Observation by Ardfinnan Community Council AGAINST Tipperary County Council - Dot

Ardfinnan Community Council
Charity Number 20079260

Main Street
Ardfinnan
Clonmel
Co. Tipperary
052 612 5288
ardfinnancommunitycouncil2016@gmail.com
OBSERVATION BY ARDFINNAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL
AGAINST TIPPERARY COUNTY COUNCIL PROPOSED WORKS TO

ARDFINNAN BRIDGE - ABP '300422'17
Table of Contents
1 Preface........................................................................................................ 1
Preface......................................................................................................... 1
2 Introduction................................................................................................ 7
2.1. Introduction........................................................................................... 7
2.2. Previous Flooding................................................................................. 16
2.3. Business Closure.................................................................................. 24
2.4. Our Community..................................................................................... 30
3 The Issues................................................................................................... 37
3.1. Issue A - Clonmel side of Ardfinnan Bridge.......................................... 37
3.2. Issue B - School side of Ardfinnan Bridge............................................. 47
3.3. Value For Money................................................................................... 55
4 Our Proposals............................................................................................ 58
4 Ardfinnan Community Council Proposal................................................... 58
4.1. Cantilever Bridge................................................................................... 67
4.2. Independent Walkway........................................................................... 71
5 Conclusion.................................................................................................. 75
Conclusion................................................................................................... 75
6 Ardfinnan Community Council Engineer Report.................................... 80
Engineer Report - Ardfinnan Assessment Report........................................ 80
Engineer - Appendix..................................................................................... 114
7 Appendix..................................................................................................... 153
A - Letter from Tipperary Co. Co. dated 15th November 2016 submitting
Application to the Dept of Transport............................................................. 153
B - SKE-C-0001-0002 Ardfinnan Bridge...................................................... 154
ACC ©
1. Preface
Ardfinnan Community Council (Charity No. 20079260)
9th February 2018
Page 1 of 155
1. Preface
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/
Fig. 1.1.
Example of Charity Fundraisers by

members of Ardfinnan Community
and surrounding areas. Charity € Total Raised
Tractor Run 20163 South Tipperary Hospice €22,500
Tractor Run 2012 South Tipperary Hospice €45,000
Ardfinnan Community Members Clogheen Hospice Suite €70,756.17
incredible achievement toward to Construction Fund
construction of a new care facility in
(€140,330.93)*
2016
Fig 1.2.
4An overview of 2016 Tractor Run for

South Tipperary Hospice. The Tractor
run has been in operation annually for
over 10 years and has raised more than
€200,000 towards the Hospice movement.
Fig 1.3.
5The queue of tractors travelling over Ardfinnan
Bridge at Tractor-Run time. Again, highlighting the

show of support and strength from members of our
agricultural community towards noble fundraising
events. However, another interesting view for any
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
reader into the events and multifunctional
use that Ardfinnan Bridge is susceptible to,
on an annual basis.
Fig 1.4.
A number of extraordinary members of

Ardfinnan, Ballybacon & Grange parish
who engaged in an ambitious plan to
fundraise towards the construction of a
new hospice unit for St. Theresa’s Hospital in our neighboring village/town of Clogheen. To
date, the extraordinary efforts, through the hard work and commitment from members of our
community, together with a sizable donation from Boston Scientific have generated a total
fundraising amount of €140,330.93*.
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
and surveys to assist our views and proposals. We simply ask that any reader take due
consideration of our observation and revert accordingly.
Sent via email – no signature required
_________________________
Thomas O’Mahoney,
Chairperson
Ardfinnan, 9th February 2018
ACC ©
2.1. Introduction
ARDFINNAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL (CHARITY NO.
20079260)
9TH FEBRUARY 2018
Page 7 of 155
2.1. Introduction
Background
“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
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:
Fig 2.1.1. Fig 2.1.2.
Fig 2.1.3. Fig 2.1.4.
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.
The Rumors Began
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:
1. Funding to fix Ardfinnan Bridge,

2. Funding to install a permanent traffic lighting system on either side of Ardfinnan bridge,
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!
Ardfinnan Community Council elects sub-committee to seek answers
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.
Naturally, members of Ardfinnan Community Council and Local Councillors sought

information as to other proposals taken into consideration by the Council, such as a
cantilevered structure or an independent walkway? These were dismissed out of hand as too
expensive and not value for money (VFM). When pressed on actual budget costs, no evidence
of costs could be provided, not even a breakdown of high level costs. The DOS stated the above
alternative proposals would cost, in excess of €1.5m and were unpalatable. At a subsequent
meeting the Director of Roads and Services would go on to describe such structures as “ luxury
items afforded to the people of Ardfinnan”.
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.
NB - No application would be made to the Department for Funding under

Tipperary County Councils proposals without public consultation.
As agreed at the above meeting on the 6th December 2016
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.
 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.
Tipperary County Council never consulted with members of Ardfinnan

Community for their original submissions for works on Ardfinnan Bridge to the
Department of Transport
Tipperary County Council applied to the Department for funding to repair

Ardfinnan Bridge and install permanent traffic lights and reduce the bridge to
a one-way system WITHOUT public consultation before the 6th December 2016.
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.
On the 6th December 2016 Tipperary County Council promised public

consultation before any application would be submitted to the Department, but
the application (without public consultation) had already been submitted on the
15th November 2016.
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
What happened next?
Following on from the above, please note a summary of events subsequent to our meeting on
the 6th March:
1. Ardfinnan Community Council convened a Public Meeting to inform the community

and surrounding communities of Tipperary Co. Co. proposals
2. The meeting was attended by some 300 people on Saturday the 1st April 2017.
Fig 2.1.5. – Ardfinnan members in attendance

at a public meeting on the above date.
Fig 2.1.6. – A unanimous vote from all

member to stage a public protest against
Tipperary County Councils current proposals
3. Following a public meeting, the members of Ardfinnan Community decided to stage a

public protest to highlight their strong objections to Tipperary County Councils
Proposals for Ardfinnan Bridge
4. The below pictures highlight the sheer volume of public participation towards the
communities opposition to the County Councils proposals. We are extremely confident
the images will speak for themselves with no further need for commentary.
ACC ©
2.2. Previous Flooding

20079260)
9TH FEBRUARY 2018
Page 16 of 155
2.2. Previous Flooding in Ardfinnan

Ardfinnan Flooding
It is imperative that any officer of An Bord Pleanála understand that Ardfinnan

is situated on a floodplain. Annual flooding is a regular occurrence and it is not
uncommon for Main Street Ardfinnan to be flooded twice annually and or
Ardfinnan N.S. to be closed twice annually.
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
The below are pictures of the 2015 Flood and others:
Fig 2.2.1. You will note a picture of Main

Street, Ardfinnan. As you view the picture,
please note Ardfinnan N.S., Catholic Church
and Ardfinnan Community Council are all
situated to the right-hand side. Toward the top
right-hand side of the picture you will note
the location of Brett’s Brothers Limited.
*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.
Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary  9th February 2018

Page 17 of 155
Fig 2.2.2. Again, picture of flooding as the
road sweeps from Main Street onto Ardfinnan
Bridge.
Fig 2.2.3. Please note the position of the Traffic

Light sign. For context, the traffic light sign is
situated on the road and over the green
embankment, is Ardfinnan Green. For 10 months
of the year, this green is used as a training field
for both Ardfinnan GAA Clubs (Male and
female). It is also a place where large and small
events take place on a regular basis, as set out in
Section 2.4. When the road floods, you will note
that water is sometimes pumped from the road, over the embankment and into the football field.
From this position, the water flows under the bridge and down the River Suir. Please note the
pumping process as set out under Fig 2.2.7. below.
Fig 2.2.4(a)&(b) provide an overview of the

entire green as it floods twice annually. However,
the green itself can flood more than 5 times
annually. As you view the image, please note the
location of the Church, School, Community Hall
and Brett Brothers all on the right-hand side of
the image.

Page 18 of 155
Fig 2.2.4(b) - The Green in Ardfinnan will fill at least 4-5 times annually with heavy rainfall.
The embankment which was built in the 1990’s, has protected the School and many residents
on Main Street, Ardfinnan from extensive flooding over the years. However, sometimes even
the embankment hasn’t protected the School or the residents on Main Street.
Position of Traffic Lights AND Traffic Light Control Box
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.

Page 19 of 155
3. You will note that Tipperary County Council intend to insert the Traffic Light Control
Box into the embankment where our friendly geese are situated in Fig 2.2.2.
Assumptions – What do we assume will happen in the years ahead?
 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.
A view of 2014 Flooding
Fig 2.2.6. Bridge view of the 2014 Flood

Page 20 of 155
Fig 2.2.7. – Pumping system on the embankment adjacent Ardfinnan N.S. This system is
usually called into operation 3-5 times annually. Heavy rainfall can preempt its use.
Fig 2.2.8. A front view of the barriers erected

each winter beside Ardfinnan Bridge and across
the road from Ardfinnan N.S. The traffic
signaling system proposed by Tipperary Co. Co.
will be situated 3ft to the right-hand side of the
barrier. You will note how rain water
accumulates at this location.
Fig 2.2.9. A clear view of previous

flooding in 2012. Again, you will note
the proposed location of the traffic
Signal towards the top right of the
picture (note the River Suir signage).

Page 21 of 155
See below picture taken of 1995 Flood to highlight the long history of flooding in Ardfinnan:
Fig 2.2.10. Again, another example of

flooding in Ardfinnan to showcase the
annual event as far back as 1995 and
beyond. The picture illustrates some
school children enjoying activities outside
Ardfinnan N.S. and the old Brett Grain
Store site.
Downtime and Junction Intervisibility
 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.

Page 22 of 155
Fig 2.2.11. Overview
of Ardfinnan from
‘The Rock’, St.
Anne’s Terrace
“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 23 of 155
ACC ©
2.3. Business Closures

9TH 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.
Business/ Service Closure Employment Fig
O’Brien’s Service Station 2008 2-3 Fig 2.3.1.
Power Pharmacy 2015 3-4 Fig 2.3.2.
Hackett’s Fuels and Foodstore 2013 4-6 Fig 2.3.3.
The Riverside Restaurant 2015 4-5 Fig 2.3.4.
Blackwells Service Station 2011 6-8 Fig 2.3.5.
The Hill Bar 2011 4-5 Fig 2.3.6.
Moy Insulation 2009 40-50 Fig 2.3.7.
Munster Paper Sacks 2011 15-22 Fig 2.3.8.

Page 25 of 155
Fig 2.3.1. Fig 2.3.2.
Fig 2.3.3 Fig 2.3.4.

Page 26 of 155
Fig 2.3.5. Fig 2.3.6.
Fig 2.3.7.
Fig 2.3.8.

Page 27 of 155
“We dread the prospect of operating within the one way system in the future and
appeal to the authorities at local and national level to restore the bridge to its
original two way system. This bridge is a vital river crossing for Ardfinnan and
South Tipperary and it will be a serious impediment to any future development
in the village and surrounding rural areas should it not be fully restored to its
original state”.
Taken from the Observation of Sean Brett – Brett Brothers Limited dated 12th
January 2018
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!
Why is the above relevant?
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 28 of 155
We simply request that you keep to the forefront of your mind the above concerns as you read
through the issues and proposals throughout the remainder of our proposals.

Page 29 of 155
ACC ©
2.4. Our Community

9TH FEBRUARY 2018
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 2.4.1. – The victorious Tipperary

Ladies Football Team who recently won
the intermediate All-Ireland Final host
their victory parade in Ardfinnan in
September 2017 (crossing Ardfinnan
Bridge).

Page 31 of 155
Fig 2.4.2. - The victorious ladies carrying
the historic Slievenamon Flag across the
bridge – A FLAG that was designed,
woven and stitched by the hands of the
Ardfinnan people in the 1980’s from the
halls of Ardfinnan Community Centre.
Again, a flag that has graced the stages on
some of Tipperary GAA’s finest days –
Again, another testament to the spirit and
ingenuity of the people (both past and
present) of Ardfinnan, Ballybacon &
Grange.
Fig 2.4.3. – The crowds gather in

Ardfinnan Green directly across from
Ardfinnan National School, The
Church and the Community Centre to
show their appreciation to a fanatic
Tipperary team.
Fig 2.4.4. – A Summer field-day (June 2017) in Ardfinnan Green to raise vital funds for a new
playground.

Page 32 of 155
Fig 2.4.5. – 5K & 10K Family Run though Ardfinnan to raise funds Ardfinnan GAA Club
Field Development in March 2017
Fig 2.4.6. - STCC Cycle race returns to Ardfinnan in 2015
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.

Page 33 of 155
Fig 2.4.8. – Suir Valley Stage 5 – Given the location of Ardfinnan, Clogheen, & Lismore –
Many cycling competitions pass through Ardfinnan yearly.
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)

Page 34 of 155
“At least one Swan has been injured in the past year. This incident caused great
distress to the nature loving people who care for the birds by feeding them each
morning. They also recently wandered half way across and held up the one-way
traffic!!! Could have caused a lights disaster.”
Taken from the observation of Michael Hennessy to ABP dated 6th February 2018
Fig 2.4.11. - You will see how the geese

decide to take over the road just outside
Ardfinnan Community Hall. At grain
harvesting time, you will witness the
geese on the roads any morning for a
period of four months – again taken from
our wonderful photographer Mr. John
O’Neill
Fig 2.4.12. – Ardfinnan geese as they wait in

line for the lights to turn green – A touch of
humor perhaps, but I can assure the reader,
come harvest time, these geese move for
nobody; not pedestrians, motorists, (perhaps)
not even Tipperary County Council.

Page 35 of 155
Fig 2.4.13. – The Circus comes to
Ardfinnan Village once a year. Parking
spaces are naturally a big issue since the
temporary traffic lights have been installed.
Many Ardfinnan residence would contend,

the biggest Circus to potentially ever come
to Ardfinnan would be Tipperary County
Councils proposals.
“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 36 of 155
ACC ©
3.1. Issue A – Clonmel Side

Of Ardfinnan Bridge

20079260)
9TH FEBRUARY 2018
Page 37 of 155
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
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.
Fig 3.1.2. The lack of
intervisibilty zone between
the junctions is the primary
cause for the congestion here.
Also, let us not just simply

blame the lack of
intervisibilty zone, this is
also caused by a driver not
adhering to the traffic signals.
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
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”.
Let us take you through the issues:
Fig. 3.1.3. – taken from the observation of Colm Flynn
This picture gives the reader an

overhead view of Issue A, i.e.
The Clonmel side of Ardfinnan
Bridge
1. Traffic travels into

Ardfinnan from the Town of
Clonmel and the Town of Cahir.
2. Please note the
significant bend in the roadway.
3. Please note all the
industrial units in the picture.
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.
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!!
Fig 3.1.5. - taken from the observation of Colm Flynn
1. This “is only” a

motorbike, but you can
see the issues.
2. Note the 24-hr
station ahead and the
noticeable dip in the
road ahead.
3. Notice on the
right-hand side of the
picture, just above the motorcyclist’s shoulder, a roadway. This is the roadway to the town
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.
See Fig 3.1.7.
1. The traffic signal is

now in view.
2. The red car has
progressed forward.
3. The 24 hrs petrol
station has a customer filling
their tank.
4. You will also notice you are now travelling downhill. Only moments earlier you were
probably increasing your speed ever-so-slightly as you were travelling uphill.
5. Also, remember in our scenario… it’s still raining outside!!!
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):
What are the stand-out concerns from the above facts?
1. Nowhere in Tipperary County Council’s proposals can we see conflicting evidence to

the above. They did not commission a report or study the traffic volumes or actual
speed of vehicles travelling through Ardfinnan.
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.
ACC ©
3.2. Issue B – School Side of

Ardfinnan Bridge

20079260
9TH FEBRUARY 2018
Page 47 of 155
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.
Traffic Lights in close proximity to the School
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
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.
Note the pic below – with backing up outside the school
Fig 3.2.2. – backed up through Main Street
Autistic Spectrum Disorder Special Unit
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.
However, Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a range of conditions classified as

neurodevelopmental disorders. Individuals diagnosed with ASD present with challenges in
social skills and communication skills. Children with a diagnosis of ASD often experience the
world around them with feelings of chaos and anxiety. It is essential to reduce the occurrence
of sensory overload, as can be the case if there is a change to their routine, and this includes
changes to timelines around their routines. These are extremely vulnerable users of Ardfinnan
Bridge.
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.
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.
School Bus Parking
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
Fig 3.2.5. - Kids egressing from the bus onto the main road
Ardfinnan NS attended with Tipperary County Council to voice their concern
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.
The above highlights a sheer lack of respect to a fantastic Principal of

Ardfinnan National School.
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.
Children who cross the bridge to attend school.
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.
Vulnerable users of Ardfinnan Bridge.
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
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.
Fig 3.2.6. – Ardfinnan Church – A new Roundabout!
ACC ©
3.3. Value For

Money
ARDFINNAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL (CHARITY
NO. 20079260)
9TH FEBRUARY 2018
Page 55 of 155
3.3. Value For Money (VFM)
It’s time to consider 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
2. Ardfinnan – A determination that this option is the

Independent best under the VFM formula. Again, this
Bridge
Moderately Positive was the 2nd preferred option put forward
by Ardfinnan Community Council.
Again, it was dismissed out of hand by
Tipperary County Council. While
Ardfinnan Community have no issue with
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
ACC ©
4. Our Proposals
NO. 20079260)
9TH FEBRUARY 2018
Page 58 of 155
4. Ardfinnan Community Council Proposal
“The complexity of the design, the considerable amount of equipment required

to operate in constant tandem to ensure the proper operation of the junctions, as well
as the sheer volume of engineering interventions needed, will represent a significant
upfront and ongoing financial burden for the local authority, as well as an
extremely high probability of large scale disruption when individual parts fail”
Taken from the observation of Bobby Carrigan submitted to ABP dated 4th February
2018
Ardfinnan Community Council Proposals
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.
“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:
Bill To Address Client Cost Center

15th November 2016 Tipperary County Council had already submitted their
intended application to the Department of Transport.
This was submitted:
a) Seeking €700,000 (note the figure here)

b) And without and public consultation with
members of Ardfinnan Community Council
In simple terms. The Council submitted the above

application under the belief it would be acceptable to
the people of Ardfinnan and without engaging on any
substantive health and safety, traffic counting or speed
research on their proposals.
6th December 2016 Tipperary County Council where informed in a

comprehensive manner that their proposals were not
acceptable to the people of Ardfinnan due to the day-
to-day H&S concerns being witnessed by the
community. It became abundantly clear to the
community council that little or no research was
conducted prior to Tipperary County Councils
application to the Department of Transportation for
funds.
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”
24th January 2017 Following significant lobbying by local TD’s, the

Minister for Transport allocated €800,000 towards
Ardfinnan Bridge.
Again, this is not an insignificant point considering

Tipperary County Council only requested €650-€700k
in their initial application.
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?
A RED RAG TO A BULL IS THE ONLY WAY TO

DESCRIBE THE COUNCILS REACTION TO
THE ABOVE!
The Council refused to entertain the concerns of the

Community members, local TD’s and local politicians
in attendance.
At that juncture, Tipperary County Council informed

all members in attendance, they would not entertain our
proposals, as they would be affording the people of
Ardfinnan a luxury item and they could not tolerate
such a lavish spend.
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
didn’t know what we were taking about. Our ideas were
to lavish and without foundation!
BUT DID WE LACK FOUNDATION? Our engineers

simply did not agree. When we sought clarity on the
Council promise (from a previous meeting), not to
lodge an application without public participation, we
were met with blank faces across the table.
When we questioned why the council submitted the

application on the 15th of November 2015, but
informed Ardfinnan Community Council at a meeting
on the 6th December 2016 “no application had been
submitted”, we were met with blank face across the
table.
In respect to the latter two points, Tipperary Co. Co.

refused to comment and simply stated when pressed,
“we don’t know what happened there”. When pressed
again and again on the same two points, together with
our questioning, how did Tipperary County Council
arrived at the high-level costs of €1.49m (which we
believe acted as a deterrent from day one for funding to
the Department) for a cantilever bridge, the Director of
Services responded, “I don’t have to answer to you”.
From the minutes of the meeting held, the meeting

ending shortly thereafter.
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.
As previously stated, at that moment in time, we had

circa €8K in our current account and the Public
Liability Insurance was due for renewal on Ardfinnan
Community Hall around the same time. So you can
imagine our predicament. However, up until that point
Tipperary County Council had paid Punch Engineering
over €54,000 in fees.
Surely a few designs on our intended proposals
wouldn’t have been too much to request.
However, no, if we wished to put forward our own

proposals we needed to do so at our own expense.
Amazing, considering we paid Punch Engineering

indirectly as taxpayers.
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.
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
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:
ACC email to Engineer -
“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.”
Email to TCC dated 8th June 2017
TCC reply to ACC
“…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...”
Email from TCC dated 9th June 2017
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.
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
ACC ©
4.1. Proposal For A

Cantilever Bridge

NO. 20079260)
9TH FEBRUARY 2018
Page 67 of 155
4.1. Cantilever Bridge
“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.
“Historically, Ardfinnan Bridge is a very important crossing of the river Suir. It

was originally built as a single lane turret bridge, and in the 1700’s, the powers
that be had the foresight to widen the bridge to two lanes, as we have it today.
Now TCC want to send our community and beyond, back to the 1700’s”
The above statement was taken from the observation as received from Mack
Hygiene Limited dated the 20th January 2018
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.
Overview
1. Our proposal contains a 3m cantilevered structure to accommodate pedestrians and

cyclists on the downstream end of the existing bridge structure.
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 entrances.
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.
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.
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
For more information on our proposal, see section 6 below.
ACC ©
4.2. Proposal For An

Independent Walkway

20079260)
9TH FEBRUARY 2018
Page 71 of 155
4.2. Independent Walkway
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.
“This is a golden opportunity for Tipperary County Council to do something very

great for the environment in the village of Ardfinnan. A project that would enhance
the aesthetic value of the village to increase its standing in competitions like Tidy
Towns, enhance its value in Tourism, happiness of community. Erect a board
walking area on the inside of the wall on one side of the bridge. I have seen similar
type but more elaborate structures in Dublin and Kilkenny. I have watched people
sitting—enjoying the outdoors, reading, talking to friends.”
The above statement was taken from the observation as received from Michael
Hennessy dated the 7th February 2018
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
1. Our proposal contains a 3m independent structure to accommodate pedestrians and

cyclists on the downstream end of the existing bridge structure.
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.
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.
For more information on our proposal, see section 6 below.
Ardfinnan Community Council engaged a Civil Engineering Consultancy Firm

with specific experience working in the Traffic and Local Roads Department of
a Design Consultancy to carry out a review of the proposals and alternatives…
The above independent walkway RANKED FIRST in their assessment
ACC ©
5. Conclusion
NO. 20079260)
9TH FEBRUARY 2018
Page 75 of 155
7. Conclusion
A Chairpersons Conclusion
Dear Mr. Curran,
I draw the observations of Ardfinnan Community Council to a conclusion with a personal

address to you as Chairperson of same. I simply cannot convey in words the emotions and
outrage members of our community and surrounding areas feel at present with the situation
that has unfolded over the past 30 months.
Many members of Tipperary County Council have stated publicly that:
“The people of Ardfinnan just simply don’t want traffic lights!”
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.
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”.
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.
I thank you in advance for your kind consideration of same.
Kind Regards,
Sent via email – no signature required

_____________________
Thomas O’Mahoney
Chairperson,
Ardfinnan Community Council
Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report
Date: February 9th 2018
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
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.
1.1 Purpose of Report

Tipperary County Council engaged with PUNCH Consulting Engineers to undertake a detailed
structural inspection of Ardfinnan Bridge to identify all necessary remedial works required, design
development of the required remedial works and the preparation of tender and contract
documents, etc. for the required remedial works.
Figure 1.1: Site Location
Page 82 of 155
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.
1.2 Project Objectives

A series of project objectives have been developed with reference to the Department of Transport,
Tourism and Sport ‘Common Appraisal Framework for Transport Projects and Programs’. (March
2016).
The project objectives are as follows:
1. To improve road safety for all modes of transport.
2. To ensure value for money (VFM is achieved when the ratio of benefit to cost is optimal for any
given activity).
3. To improve accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists.
4. Functioning route for vehicular movement including public transport.
5. To reduce the negative impact of transport on the public realm.
Section 4 of this report assesses each of the proposed options against the project objectives to
determine the preferred options.
1.3 Design Standards

Each of the options has been designed, where appropriate, in accordance with each of the following:
· Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS),
· Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) Publications.
Page 83 of 155
2. Existing Conditions
2.1 Bridge History

Ardfinnan Bridge is registered as a National Momument, Reg. No. 22126003. The bridge is described
as: Thirteen-arch road bridge over River Suir, rebuilt c.1800, showing evidence of widening to east
elevation, but likely to incorporate medieval and/or seventeenth-century fabric. Irregular arches,
varying between round and segmental and of varying heights, with cut-stone V-cut-waters to west
elevation. Three dry round overflow arches to south end, and segmental arch over millstream to east
side of north end. Rubble limestone walls with cut limestone voussoirs, rendered soffits, rubble
limestone parapet walls with flat capstones, render coping to south end of west parapet, and
rectangular drainage holes with lintels to carriageway. Large pipe carried across east elevation.
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
Figure 2.1: Business Directly Impacted by Alterations to the Road Network
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.
Figure 2.2: Flooding on the R665 Main Street Ardfinnan
Page 85 of 155
Figure 2.3: Flooding on the R665 Main Street Ardfinnan
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
Figure 2.4: Temporary Traffic Management System Ardfinnan Bridge
Figure 2.5: Temporary Traffic Management System Ardfinnan Bridge
Page 87 of 155
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
Figure 2.7: Location of Ardfinnan National School
Figure 2.8: Congestion at Ardfinnan Nation School
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
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.
Figure 2.9: Non-Compliance Vehicle Jumping Traffic Signals
Figure 2.10: Vehicles Queuing on North Side of Ardfinnan Bridge
10
Page 90 of 155
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.
2.4 Traffic Survey Information

An Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) was carried out from Wednesday 17th to Friday 19th of January
2018 on the south side of Ardfinnan Bridge (ATC1). A second ATC was carried out from Monday 22 nd
to Wednesday 24th of January 2018 on the north side of Ardfinnan Bridge (ATC2). The equipment
used to carry out the ATC’s was Metro Count - MC5600 - VT5900 Vehicle Counter System. The survey
dates are considered to representative of traffic conditions in the area with no evidence to suggest
that the dates are not reflective of normal traffic conditions. Drawing ARD_PRE_SHT_0007
highlights locations of ATC1 and ATC2, the survey results highlighted in Appendix B. The speed limit
is 50kph where the ATC’s were carried out.
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
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
Eastbound To Clonmel Westbound To Cork

Speed KPH No. in Range Percentage No. in Range Percentage
05-20 12 0.28% 9 0.21%
20-30 79 1.86% 40 0.94%
30-40 345 8.14% 193 4.55%
40-50 1534 36.20% 899 21.21%
50-60 1704 40.21% 1739 41.03%
60-70 535 12.62% 1018 24.02%
70-80 73 1.72% 285 6.72%
80-90 7 0.17% 42 0.99%
90-100 1 0.02% 12 0.28%
100-110 0 0.00% 1 0.02%
Total 4290 100.00% 4238 100.00%
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
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
2.6 Bus Network

Bus Éireann bus route 245, stops in Ardfinnan five times daily. The bus service provides accessibility
to Cork, Fermoy, Mitchelstown and Clonmel for people living in a rural environment that don’t have
access to private transport. Bus Éireann confirmed there are no planned changes to the route;
however, some level of change is possible in the future to frequency and routes.
13
Page 93 of 155
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.
3.1 Option 1 - Do Nothing

This option has been highlighted to determine the consequences of what is likely to occur in the
absence of any intervention.
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
3.2 Option 2 - Traffic Signal Junction with Associated Improvements

A traffic signal junction forms the basis of the basis of the application submitted to An Bord Pleanála
by Tipperary County Council.
Figure 3.1: Plan Overview Option 2

Overview
· 1.46m pedestrian footway provided on bridge.

· Flexible bollards @5m c/c between vehicular traffic and pedestrians.
· 4.41m single carriageway provided on bridge with a 3 arm signalised junction to control traffic
movement.
· Controlled pedestrian crossing on the north side of the bridge.
· No provision for pedestrians from the bridge to the existing footway on the south side of the
bridge.
15
Page 95 of 155
Figure 3.2: Option 2 Bridge Cross Section
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
Table 3.1: Extract from DMURS in Relation to SSD Standards

Forward visibility is based on the design speed of the road. Design speed is the maximum speed at
which it is envisaged/intended that the majority of vehicles will travel under normal conditions. As
the speed limit of the R665 is 50kph a minimum forward visibility of 45m is required; this cannot be
achieved when travelling southbound on the R665 on approach to the traffic signal junction.
Drawing no: ARD_PRE_SHT_0006 highlights the forward visibility and the barriers to achieving
forward visibility.
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
Other considerations for the Traffic Signal Design
· 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
· 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.
Refer to Appendix B for drawings.
19
Page 99 of 155
3.3 Option 3 - Independent Bridge Structure with Associated Improvements

An independent bridge structure has been identified as an option to deliver improvements to the
road network for all modes of transport within the community.
Overview
· 3m independent bridge structure for pedestrians and cyclists.

· 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 width is to be reduced to 6m.
20
Page 100 of 155

Figure 3.5: Bridge Cross Section Option 3
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
Page 101 of 155

3.4 Option 4 - Cantilevered Bridge Structure with Associated Improvements

A cantilevered bridge structure has been identified as an option to deliver improvements to the road
network for all modes of transport within the community.
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
Page 102 of 155

Figure 3.7: Bridge Cross Section Option 4

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.
23
Page 103 of 155

3.5 Option Costs

Table 3.2 highlights the proposed option costs.
Estimated Option Costs
Option 1 Bridge Repair Costs
Option 2 €662,000 (Including Bridge Repair Costs)
Option 3 €1,453,000 (Including Bridge Repair Costs)
Option 4 €1,123,000 (Including Bridge Repair Costs)
Table 3.2: Estimated Option Costs
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
Page 104 of 155

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.
4.2 Option Assessments

A series of project objectives have been developed with reference to the Department of Transport,
Tourism and Sport ‘Common Appraisal Framework for Transport Projects and Programmes’ (March
2016). Key performance indicators have been developed to assess how each of the options performs
in relation to meeting the project objectives. An assessment framework is set out below which
summarises the assessment.
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
Page 105 of 155

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.
Appraisal Criteria Scoring

Highly Positive
Moderately Positive
Slightly Positive
Neutral
Slightly Negative
Moderately Negative
Highly Negative
Table 4.2: Appraisal Criteria Scoring Chart
4.3 Assessment of Options

The following tables provide details in relation to how each of the options are considered to preform
against the project objections.
26
Page 106 of 155

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.
Economy To ensure value for money No associated construction costs.

(VFM is achieved when the
ratio of benefit to cost is
optimal for any given
activity).
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
Page 107 of 155

Option 2 - Traffic Signal Junction with Associated Improvements

Criteria
Score
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.
No provision will be included for cyclists. Cyclists have to mix

with vehicular traffic.
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.
Due to the lack of a traffic model it is impossible to state the

extent of the queues.
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.
Traffic signals will be out of context in a rural village and will

have a negative impact on the overall village environment.
28
Page 108 of 155

Option 3 - Independent Bridge Structure with Associated Improvements

Criteria
Score
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.
Reducing the carriageway width on the north side of

Ardfinnan Bridge will have a traffic calming effect therefore
reducing speeds on approach to the village.
Economy To ensure value for money The proposed solution is the most expensive solution but
(VFM is achieved when the represents value for money as provision will be incorporate
ratio of benefit to cost is to achieve the project objectives. Improvements for
optimal for any given pedestrians, cyclists, vehicular traffic and safety will be
activity). achieved.
Construction costs include independent bridge structure,

new signage, road markings and new footway.
Accessibility & To improve accessibility for A 3m shared use independent structure will provide safe
Social Inclusion pedestrians and cyclists. access for pedestrians and cyclists. The footway network
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
Page 109 of 155

Option 4 - Cantilevered Bridge Structure with Associated Improvements

Criteria
Score
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
Reducing the carriageway width on the north side of

Ardfinnan Bridge will have a traffic calming effect therefore
reducing speeds on approach to the village.
Economy To ensure value for money The proposed solution is the most expensive solution but
(VFM is achieved when the represents value for money as provision will be incorporate
ratio of benefit to cost is to achieve the project objectives. Improvements for
optimal for any given pedestrians, cyclists, vehicular traffic and safety will be
activity). achieved.
Construction costs include independent bridge structure,

new signage, road markings and new footway.
Accessibility & To improve accessibility for A 3m shared use cantilevered bridge structure is provided
Social Inclusion pedestrians and cyclists. for pedestrians and cyclists. The footway network and
connectivity is improved on both the north and south side of
the bridge.
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
Page 110 of 155

Appraisal Scoring Matrix

Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Independent Cantilevered
Option 1
Criteria Project Objective Traffic Signal Bridge Bridge
Do Nothing
Junction with Structure Structure
Associated
Improvements
Safety To improve road safety for all modes of

transport.
To ensure value for money (VFM is

Economy achieved when the ratio of benefit to
cost is optimal for any given activity).
To improve accessibility for pedestrians

and cyclists.
Accessibility & Social

Inclusion
Functioning route for vehicular

movement including public transport.
Environment To reduce the negative impact of

transport on the public realm.
Position 4th 3rd 1st 2nd
31
Page 111 of 155

5. Conclusions and Recommendations
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 is recommended for the following reasons:
· 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
Page 112 of 155

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
Page 113 of 155

Appendix A - Examples of Pedestrian Access on Bridges in Ireland
Page 114 of 155

Ardfinnan Transport Proposals - Assessment Report_ January 2018
Thurles, Co. Tipperary - Reg. No. 22312052

Description: Seven-arch limestone road bridge over River Suir, built c. 1650, widened and
reconstructed c. 1820. Dressed limestone triangular cutwaters and round arches having dressed
voussoirs and dropped keystones to north elevation, and pointed segmental-arches with roughly
dressed voussoirs to south elevation. Concrete road surface with steel railings.
Figure A1: Barry’s Bridge Thurles, Co. Tipperary
Barry’s Bridge, Thurles, is registered as a National Monument. Permission was granted to alter the
bridge to provide pedestrian provision.
Page 115 of 155

Macroom Bridge, Co. Cork - Reg. No. 20852015

Description: Nine-arch road bridge, built c.1800, spanning the Sullane River. Round-headed arches
with dressed limestone voussoirs, having pair of camber-headed arches to western spans with tooled
limestone voussoirs and keystones. Dressed rubble stone soffits throughout, springing from rubble
stone piers with V-cutwaters to both elevations. Rubble stone spandrels and parapets with rubble
stone to blocked westernmost span and solider stone capping to parapets. Recent corbelled conical
bartizans with wrought-iron railings to south elevation of parapets with dressed over-sailing rubble
stone corbels. Weir to downstream elevation.
Figure A2: Macroom Bridge, Co. Cork
Macroom Bridge is registered as a National Monument. Permission was granted to alter the bridge to
provide pedestrian provision.
Page 116 of 155

Carrick on Shannon, Co. Leitrim - Reg. No. 30813001

Description: Five-arch limestone road bridge, built in 1846 by contractor R.A. Gray on behalf of the
Commissioners for the Improvement of the Navigation of the River Shannon. Pedestrian underpass
to quayside. Upstream and downstream U-cutwaters. Coursed cut limestone walls with ashlar
parapet, ashlar voussoirs to segmental arch-rings and tapered ashlar gate piers to Bridge Street end.
Carved plaque to parapet detailing history of bridge with bench mark below reads: Central plaque to
the bridge 'This bridge was erected by the Commisioners for the improvement of the navigation of
the River Shannon. 1846. John William Earl Of Besborough Lord Lieutenant. R. A. Gray Contractor'.
Stone mooring posts to northern quay. Cast-iron lamp standards added to parapet walls, erected
c.1990. Bridge links counties Leitrim and Roscommon.
Figure A3: Carrick on Shannon, Co. Leitrim
Carrick on Shannon Bridge is registered as a National Monument. Permission was granted to alter the
bridge to provide pedestrian provision.
Page 117 of 155

Anna Livia Bridge, Co. Dublin - Reg. No. 50080356

Description: Four-arch masonry bridge, dated 1753, carrying Chapelizod Road over River Liffey,
having V-cutwaters to both north and south elevations. Segmental arches with cut limestone
voussoirs, rubble limestone walls to spandrels. Rubble limestone parapet wall with tooled
chamfered limestone coping. Rendered soffits to arches. Recent steel boardwalk to north and south
elevations, constructed 2011.
Figure A4: Anna Livia Bridge, Co. Dublin

Anna Livia Bridge, Co Dublin is registered as a National Monument. Permission was granted to alter
the bridge to provide pedestrian provision.
Page 118 of 155

Appendix B - Drawings

Page 119 of 155

Option 2

Page 120 of 155

FA
CONTINUOUS WHITE LINE (230mm THICK) AND

FLEXIBLE POSTS AT 5m CENTRES
REFER TO SKETCH NO. 162272-SK008 FOR

ROADMARKINGS & TRAFFIC SIGNS LAYOUT
WESTERN EASTERN
SIDE SIDE
440 4410 230 1460 340 440
LINEMARKING TO DEMARCATE PEDESTRIAN

BRIDGE CROSS SECTION ZONE
SCALE 1:20
LEGEND:
EXISTING RIVER
EXISTING BRICK PAVING FOOTPATH

REFER TO SKETCH NO. 162272-SK008 FOR
ROADMARKINGS & TRAFFIC SIGNS LAYOUT EXISTING CONCRETE FOOTPATH
PROPOSED THREE-ASPECT PRIMARY TRAFFIC LIGHT AS PER RTS 001 OF TSM
PROPOSED SECONDARY TRAFFIC LIGHT AS PER RTS 003 OF TSM
PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN HEAD
A
PROPOSED FOUR-ASPECT SECONDARY TRAFFIC LIGHT AS PER RTS 003
FA
OF TSM WITH FLASHING AMBER LIGHTS
SELF-RIGHTNING BOLLARD SIGN
PROPOSED LOOP DETECTOR
PROPOSED TRAFFIC LIGHTS CONTROL BOX
A B PROPOSED MDV DETECTOR LOCATIONS
PLAN VIEW
SCALE 1:500
Page 121 of 155

ARDFINNAN BRIDGE , ARDFINNAN, CO. TIPPERARY
Rev Amendment By Date Client: Job: Stage: PLANNING
c Punch Consulting Engineers Date Drawn: SEPTEMBER 2017
PL0 ISSUED FOR PLANNING DP 2017-11-03 Scale @ A1: AS SHOWN
This drawing and any design hereon is the copyright of the Consultants Drawn By: IBS
Title: PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN AND TRAFFIC ARRANGEMENT Technician Check: IBS
and must not be reproduced without their written consent. Engineer Check: PC
All drawings remain the property of the Consultants.
COLOUR
Date Issued: 2017-11-03 Dublin Limerick Cork Galway Glasgow Approved: PC
Figured dimension only to be taken from this drawing.
Drawing No: Rev:
consulting engineers
DRAWING Carnegie House, Library Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin, A96 C7W7
Consultants to be informed immediately of any discrepancies before
work proceeds.
Issued By: DP
IRL: +353 1 271 2200 www.punchconsulting.com 162272-014 PL0
LEGEND:
EXISTING RIVER
EXISTING CONCRETE FOOTPATH
FLASHING AMBER SIGNALS PROPOSED FOUR-ASPECT SECONDARY TRAFFIC LIGHT AS PER RTS 003
FA
FA
APPROACH LANE CENTRELINE A B PROPOSED MDV DETECTOR LOCATIONS
VISIBILITY DISTANCE
TO PRIMARY SIGNAL = 65m > 50m
ACCORDANCE WITH TMS
CHAPTER 9
65m
RRM 001 TABLE 1.

VISIBILITY DISTANCE TO PRIMARY SIGNAL
(PAGE 9/23, CHAPTER 9, TSM MANUAL)
RRM 017
SECONDARY TRAFFIC LIGHT
PRIMARY TRAFFIC
LIGHT
RRM 020
SECONDARY TRAFFIC LIGHT
RPC 002 RRM 017
RUS002
PLAN VIEW
SCALE 1:500
Page 122 of 155

Title: PROPOSED ROADMARKINGS & TRAFFIC SIGNS LAYOUT (SH. 2/2) Technician Check: IBS
COLOUR
Drawing No: Rev:
work proceeds.
Issued By: DP
LEGEND:
EXISTING RIVER
EXISTING CONCRETE FOOTPATH
PROPOSED FOUR-ASPECT SECONDARY TRAFFIC LIGHT AS PER RTS 003

FA
A B PROPOSED MDV DETECTOR LOCATIONS
PRIMARY TRAFFIC
LIGHT
RAISED KERB ISLAND

RUS002
TRAFFIC LIGHT
CONTROL BOX
SECONDARY
TRAFFIC LIGHT
RRM 017
LOOP DETECTOR
RUS001
RRM 001
SECONDARY
TRAFFIC LIGHT
A REOCATED POLE &

AERIAL LINES
RRM004
LOOP DETECTOR
REALIGNMENTS OF ROAD & BARRIER

RRM 018 EXTENTS & RELOCATION OF EXISTING
POLE
RRM 005
LOCAL REALIGNMENT HATCHED DIAGONAL LINE MARKING
OF KERB & NEW RRM 018 LOOP DETECTOR WITH DOUBLE SIDED 'KEEP LEFT'
YIELD SIGN (RUS 026) RUS001 SELF-RIGTING BOLLARD
RRM 006
RRM 020
BOTTLE BANKS LOCATON.

TO BE RELOCATED
BY TIPPERARY COUNTY COUNCIL
PLAN VIEW
SCALE 1:500
Page 123 of 155

Title: PROPOSED ROADMARKINGS & TRAFFIC SIGNS LAYOUT (SH.1/2) Technician Check: IBS
COLOUR
Drawing No: Rev:
work proceeds.
Issued By: DP
152x51 PRECAST PRESSED ALL FOUR EDGES OF SLAB ROUNDED TO 12MM 100mm THICK GRADE C40/50 CONCRETE FOOTPATH LAID TO FALLS ON A
CONCRETE BULLNOSED RADIUS. FORM SMOOTH BORDER 75MM WIDE TO DOUBLE LAPPED LAYER OF 1000 GAUGE POLYTHENE SHEET ON 150mm
EDGING KERB. ALL FOUR EDGES OF SLAB. LAYER OF CLAUSE 808 MATERIAL COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CLAUSE 802. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE NEATLY FORMED IN STRAIGHT
STIFF WIRE BRUSH FINISH TO CONCRETE SURFACE.
LINES AT 3000mm CENTRES. SURFACE FINISH TO CONCRETE TO BE STIFF NEW CONSTRUCTION OVERLAY
EXISTING PAVEMENT
WIRE BRUSH FINISH INCORPORATING 75mm SMOOTH BULLNOSED
TROWELLING EDGE STRIP TO ALL EDGES OF FOOTPATH. SURFACE
A
0.5m(Min.) 1.0m (Min.) 1.0m (Min.)
REGULATING COURSE IF REQUIRED

(DEPTH VARIES)
340
88
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
CENTRE TO CENTRE OF JOINTS 2 x WIDTH.

(3000mm MAXIMUM).
PRECAST CONCRETE KERB.
GROUND LEVEL GROUND LEVEL
FOUNDATION CAGE FOUNDATION CAGE
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
SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW
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
REINFORCED WITH A393 MESH TOP & BOTTOM
2. ALL CONCRETE EDGES AND JOINTS SHALL HAVE BULLNOSED

TROWEL FINISH
LENGTH (L) 600
WIDTH (W) 350
SECTION B-B (JOINT DETAIL)
SCALE 1:20 TYPICAL SINGLE POST SIGN
PLAN-FOOTPATH DETAILS Scale 1:25
SCALE: 1:20
CLOSE GRADED ASPHALT CONCRETE WEARING BITUMINOUS SPRAY TO CLAUSE 920

COURSE (10mm NOMINAL SIZE) TO CLAUSE 912 OF THE NRA SPECIFICATION FOR
OF THE NRA SPECIFICATION FOR ROADWORKS, ROADWORKS
COMPACTED THICKNESS 40mm.
EXISTING BITUMEN
JOINT SEALED ROAD SURFACE
100mm 100mm
MIN. MIN.
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
10mm SINGLE SIZED ROUNDED

50
PEA GRAVEL
LIGHTLY COMPACTED & LAID WATERMAIN/
NO ADDITIONAL MONIES SHALL BE PAID UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FOR
UNIFORMLY ALONG TRENCH BED. SURFACE WATER/
225
OVER EXCAVATION OF TRENCH WIDTHS OR FOR ADDITIONAL VOLUMES

150
(SEE ALSO SPECIFICATION) FOUL SEWER

150
ADDITIONAL CONCRETE OF CLAUSE 804 OR FOR ADDITIONAL WIDTHS OF REINSTATEMENT; THESE
*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.
SCALE 1:20 SCALE 1:20 4. PROTECTION OF FORMATIONS FROM INGRESS OF WATER.

5. OVER EXCAVATION DUE TO EXCAVATION OF ROCK FROM TRENCH.
TRENCH REINSTATEMENT ON TRENCH REINSTATEMENT ON ROAD
N.T.S.
FOOTHPATH
N.T.S.

Page 124 of 155
Title: TYPICAL CIVIL STANDARD DETAILS Technician Check: IBS
COLOUR
Drawing No: Rev:
work proceeds.
Issued By: DP
Options 3 and 4
Page 125 of 155

ISO A1 594mm x 841mm
PROJECT
2017
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
0 31/01/2018 ISSUED FOR INFORMATION

I/R DATE DESCRIPTION
BRETTS
ARDFINNAN HALL
ARDFINNAN SCHOOL
LETIAS PUB
THE LOCAL BAR

ARDFINNAN CHURCH
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
PROJECT
2017
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
NOTES
DRAWINGS PRODUCED USING OS MAPPING.

TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY REQUIRED FOR DETAILED
DESIGN.
DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DESIGN MANUAL

FOR URBAN ROAD AND STREETS.
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS STATED

OTHERWISE. ALL LEVELS ARE IN METRES AND RELATE
TO ORDNANCE DATUM.
DESIGN DIMENSIONS VERIFIED ON SITE TO ENSURE

PROPOSED DESIGN IS ACHIEVABLE.
ISSUE/REVISION

SHEET TITLE
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT
0 5.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0

Page 127 of 155
50.0m
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT
2017
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
NOTES

DESIGN.


TO ORDNANCE DATUM.

ISSUE/REVISION

SHEET TITLE
CIVILS WORKS 01
0 2.5 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Page 128 of 155
25.0m
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT
2017
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
Large Articulated Vehicle 15.400m

Overall Length 15.400m
Overall Width 2.500m
Overall Body Height 3.652m
Min Body Ground Clearance 0.406m
Max Track Width 2.377m
Lock to Lock Time 6.00s
Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 6.610m
ISSUE/REVISION

SHEET TITLE
SWEPT PATH ANALYSIS 01
0 2.5 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Page 129 of 155
25.0m
SHEET NUMBER
SCALE 1:250 @ A1; 1:500 @ A3 ARD_PRE_SHT_0002A
PROJECT
2017
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
NOTES

DESIGN.


TO ORDNANCE DATUM.

ISSUE/REVISION

SHEET TITLE
CIVILS WORKS 02
0 2.5 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Page 130 of 155
25.0m
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT
2017
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
0 2.5 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Page 131 of 155
25.0m
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT
2017
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
NOTES

DESIGN.


TO ORDNANCE DATUM.

ISSUE/REVISION

SHEET TITLE
CIVILS WORKS 03
0 2.5 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Page 132 of 155
25.0m
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT
2017
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
0 2.5 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Page 133 of 155
25.0m
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT
2017
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
NOTES
DESIGN MANUAL FOR URBAN ROADS AND STREETS

REQUIRES A STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE OF 45m AND
A MINIMUM FORWARD VISIBILITY OF 45m.
A FORWARD VISIBILITY OF GREATER THAN 45m CAN

BE ACHIEVED ON APPROACH TO THE JUNCTION .
A FORWARD VISIBILITY OF 230m CAN BE ACHIEVED ON

APPROACH TO THE NEW PROPOSED TRAFFIC
SIGNALS.
VIEWPORT A - VISIBILITY SPLAY
ISSUE/REVISION

VIEWPORT B - BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING VISIBILITY

SHEET TITLE
FORWARD VISIBILITY
0 2.5 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Page 134 of 155
25.0m
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT
2017
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
NOTES
DESIGN MANUAL FOR URBAN ROADS AND STREETS

REQUIRES A STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE OF 45m AND
A MINIMUM FORWARD VISIBILITY OF 45m.
A FORWARD VISIBILITY OF 45m CAN NOT BE

ACHIEVED ON APPROACH TO THE JUNCTION AS A
RESULT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES.
ISSUE/REVISION

VIEWPORT A - VISIBILITY SPLAY VIEWPORT B - BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING VISIBILITY

SHEET TITLE
FORWARD VISIBILITY
0 2.5 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0

Page 135 of 155
25.0m
SHEET NUMBER
PROJECT
2017
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

BRETTS I/R DATE DESCRIPTION
ARDFINNAN HALL
ARDFINNAN SCHOOL
LETIAS PUB
THE LOCAL BAR

ARDFINNAN CHURCH
SHEET TITLE
TRAFFIC SURVEY INFORMATION
0 10 20 40 60 80
Page 136 of 155
100m
SHEET NUMBER
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
MORTAR NOT LESS THAN

75 125 or 40 MORTAR NOT LESS THAN
75
VARIES 40 40 25 THAN 40mm THICK
ARDFINNAN
as shown 10mm AND NOT MORE
10mm AND NOT MORE
THAN 40mm THICK THAN 40mm THICK
180
75
25 COMMUNITY COUNCIL
180 FOOTWAY
75 100 CONSTRUCTION
EXISTING SURFACE COURSE, EXISTING SURFACE
EXISTING SURFACE COURSE,
BINDER COURSE & BASE COURSE, BINDER
BINDER COURSE & BASE 100
COURSE & BASE
150 150 150 FOUNDATION AND
HAUNCH TO BE MIX
FOUNDATION AND FOUNDATION AND FOUNDATION AND SUB-BASE 50 ST4 CONCRETE
SUB-BASE SUB-BASE
HAUNCH TO BE MIX HAUNCH TO BE MIX HAUNCH TO BE MIX
ST4 CONCRETE ST4 CONCRETE
75
ST4 CONCRETE
FORMATION LEVEL FORMATION LEVEL 75
FORMATION LEVEL
175 125 50 175 125 50 175 125 50
PRECAST CONCRETE EDGING

PRECAST CONCRETE ROAD KERB PRECAST CONCRETE TRANSITION KERB PRECAST CONCRETE ROAD KERB 50 x 150mm FLAT TOP
125 x 255mm HALF BATTER PATTERN 125 x 255mm HALF BATTER PATTERN 125 x 150mm BULLNOSE PATTERN
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
BINDER COURSE I/R DATE DESCRIPTION
450 MIN.
BASE
EXISTING
FOOTWAY
MAKEUP
SUB-BASE
FORMATION LEVEL
150 150 150
FOOTWAY MAKEUP DETAILS REINSTATEMENT OF CARRIAGEWAY REINSTATEMENT OF FOOTWAY
SHEET TITLE
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
Page 137 of 155

SHEET NUMBER
ARD_PRE_SHT_0008
PROJECT
2017
ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN
CLIENT
0002 - APPROACH TO TRAFFIC SIGNAL JUNCTION

ARDFINNAN
COMMUNITY COUNCIL
670
T OR
OAD
AL R
LOC
65
R6
GARDA STATION
0001 - POOR VISIVILITY
0003 - TRAFFIC SIGNALS NORTH SIDE
PETROL STATION
RIVER SUIR
MAC CLEANERS
HALLY'S BUILDERS
MUNSTER PAPER SACKS
0006 - TRAFFIC SIGNALS SOUTH SIDE
0004 - PEDESTRIAN PROVISION

ARDFINNAN BRIDGE
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
LETIAS PUB 0007 - ARDFINNAN NATIONAL SCHOOL
THE LOCAL BAR

ARDFINNAN CHURCH
SHEET TITLE
EXISTING TEMPORARY TRAFFIC
Page 138 of 155

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
0 10 20 40 60 80 100m
SHEET NUMBER
Appendix C - Traffic Survey Results ATC 1
Page 139 of 155

Survey Name: Ardfinnan ATC 1

Site: ATC South Side_Ardfinnan Bridge
Date: 17/01/2018-19/01/2018
Direction: Eastbound
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
Page 140 of 155

18 January 2018
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
Page 141 of 155

19 January 2018
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
Page 142 of 155


Site: ATC South Side_Ardfinnan Bridge
Date: 17/01/2018-19/01/2018
Direction: Westbound
17 January 2018
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
Page 143 of 155

18 January 2018
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
Page 144 of 155

19 January 2018
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
Page 145 of 155

Appendix D - Traffic Survey Results ATC 2
Page 146 of 155


Site: ATC North Side_Ardfinnan Bridge
Date: 22/01/2018-24/01/2018
Direction: Eastbound
22 January 2018
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
Page 147 of 155

23 January 2018
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
Page 148 of 155

24 January 2018
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
Page 149 of 155


Site: ATC North Side_Ardfinnan Bridge
Date: 22/01/2018-24/01/2018
Direction: Westbound
22 January 2018
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
Page 150 of 155

23 January 2018
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
Page 151 of 155

24 January 2018
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
Page 152 of 155

comhairle contae Thiobraid Arann Comhairlepontae ComhairleIContae t 0761 06 5000
Tipperary County COUnCil Thiobraid Arann, Thiobraid Arann. lcusmmerservme
Olfigi Cathartha, Diflgl Cathartha, @tipperarycocu_ie
Cluain Meala, An (Aunach,
Co. Thiobraid Arann Co.Thlobraid Arann tipperarycocoJe
Tipperary County Councit, Tipperary County Council,
Civic Offices. ClonmeL, Civic Offices, Nenagh,
Co‘ Tipperary Co. Tipperary
Dominic Mullanney,
Roads Division,
Department of Transport, Tourism & Sport,
Head Office,
44 Kildare Street,
Dublin 2
15th November 2016
Re: Bridge Rehabilitation Scheme 2017
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
Page 153 of 155

N N
TIE INTO EXISTING
BRIDGE STRUCTURE
A A
A A
TIE INTO EXISTING

EMBANKMENT
LOCATION PLAN LOCATION PLAN

SCALE: NTS SCALE: NTS
GAP TO BE DETERMINED UPON RECEIPT OF

TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY
PROJECT
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
RESIDUAL HAZARDS IDENTIFIED TYPICAL CROSS SECTION A-A

SCALE: NTS
ITEM DESCRIPTION Page 154 of 155
1 TBC
ARCHITECTS IMPRESSION WITHOUT CANTILEVERED FOOTWAY STRUCTURE
PROJECT
ARCHITECTS IMPRESSION WITH CANTILEVERED FOOTWAY STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVE DESIGN -

ARCHITECTS IMPRESSION
CLIENT
NOTES
1. _
DRAWING NUMBER
SKE-0002
Page 155 of 155

CROSS SECTION THROUGH CANTILEVERED FOOTWAY STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION THROUGH CANTILEVERED FOOTWAY STRUCTURE

Observation by Ardfinnan Community Council AGAINST Tipperary County Council - Dot

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Observation by Ardfinnan Community Council AGAINST Tipperary County Council - Dot

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ardfinnan Community Council

Charity Number 20079260

OBSERVATION BY ARDFINNAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL

AGAINST TIPPERARY COUNTY COUNCIL PROPOSED WORKS TO

Example of Charity Fundraisers by

4An overview of 2016 Tractor Run for

Bridge at Tractor-Run time. Again, highlighting the

A number of extraordinary members of

Sent via email – no signature required

“The construction of a cantilever bridge or independent walkway on Ardfinnan

Fig 2.1.3. Fig 2.1.4.

The Rumors Began

1. Funding to fix Ardfinnan Bridge,

Ardfinnan Community Council elects sub-committee to seek answers

Naturally, members of Ardfinnan Community Council and Local Councillors sought

NB - No application would be made to the Department for Funding under

Tipperary County Council never consulted with members of Ardfinnan

Tipperary County Council applied to the Department for funding to repair

On the 6th December 2016 Tipperary County Council promised public

1. Ardfinnan Community Council convened a Public Meeting to inform the community

Fig 2.1.5. – Ardfinnan members in attendance

Fig 2.1.6. – A unanimous vote from all

3. Following a public meeting, the members of Ardfinnan Community decided to stage a

2.2. Previous Flooding

Ardfinnan Community Council (Charity No. 20079260)

It is imperative that any officer of An Bord Pleanála understand that Ardfinnan

The below are pictures of the 2015 Flood and others:

Fig 2.2.1. You will note a picture of Main

Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary  9th February 2018

Fig 2.2.3. Please note the position of the Traffic

Fig 2.2.4(a)&(b) provide an overview of the

Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary  9th February 2018

Position of Traffic Lights AND Traffic Light Control Box

Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary  9th February 2018

Assumptions – What do we assume will happen in the years ahead?

A view of 2014 Flooding

Fig 2.2.6. Bridge view of the 2014 Flood

Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary  9th February 2018

Fig 2.2.8. A front view of the barriers erected

A view of 2012 Flooding

Fig 2.2.9. A clear view of previous

Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary  9th February 2018

Fig 2.2.10. Again, another example of

Downtime and Junction Intervisibility

Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary  9th February 2018

Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary  9th February 2018

2.3. Business Closures

Ardfinnan Community Council (Charity No. 20079260)

Business/ Service Closure Employment Fig

O’Brien’s Service Station 2008 2-3 Fig 2.3.1.

Power Pharmacy 2015 3-4 Fig 2.3.2.

Hackett’s Fuels and Foodstore 2013 4-6 Fig 2.3.3.

The Riverside Restaurant 2015 4-5 Fig 2.3.4.

Blackwells Service Station 2011 6-8 Fig 2.3.5.

The Hill Bar 2011 4-5 Fig 2.3.6.

Moy Insulation 2009 40-50 Fig 2.3.7.

Munster Paper Sacks 2011 15-22 Fig 2.3.8.

Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary  9th February 2018

Fig 2.3.3 Fig 2.3.4.

Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary  9th February 2018

Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary  9th February 2018

Why is the above relevant?

Main Street, Ardfinnan, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary  9th February 2018