 1448 5 38 122 510 553 192 27 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 January 2018
Direction Time CAR LGV OGV1 OGV2 BUS Total Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vpp
1 2 3 4 5 5 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 85
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
W 0000 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0100 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0300 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0400 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0500 15 2 0 1 0 18 0 0 0 0 4 6 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 81.4
W 0600 22 6 1 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 8 15 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 76
W 0700 93 22 7 1 1 124 0 1 1 19 56 37 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.3
W 0800 123 19 6 2 1 151 0 1 5 19 70 46 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67
W 0900 117 13 9 2 0 141 0 4 6 38 64 20 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61.9
W 1000 61 9 3 1 0 74 0 0 1 11 35 23 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64.4
W 1100 68 5 3 1 0 77 0 0 12 26 25 10 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61.4
W 1200 64 10 7 3 1 85 1 1 4 24 31 20 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64.5
W 1300 61 6 3 0 0 70 0 1 0 7 32 24 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68.2
W 1400 75 12 6 1 0 94 0 2 3 26 38 20 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64.7
W 1500 108 18 8 3 1 138 0 0 6 49 57 23 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63
W 1600 63 3 5 2 1 74 0 0 5 15 36 16 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61
W 1700 76 6 8 0 0 90 1 5 9 18 36 20 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 62.2
W 1800 61 11 2 0 1 75 0 0 4 21 30 17 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63.7
W 1900 43 7 1 0 0 51 0 0 1 15 15 16 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65.9
W 2000 41 4 1 0 1 47 0 0 3 16 14 12 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65.6
W 2100 23 2 1 0 0 26 0 0 1 4 7 9 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 74.1
W 2200 6 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 2300 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
Vehicles 1387 2 15 61 310 562 342 75 14 5 1 0 0 0 0 0
23 January 2018
Direction Time CAR LGV OGV1 OGV2 BUS Total Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vpp
1 2 3 4 5 5 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 85
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
W 0000 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0300 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0400 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0500 21 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 7 4 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 81.5
W 0600 30 5 1 0 0 36 0 2 0 1 6 20 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 73.2
W 0700 96 19 1 0 0 116 0 0 3 18 41 40 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68.2
W 0800 138 22 6 4 2 172 1 0 6 31 81 42 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63.9
W 0900 102 15 14 0 0 131 0 0 4 24 58 30 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66.9
W 1000 65 9 4 3 0 81 1 1 12 17 37 8 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62.1
W 1100 68 8 4 1 0 81 0 0 4 24 33 14 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63.2
W 1200 68 10 7 2 1 88 1 1 1 30 31 19 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64.1
W 1300 57 9 2 2 0 70 0 1 5 9 22 27 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65.8
W 1400 73 14 5 0 0 92 0 0 5 18 44 18 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64.9
W 1500 99 13 9 3 1 125 0 0 4 18 56 41 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65.2
W 1600 80 8 10 2 1 101 2 3 6 31 37 18 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64.1
W 1700 77 15 4 2 0 98 0 0 13 19 40 18 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.4
W 1800 51 7 3 0 1 62 0 1 0 12 27 18 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65
W 1900 47 7 0 0 0 54 0 1 2 10 22 13 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68.7
W 2000 22 7 0 1 1 31 0 1 0 6 8 9 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 73.1
W 2100 33 2 1 0 0 36 0 0 2 10 13 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68.2
W 2200 11 3 1 0 0 15 0 0 0 3 2 7 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 76.8
W 2300 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
Vehicles 1424 5 11 68 283 568 359 114 12 4 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 January 2018
Direction Time CAR LGV OGV1 OGV2 BUS Total Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vbin Vpp
1 2 3 4 5 5 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 85
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
W 0000 2 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0100 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0300 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0400 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
W 0500 20 1 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 4 8 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82.3
W 0600 26 4 1 0 0 31 0 0 1 0 5 8 14 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 78.4
W 0700 88 25 3 1 1 118 0 0 1 18 46 36 15 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69.9
W 0800 158 17 6 0 1 182 1 2 4 22 90 51 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65.2
W 0900 111 17 3 1 1 133 0 0 3 24 75 27 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62.4
W 1000 68 8 2 0 0 78 0 1 8 20 35 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60.8
W 1100 54 8 3 2 0 67 0 0 6 26 26 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58.6
W 1200 60 10 9 0 1 80 0 4 16 26 22 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59.9
W 1300 68 4 7 2 0 81 0 0 4 31 26 15 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64.7
W 1400 81 10 5 3 0 99 0 0 4 28 37 21 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.2
W 1500 120 18 9 2 2 151 0 2 5 36 75 28 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62.9
W 1600 66 5 7 1 0 79 0 2 3 22 32 15 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63.6
W 1700 74 8 1 1 1 85 0 1 4 22 37 16 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63.6
W 1800 55 6 1 0 0 62 0 0 1 9 34 16 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62.1
W 1900 39 10 2 0 0 51 0 1 2 5 22 18 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67.1
W 2000 37 5 1 1 1 45 0 1 0 9 16 11 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74.1
W 2100 39 3 0 0 0 42 0 0 2 5 18 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65.9
W 2200 8 4 0 0 0 12 1 0 0 2 5 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 83.1
W 2300 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
Vehicles 1427 2 14 64 306 609 317 96 16 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dominic Mullanney,
Roads Division,
Department of Transport, Tourism & Sport,
Head Office,
44 Kildare Street,
Dublin 2
Dear Dominic,
Further to our recent discussion on the Bridge Rehabilitation Scheme, am now submitting
I a
standalone application for specific funding for Ardfinnan Bridge. This thirteen span masonry arch is
on Regional Road R665 and spans the River Suir. The estimate cost of repairs will be in the order of
£700,000.
A revised Bridge Rehabilitation programme will also be submitted immediately as the Ardfinnan
Bridge will no longer be part of this programme.
Should you wish to discuss this matter in further detail, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Michael F Hayes,
Senior Engineer.
IRG
N N
TIE INTO EXISTING
BRIDGE STRUCTURE
A A
A A
PROPOSED BRIDGE
STRUCTURE
1.8m INDEPENDENT
EXISTING MASONARY ARCH BRIDGE STRUCTURE
ARDFINNAN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
TO CLOGHEEN TO CLONMEL
TBC
NOTES
1. ALL WORKS AT A FEASIBILITY STAGE.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND TOPOGRAPHICAL
WORK REQUIRED TO CONFIRM PROPOSALS.
DIRECTION OF FLOW
TBC TBC
DRAWING NUMBER
SKE-0001
PROJECT
CLIENT
NOTES
1. _
DRAWING NUMBER
SKE-0002