N3 Navan to Kells being down graded?

bladespin · 08-06-2010 4:57pm #1

Just noticed all the speed signs on the old N3 (not the super dooper M3) have been changed to 80kmh, does this mean the road has been downgraded?

I've tried to follow news on the new road etc fairly closely but can't remember ever reading anything that suggested the speed limits on the old road were being changed.

triple-M · 08-06-2010 5:03pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R147_road

yes,since the new motorway opened the old N3 has been downgraded to a regional road and therefore the speed limit has been reduced

08-06-2010 5:19pm

That's ridiculous, has the road suddenly become less safe because there's less traffic on it? Just because it's reclassified doesn't mean the speed limit has to be downgraded

gipi · 08-06-2010 8:28pm

This seems to have happened wherever a motorway opened - what used to be the main "N" road became an "R" road and the speed limits were reduced accordingly. Examples that spring to mind include the old N1 to Drogheda (now the R132) and the old N4 through Kilcock (not sure which R it became).

Hammer Archer · 08-06-2010 9:03pm

Happens with all these type of roads. Same with the old N2 from Ashbourne to Finglas. And thats 60km/h in places. I'd expect the old N3 to be the same.

AnCatDubh · 08-06-2010 9:14pm

Don't you mean raised the speed to 80kph

Assuming this to be correct, it will have the following impact;

Navan->Blanchardstown a distance of 40km
If travelling at 100kph it will take you 24mins
Now travelling at 80kph it will take you 30mins
Increase of 6 mins

Kells->Blanchardstown a distance of 55km
If travelling at 100kph it will take 33mins
If travelling at 80kph it will take you 41mins
Increase of 8mins

All in theory but think of commuter hell which was the N3 up to now, and lets assume a 60kph speed (average) not sure that this is reasonable with delays etc..., however the following would then apply;

Navan->Blanchardstown a distance of 40km
Previously - assuming actual speed of 60kph it will have taken you 40mins
Now travelling at 80kph it will take you 30mins
Improvement of 10mins on previous times (allowing for assumption above)

Kells->Blanchardstown a distance of 55km
Previously - assuming actual speed of 60kph it will have taken you 55mins
Now travelling at 80kph it will take you 41mins
Improvement of 14mins on previous times (allowing for assumption above)

Maybe too many other variables to be in any way real though. I guess that some may suggest the 60kph is a low estimate which is fair comment but i'd expect that it certainly wouldn't of broken the 80kph speed when averaged - this only directed towards commuter traffic obviously.

bladespin · 09-06-2010 10:20am

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Don't you mean raised the speed to 80kph

Assuming this to be correct, it will have the following impact;

Navan->Blanchardstown a distance of 40km
If travelling at 100kph it will take you 24mins
Now travelling at 80kph it will take you 30mins
Increase of 6 mins

Kells->Blanchardstown a distance of 55km
If travelling at 100kph it will take 33mins
If travelling at 80kph it will take you 41mins
Increase of 8mins

All in theory but think of commuter hell which was the N3 up to now, and lets assume a 60kph speed (average) not sure that this is reasonable with delays etc..., however the following would then apply;

Navan->Blanchardstown a distance of 40km
Previously - assuming actual speed of 60kph it will have taken you 40mins
Now travelling at 80kph it will take you 30mins
Improvement of 10mins on previous times (allowing for assumption above)

Kells->Blanchardstown a distance of 55km
Previously - assuming actual speed of 60kph it will have taken you 55mins
Now travelling at 80kph it will take you 41mins
Improvement of 14mins on previous times (allowing for assumption above)

Maybe too many other variables to be in any way real though. I guess that some may suggest the 60kph is a low estimate which is fair comment but i'd expect that it certainly wouldn't of broken the 80kph speed when averaged - this only directed towards commuter traffic obviously.

Ah but what about those travelling in the other direction eg Navan to Kells? Traffic was never an issue and you could average a lot better than 60kmh before? The road hasn't deteoriated so why has the limit?

It's not just a commuter road, there are locals to think about too.

Dubh Geannain · 09-06-2010 11:37am

I'd say the local would take the reduced speed limits to have a quieter road.

Apart from the Strawberry sellers, who aren't really local anyway.

bladespin · 09-06-2010 1:34pm

Dubh Geannain wrote: »

I'd say the local would take the reduced speed limits to have a quieter road.

Apart from the Strawberry sellers, who aren't really local anyway.

I'm local and I don't like the idea, was a route always popular for speed traps (traps not checks), there's cynical part of me that wonders about revenue generation, no other reason for the drop as far as I can see.

Edit. there's one strawberry seller on the Navan side, they're from Navan so yeha they're local too.

adelcrowsmel · 09-06-2010 1:38pm

Is anyone actually finding the old road (N3/R147) any quieter since the M3 opened on Friday?? I know its probably abit early to say yet, but I haven't found any difference so far - apart from Friday which I'm assuming was because alot of people used the M3 as a novelty with it just opening that day. I don't know if it is just the times that I'm travelling the route - so I would love to hear if there is a reduction of traffic for others??

bladespin · 09-06-2010 3:12pm

adelcrowsmel wrote: »

Is anyone actually finding the old road (N3/R147) any quieter since the M3 opened on Friday?? I know its probably abit early to say yet, but I haven't found any difference so far - apart from Friday which I'm assuming was because alot of people used the M3 as a novelty with it just opening that day. I don't know if it is just the times that I'm travelling the route - so I would love to hear if there is a reduction of traffic for others??

It seems to have made a big difference to the traffic on the Dublin side of Navan, it was much quieter through garlow cross and Skryne.
Kells side doesn't seem to have changed very much, at least in the mornings, evening traffic was a lot easier yesterday, I go the opposite way to most, Navan to Kells in the morning and never found it very heavy.

Dubh Geannain · 09-06-2010 7:27pm

bladespin wrote: »

Edit. there's one strawberry seller on the Navan side, they're from Navan so yeha they're local too.

Last Friday there was a strawberry seller and he was at Ross Cross.

I take your point about the speed traps though.

sarahky · 10-06-2010 11:20am

i've been using the N3 for the last 12 years as a commuter and since last friday i have noticed a huge difference in volume (refuse to use new m3) I travel from navan to Blanch and for the last year or two on averge it was taking me 40-45 minutes to get to work, since last friday its been taking me 30 mins!!! Due to the drop in volume it has sped my journey up no end, even with the reduction to 80kph! During the boom time it used to take me an hour and ten minutes to do that journey!

bladespin · 10-06-2010 12:32pm

sarahky wrote: »

i've been using the N3 for the last 12 years as a commuter and since last friday i have noticed a huge difference in volume (refuse to use new m3) I travel from navan to Blanch and for the last year or two on averge it was taking me 40-45 minutes to get to work, since last friday its been taking me 30 mins!!! Due to the drop in volume it has sped my journey up no end, even with the reduction to 80kph! During the boom time it used to take me an hour and ten minutes to do that journey!

Yup but having the speed limits back to what they should be might help a little more.:D

Also, as the road goes back into the council's hands from the NRA they aren't going to be maintained as a national road, it's now regarded as regional, so ultimately will fall into disrepair (the money isn't there).

taffy1973 · 11-06-2010 10:58am

travel daily along the M3/N3 in my van and have travelled both routes since opening of the motorway and have done a few tests and calculations. from virginia to dunboyne only has a time saving of 15-20 mins ( keeping to speed limit of course) for a cost of 4 euros toll (2 euro per toll) at 120kph but also loosing 5 miles per gallon on fuel economy, yet at 80kph on old road with no traffic i am gaining approx 8 miles per gallon and saving the toll of 4 euro each way. lot of people are not factoring in the extra fuel cost at the higher speed, great road tho which is good for the one off journeys but expensive for a regular commute from the far side of kells.

bryaner · 11-06-2010 11:03am

adelcrowsmel wrote: »

Is anyone actually finding the old road (N3/R147) any quieter since the M3 opened on Friday?? I know its probably abit early to say yet, but I haven't found any difference so far - apart from Friday which I'm assuming was because alot of people used the M3 as a novelty with it just opening that day. I don't know if it is just the times that I'm travelling the route - so I would love to hear if there is a reduction of traffic for others??

On it yesterday and it's a lot quieter.

_Kaiser_ · 11-06-2010 11:13am

The "old" road has become significantly quieter between Virginia and Navan since the motorway opened, but I expect this to change in the next few weeks when the toll tag bills start arriving.

As someone else said above, the motorway is worth it for the occasional Dublin/Cavan trip, but not everyday (Especially not if you have to pay the M50 toll as well!).

Also it takes the same 30 mins to Navan (from say Virginia) as it did before the motorway opened (and you have to pay the toll). Using the now "old" road between Kells and Navan it takes 25 minutes and no charge.

The R147 as it's now called will never be upgraded to 100 km/h again though - if they did then no one would pay the tolls on the motorway (even though the company will get their money anyway, thanks to that sneaky clause that was included in the contract - ie: if traffic volumes aren't x, the tax payer will pay y in compensation)

bladespin · 14-06-2010 12:01pm

taffy1973 wrote: »

travel daily along the M3/N3 in my van and have travelled both routes since opening of the motorway and have done a few tests and calculations. from virginia to dunboyne only has a time saving of 15-20 mins ( keeping to speed limit of course) for a cost of 4 euros toll (2 euro per toll) at 120kph but also loosing 5 miles per gallon on fuel economy, yet at 80kph on old road with no traffic i am gaining approx 8 miles per gallon and saving the toll of 4 euro each way. lot of people are not factoring in the extra fuel cost at the higher speed, great road tho which is good for the one off journeys but expensive for a regular commute from the far side of kells.

True, but you're factoring in fuel costs the wrong way (most cars give better mpg at constant speed (lot of starting and stopping on the old road) and are €1.30 per toll (it's cars they're after really).

Also, looking at factoring costs you should be aware the lower wear rates on tyres on motorways, less wear and tear on suspensions etc will always result in the motorway being a lot cheaper to run a vehicle on than a major or minor road.

Fiskar · 14-06-2010 9:31pm

bladespin wrote: »

True, but you're factoring in fuel costs the wrong way (most cars give better mpg at constant speed (lot of starting and stopping on the old road) and are €1.30 per toll (it's cars they're after really).

Also, looking at factoring costs you should be aware the lower wear rates on tyres on motorways, less wear and tear on suspensions etc will always result in the motorway being a lot cheaper to run a vehicle on than a major or minor road.

The M3 is 4 km longer than the old N3. That equates to 2 minutes longer commute, more fuel so I reckon it balances out in favour of the old N3.

squod · 14-06-2010 10:07pm

You can look at motors on any Irish M-way and see they're not so fuel efficient at 75mph.

Thanks to the greens we'll all be driving piddly little cars not designed for the motorways that they're building.

bladespin · 15-06-2010 9:34am

Fiskar wrote: »

The M3 is 4 km longer than the old N3. That equates to 2 minutes longer commute, more fuel so I reckon it balances out in favour of the old N3.

squod wrote: »

You can look at motors on any Irish M-way and see they're not so fuel efficient at 75mph.

Thanks to the greens we'll all be driving piddly little cars not designed for the motorways that they're building.

Stop once on the N3 and you're theory on fuel economy is in the bin, there are 9 sets of traffic lights between Kells and Dunshaughlin, you'd have to be incredibly lucky to have them all green.

Point taken on the greens though, my 2l car is nearly 1.5 times more fuel efficiant than a Prius on the motorway lol.

Fiskar · 15-06-2010 8:43pm

bladespin wrote: »

Stop once on the N3 and you're theory on fuel economy is in the bin, there are 9 sets of traffic lights between Kells and Dunshaughlin, you'd have to be incredibly lucky to have them all green.

Point taken on the greens though, my 2l car is nearly 1.5 times more fuel efficiant than a Prius on the motorway lol.

Stop once on the M3 and time saved goes out the window along with the ecomony, I ride a bike (bike off, gloves off, search for money)

mcwhirter · 15-06-2010 10:49pm

Have noticed traffic to be quieter on the school run into navan from dublin side on the N3 at about 0840. Definately less traffic at the bridge lights.

15-06-2010 10:51pm

triple-M wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R147_road

yes,since the new motorway opened the old N3 has been downgraded to a regional road and therefore the speed limit has been reduced

its totally ridiculous same down here near urlingford the old N8. road very wide and it only 50km :mad:

taffy1973 · 16-06-2010 4:22am

bladespin wrote: »

True, but you're factoring in fuel costs the wrong way (most cars give better mpg at constant speed (lot of starting and stopping on the old road) and are €1.30 per toll (it's cars they're after really).

Also, looking at factoring costs you should be aware the lower wear rates on tyres on motorways, less wear and tear on suspensions etc will always result in the motorway being a lot cheaper to run a vehicle on than a major or minor road.

cars/vans are most economical at 50mph/80kph tho and a lot less economical at 75mph/120kph and what with driving a van its a dearer toll

bladespin · 16-06-2010 10:10am

Fiskar wrote: »

Stop once on the M3 and time saved goes out the window along with the ecomony, I ride a bike (bike off, gloves off, search for money)

You should be ashamed riding a bike on a motorway, where in the name of god is the fun in that?

Anyway it still takes less time as there are many times the number of traffic light stops, get some proper gloves, you shouldn't need to take them off to get 70c, I don't

taffy1973 wrote: »

cars/vans are most economical at 50mph/80kph tho and a lot less economical at 75mph/120kph and what with driving a van its a dearer toll

My car's hitting over 50 mpg at 120kmh (not doing the math on that), at 80kmh it's doing 55(ish), not worth loosing sleep over, you'll be lucky to hit 40 mpg on the N3 from Kells to Dublin anyway..

The M3 was built for cars, so that's where the economical calculations are from, still if you take into account the wear and tear normal roads put on vans and trucks it makes sense.

Lads these are all well and good but this is off topic, my problem is with the speed limit on the old road being dropped for no reason.

ibarelycare · 16-06-2010 2:54pm

adelcrowsmel wrote: »

Is anyone actually finding the old road (N3/R147) any quieter since the M3 opened on Friday?? I know its probably abit early to say yet, but I haven't found any difference so far - apart from Friday which I'm assuming was because alot of people used the M3 as a novelty with it just opening that day. I don't know if it is just the times that I'm travelling the route - so I would love to hear if there is a reduction of traffic for others??

Yep, I travel Dunshaughlin-Blanchardstown and back. I'm in work for 9, used to leave at 8/8.10 (trip could vary anywhere from 25-55 minutes!!) but I've been leaving at 8.25/8.30 the past couple of weeks and making it in on time. The fact that the schools are off is obviously a factor too.

I really notice the difference in the evenings though (when the school traffic wouldn't be a factor). Leaving work at 5.30 and getting home in under 20 minutes. It's great!

jock101 · 16-06-2010 9:13pm

One toll at Clonee is just about acceptable for 1.30c for now, But the second toll just beyond the Navan North/Delvin interchange is just Highway robbery. Especially for the what extra 10miles/17km approx. No way is that justified, and the funny thing is that suddenly your cruising at 120km/hr. Bang end of motorway signs appear lol. Then back to the crappy N3 from Kells North to Enniskillen. 5.20 yoyo's for the poor eejit's from Dublin that bought gaffs in kells, Virginia and even Cavan town, God help you's, you'd want to be an TD or an Anglo Executive for that lark. Plus I dont like Meath Coco's lowering the speed limit on the old N3 from Kells to Navan to 80km/h is just to aggravate motorists into using the Privatised M3. People of North Meath, if I lived there I would be ordering your TD's to disband, at least the second toll.:mad:

adelcrowsmel · 17-06-2010 8:52am

I'm noticing myself its alot quieter this week - I'm making it home to outside Navan 5-10mins quicker, even with the reduced speed limits. I think the main diference and time saving it at Dunshaughlin - there has been no traffic at all when i pass through it now in the evenings. This could also be due to the fact the secondary schools are finished (with the time I go through at), but I think that even if the schools were open it would still be much better!!:D:D:D

Solitaire · 17-06-2010 9:52pm

taffy1973 wrote: »

cars/vans are most economical at 50mph/80kph tho and a lot less economical at 75mph/120kph and what with driving a van its a dearer toll

Vans and nasty little Micras maybe. Even a decent petrol car is (slightly) happier over 90km/h nowadays. With lots of main road driving my 1.6l Focus sits on its rated 43mpg. Stick to sub-80km/h driving and I drop below 40mpg.

Fiskar · 17-06-2010 10:03pm

My little Kwacker manages 70MPG @ cruising speeds of 120 to 135 KPH, motorway or no motorway.

Hilly N3 and gear changes kill the car economy on the N3 but the 120 Kph M3 does likewise and is only 0.2 L/100km better on the M3.

As to why I go the N3, more entertaining bike wise than the M3, would lose my licence on that thing (average 137.5 kph on opening day).
Great having the choice of road, but confused for the winter given the M50 chaos last january,
any thoughts? Which road will be well trodden and heated from the exhaust pipes, i reckon the N3.

bladespin · 18-06-2010 10:39am

Fiskar wrote: »

My little Kwacker manages 70MPG @ cruising speeds of 120 to 135 KPH, motorway or no motorway.

Hilly N3 and gear changes kill the car economy on the N3 but the 120 Kph M3 does likewise and is only 0.2 L/100km better on the M3.

As to why I go the N3, more entertaining bike wise than the M3, would lose my licence on that thing (average 137.5 kph on opening day).
Great having the choice of road, but confused for the winter given the M50 chaos last january,
any thoughts? Which road will be well trodden and heated from the exhaust pipes, i reckon the N3.

Good bikes those wakizakis.

I'd say the old N3 would be best, those slip roads etc on the motorway look very steep in places and one bit of ice is all it takes on a bike.

bladespin · 18-06-2010 10:40am

taffy1973 wrote: »

cars/vans are most economical at 50mph/80kph tho and a lot less economical at 75mph/120kph and what with driving a van its a dearer toll

Just remembered (lol), there's nothing saying you have to drive at 120kmh on the motorway, it's the limit not the average

jock101 · 18-06-2010 3:41pm

bladespin wrote: »

Just remembered (lol), there's nothing saying you have to drive at 120kmh on the motorway, it's the limit not the average

There's no point in using a motorway, if you dont drive at the speed limit.
Motorways are for saving time getting from A to B.

bladespin · 20-06-2010 10:28am

jock101 wrote: »

There's no point in using a motorway, if you dont drive at the speed limit.
Motorways are for saving time getting from A to B.

Don't agree with that, you can save time tralelling the M3 at pretty much any speed in the morning and evening, remember Dunshaughlin, Navan, Kells during school time :eek:

Motorways are about constant progress, not speed.

damLong · 20-07-2010 12:40pm

Hi ,I have been in contact with both the NRA and Meath Co.Co.NRA say its now over to Meath Co,Co. & they say they are not considering raising to limit .This is another attack on the hard pressed motorist , with the upcomming introduction of privet companies operating the speed cameras ,and the tolls on the M3 , what do we do , either live with 80 k or pay the toll ?By introducing the M3 they have NOT left us with an alternative national road !!!

AnCatDubh · 20-07-2010 1:53pm

damLong wrote: »

Hi ,I have been in contact with both the NRA and Meath Co.Co.NRA say its now over to Meath Co,Co. & they say they are not considering raising to limit .This is another attack on the hard pressed motorist , with the upcomming introduction of privet companies operating the speed cameras ,and the tolls on the M3 , what do we do , either live with 80 k or pay the toll ?By introducing the M3 they have NOT left us with an alternative national road !!!

Since when was 80km/h so bad? For the past 15 years people have only hit 40-60km/h on that road at the major / peak times. I've drove it often in the past.

The introduction of private companies to implement speed cameras has little to do with it. If the limit is 80km/h then you aren't legally entitled to exceed that. Speed, now perhaps the biggest killer on Irish roads of course should be curtailed. I mightn't like the fact that it is curtailed but it is the right thing to do in terms of road safety.

From the feedback that i've heard about both M3 and N3, I understand now that both roads work really well.

damLong · 20-07-2010 2:11pm

the limit is 80km/h then you aren't legally entitled to exceed that. Speed, now perhaps the biggest killer on Irish roads of course should be curtailed. I mightn't like the fact that it is curtailed but it is the right thing to do in terms of road safety.

So are you saying that the NRA have got it wrong for the last X ammount of years by having a upper speed limit of 100 Km/h ? this road is the same now as it was before adjustment of upper speed limit , there has been no alterations to road dimentions , additional junctions , private dwellings etc , why reduce the speed limit is my question .... i am all for safe driving and looking forward to a continual reduction of fetailities on our country's roads.....but please adotp a common sence approach.

20-07-2010 2:18pm

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Since when was 80km/h so bad? For the past 15 years people have only hit 40-60km/h on that road at the major / peak times. I've drove it often in the past.

And what about off-peak times? There are long, long stretches of that road that are more than adequate for a 100km/h limit, and the parts that aren't were already 60/50 zones. There is no legitimate reason it should be down-graded, especially now that there's less traffic on it. The only reason is that it forces it to be less viable to use instead of the tolled road

AnCatDubh · 20-07-2010 9:03pm

damLong wrote: »

So are you saying that the NRA have got it wrong for the last X ammount of years by having a upper speed limit of 100 Km/h

Yes, in my humble opinion assuming that the road safety authority speak fact.

How far do you travel in off peak time?

If you travel between Navan and Blanchardstown a distance of 40km - If travelling at previous 100kph it will take you 24mins and now travelling at 80kph it will take you 30mins

(allow for similar stopping / reduced speed limits going through the towns in both situations)

Increase of +6 mins

Yes, this is an inconvenience for off peak driving but vast improvement awaits for on peak driving which the majority of road users are that travel that road are (being of the commuter generation).

In 2009, there were 12 fatalities on County Meath roads. The vast majority of fatalities happen in Ireland - off peak (weekend actually, Sunday being the worst day to be on our roads). If reduction of the speed limit to 80km/h were to do anything in respect of this then a 6 minute differential will be an incredibly small price to pay.

There is no suggestion that the road is any less safe than before - that is not an issue.

AnCatDubh · 20-07-2010 9:12pm

28064212 wrote: »

And what about off-peak times?

as answered above.

There are long, long stretches of that road that are more than adequate for a 100km/h limit, and the parts that aren't were already 60/50 zones. There is no legitimate reason it should be down-graded, especially now that there's less traffic on it.

As quoted above, statistically a reduction in vehicle speed on National and Rural roads has a positive impact on the fatalities. It's interesting that urban areas are statistically less likely to have a fatality - slow speed, more controlled driving.

Yes, the issue of less traffic should make it safer (i'd expect) and traffic travelling on it at slower speeds should, combined, have a positive impact.

The only reason is that it forces it to be less viable to use instead of the tolled road

I disagree entirely. There is no evidence to suggest this to be the case.

20-07-2010 9:38pm

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Yes, in my humble opinion assuming that the road safety authority speak fact.

What fact have the RSA come out with to justify lowering the speed limit on a road that has existed for years with a higher speed limit, even though the only change is a lower traffic volume?

AnCatDubh wrote: »

How far do you travel in off peak time?

If you travel between Navan and Blanchardstown a distance of 40km - If travelling at previous 100kph it will take you 24mins and now travelling at 80kph it will take you 30mins

(allow for similar stopping / reduced speed limits going through the towns in both situations)

Increase of +6 mins

I travel as far as Virginia, so that's about a 15 minute increase for me

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Yes, this is an inconvenience for off peak driving but vast improvement awaits for on peak driving which the majority of road users are that travel that road are (being of the commuter generation).

What? How does a lower speed limit improve it for peak commuters? The fact that the M3 is built improves it, not a lower speed limit, which is what we're talking about. And since the M3 is open, traffic volumes are lower, meaning the lowered speed limit hits a bigger percentage of the traffic.

AnCatDubh wrote: »

In 2009, there were 12 fatalities on County Meath roads. The vast majority of fatalities happen in Ireland - off peak (weekend actually, Sunday being the worst day to be on our roads). If reduction of the speed limit to 80km/h were to do anything in respect of this then a 6 minute differential will be an incredibly small price to pay.

It won't. How many of those fatalities were on the N3? How many were caused by someone who was at the old speed limit on it?

AnCatDubh wrote: »

As quoted above, statistically a reduction in vehicle speed on National and Rural roads has a positive impact on the fatalities. It's interesting that urban areas are statistically less likely to have a fatality - slow speed, more controlled driving.

Statistically, the safest roads of all are motorways, followed by national roads. How does that fit with your "slow-speed" theory? There is nothing in your argument that can't be used to argue that the speed limit should be 10km/h on all roads

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I disagree entirely. There is no evidence to suggest this to be the case.

Other than the fact that they brought the lowered speed limit in at the exact same time as they opened the toll road? And that the higher limit was in place for years beforehand? And that the limit after the M3 finishes is still 100km/h?

AnCatDubh · 20-07-2010 10:31pm

28064212 wrote: »

What fact have the RSA come out with to justify lowering the speed limit on a road that has existed for years with a higher speed limit, even though the only change is a lower traffic volume

I think this is answered in the previous posts.

I travel as far as Virginia, so that's about a 15 minute increase for me

11mins and 15 seconds if my calculations are correct. Closer to 10 than 15. I agree an inconvenience for you. This assuming you travel off peak. If travelling at peak times then at 80km/h you are probably doing way better than pre M3.

For my own information is Kells->Virginia at the 80km/h or 100km/h?

What? How does a lower speed limit improve it for peak commuters? The fact that the M3 is built improves it, not a lower speed limit, which is what we're talking about. And since the M3 is open, traffic volumes are lower, meaning the lowered speed limit hits a bigger percentage of the traffic.

My point is not that by lowering a speed limit on one day you will actually travel faster. Compare to the N3 pre M3 opening. The point is that an 80km/h on the N3 is faster than a previously heavily congested road at peak times (the N3 the way it was) - even to Virginia by my calculations.

You now have two good roads to choose from. A double win in my books.

It won't. How many of those fatalities were on the N3? How many were caused by someone who was at the old speed limit on it?

Covered in previous posts. The statistics generally suggest a positive impact on road fatalities by reducing the speed of vehicles. It is no more complicated than that.

Statistically, the safest roads of all are motorways, followed by national roads. How does that fit with your "slow-speed" theory? There is nothing in your argument that can't be used to argue that the speed limit should be 10km/h on all roads

In what i've seen this may not be correct albeit motorways weren't included but setting motorways aside as we're not contemplating motorway speed reductions, the roads run in a sequence of Urban, National and Rural (lowest to highest fatalities). If memory serves me correct the National roads hovered at about 45% of fatalities.

There is a reality that a 10km/h speed on all roads probably would have next to zero fatalities if everyone stuck to it - but you are being facetious in suggesting that that is where the statistics will bring you without a healthy measure of practicality involved. It is acceptable to reduce by 20km/h but practically not possible to reduce to 10km/h.

Other than the fact that they brought the lowered speed limit in at the exact same time as they opened the toll road? And that the higher limit was in place for years beforehand? And that the limit after the M3 finishes is still 100km/h?

Again, you don't appear to accept the correlation between speed and saftey (or lack thereof) or you would see my basic point. I am comfortable with this position on the basis of my research, what i've heard from the AA in relation to road safety, and pronouncements in the media - RSA, NRA, etc...

I guess we're getting tied up here in detail. All i'm actually saying is a reduction in speed will equate to safer roads for everyone. I appreciate that you are inconvenienced by it. It takes extra time in an off peak journey. I don't like that either. The trade-off imho is very worthy.

20-07-2010 11:09pm

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I think this is answered in the previous posts.

Where? Specifically about the reasoning behind the N3 limit being lowered? Or is this just a generalised point of lower speed = automatically better?

AnCatDubh wrote: »

My point is not that by lowering a speed limit on one day you will actually travel faster. Compare to the N3 pre M3 opening. The point is that an 80km/h on the N3 is faster than a previously heavily congested road at peak times (the N3 the way it was) - even to Virginia by my calculations.

And that is purely because the M3 is opened. It has absolutely nothing to do with the speed limit being lowered. Nothing. I am not debating that it's good the M3 is opened.

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Covered in previous posts. The statistics generally suggest a positive impact on road fatalities by reducing the speed of vehicles. It is no more complicated than that.

In what i've seen this may not be correct albeit motorways weren't included but setting motorways aside as we're not contemplating motorway speed reductions, the roads run in a sequence of Urban, National and Rural (lowest to highest fatalities). If memory serves me correct the National roads hovered at about 45% of fatalities.

I can't find stats for national roads vs urban rural either, so I may be wrong. 45% of fatalities is irrelevant, since it doesn't take into account kilometres travelled. However, even if we take your sequence as true, it reads (from lowest fatalities per distance to highest): Motorway -> Urban -> National -> Rural. So that's: Fastest -> Slowest -> 2nd Fastest -> 2nd Slowest. How does it follow that lower speed automatically has a positive impact on fatalities?

AnCatDubh wrote: »

There is a reality that a 10km/h speed on all roads probably would have next to zero fatalities if everyone stuck to it - but you are being facetious in suggesting that that is where the statistics will bring you without a healthy measure of practicality involved. It is acceptable to reduce by 20km/h but practically not possible to reduce to 10km/h.

So what about 70km/h? 60? 50? The reality is that the speed limit should be set at a level suitable for the road. On the N3, that has suddenly been changed, where conditions have not been (except for lower traffic, which would make it safer, not more dangerous)

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Again, you don't appear to accept the correlation between speed and saftey (or lack thereof) or you would see my basic point. I am comfortable with this position on the basis of my research, what i've heard from the AA in relation to road safety, and pronouncements in the media - RSA, NRA, etc...

Speed does not have an automatic correlation with safety. There are numerous examples where going too slow can be as dangerous as going too fast. Excessive speeding is what is dangerous. 100km/h is not excessive on that road, and wasn't considered excessive by the authorities until there was a tolled road that it would be more economical to persuade motorists to use instead

AnCatDubh · 20-07-2010 11:45pm

28064212 wrote: »

Where? Specifically about the reasoning behind the N3 limit being lowered? Or is this just a generalised point of lower speed = automatically better?

Yes, final point on my last post for instance. The correlation between safety and speed. Sorry, but it is no more profound or detailed than that..

And that is purely because the M3 is opened. It has absolutely nothing to do with the speed limit being lowered. Nothing. I am not debating that it's good the M3 is opened.

You agree with me here. This is what i have been saying.

I can't find stats for national roads vs urban rural either, so I may be wrong. 45% of fatalities is irrelevant, since it doesn't take into account kilometres travelled. However, even if we take your sequence as true, it reads (from lowest fatalities per distance to highest): Motorway -> Urban -> National -> Rural. So that's: Fastest -> Slowest -> 2nd Fastest -> 2nd Slowest. How does it follow that lower speed automatically has a positive impact on fatalities?

But the issue is nothing to do with km travelled - it boils down to the positive correlation between reducing speed and fatalities. This is what the advice is and experience has proved.

So what about 70km/h? 60? 50? The reality is that the speed limit should be set at a level suitable for the road. On the N3, that has suddenly been changed, where conditions have not been (except for lower traffic, which would make it safer, not more dangerous)

A level suitable for the road is too narrow a focus unless you expand on your consideration of 'suitable' (imho). You need to take safety into account (again imho). To be fair, the stretch of motorway along the N6 could probably take 140km/h (160km/h? I don't know) but would it be safe? I'd guess not. And yes, as asked in a previous post, i'm guessing that the NRA were incorrect to have the N3 previously at 100km/h from a safety perspective.

Speed does not have an automatic correlation with safety.

I understand that it does but i'm happy to understand that you don't accept that point.

There are numerous examples where going too slow can be as dangerous as going too fast.

Are you still referring to fatalities?

Accepted if one vehicle is travelling a 10km/h and one is travelling at 100km/h then the 10km/h is going to cause difficulty but i'm not advocating at 10km/h limit anywhere. But this problem simply doesn't arise if road users fall within the particular speed limit. Yes, many other factors can then count - too long to consider here.

Excessive speeding is what is dangerous.

Define excessive. There are too many factors to take into account imho. Speeding is dangerous imho no matter what way you look at it. Curtailing the speed will benefit all road users whilst obviously inconveniencing them.

100km/h is not excessive on that road, and wasn't considered excessive by the authorities until there was a tolled road that it would be more economical to persuade motorists to use instead

Yes, one day 100km/h was the limit, the next day it was 80km/h. Were they wrong to have it at 100km/h? Perhaps (yes, imho but that's not important).

I'll grant you, for a moment, by a wide stretch of the imagination, there is a bean counter in the NRA looking up from over thin framed glasses hanging at the end of their nose, dreaming up ways to make more people use the M3 so the government don't have to compensate the operators, but if this was actually the case, wouldn't it be lower than 80km/h? Surely the additional 5-11 minutes that the journey is being added to isn't enough of a disincentive?

I'm sorry, but I don't believe motorists would be so naive as to fall for it. If it were to go to 60km/h I would probably be understanding this point but not given the times the change has made.

.

21-07-2010 11:08am

AnCatDubh wrote: »

But the issue is nothing to do with km travelled - it boils down to the positive correlation between reducing speed and fatalities. This is what the advice is and experience has proved.

What? Of course you have to consider distance travelled, total fatalities is an irrelevant figure without it. That's the equivalent of saying Ireland's road fatalities are fine, the USA has way more fatalities than us. It's a pointless statement without some kind of objective comparison.

AnCatDubh wrote: »

A level suitable for the road is too narrow a focus unless you expand on your consideration of 'suitable' (imho). You need to take safety into account (again imho). To be fair, the stretch of motorway along the N6 could probably take 140km/h (160km/h? I don't know) but would it be safe? I'd guess not. And yes, as asked in a previous post, i'm guessing that the NRA were incorrect to have the N3 previously at 100km/h from a safety perspective.

A level suitable for the road does not equal what the road could 'take', it's what is a safe level based on numerous factors. The N6 is a 100km/h road presumably? Should that be dropped to 80 so? Why not? What about all the other national roads? Should the motorways' limits be brought to 80 too? Why not?

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I understand that it does but i'm happy to understand that you don't accept that point.

So how does that stack up against the Motorway -> Urban -> National -> Rural ordering of fatalities? According to you, speed is automatically more dangerous, but the safest roads are the ones with the highest speed limit. Obviously a higher speed is not inherently dangerous, it depends on other factors.

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Define excessive. There are too many factors to take into account imho. Speeding is dangerous imho no matter what way you look at it. Curtailing the speed will benefit all road users whilst obviously inconveniencing them.

"Speeding is dangerous imho no matter what way you look at it" - what's speeding? Are you defining it as over the limit specified for a road? Or is there a static figure that's defined as "too fast"? In the former case, that means 100km/h is safe so long as that's specified as the limit. In the latter, that means motorways should be the same limit as national and regional roads. There is no evidence that curtailing the speed limit will benefit road users. You realise that lowering the speed limit targets exactly one group of motorists? - People travelling at between 80 and 100km/h. Excessive speeders are going to travel at whatever speed they were beforehand. For example, this guy was doing a minimum of 124km/h on the N3, probably more than 140km/h. Do you think if the limit had been 80km/h at that point he would have been going any slower? No, it just would have been more dangerous for the person who was going at the limit because of the disparity in speed.

What percentage of the accidents on the N3 do you think have been caused by people travelling between 80 and 100 km/h? And of those, what percentage do you think were because they were travelling at more than 80km/h, and weren't as a result of alcohol, tiredness, dangerous driving or any of a dozen more important factors?

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Yes, one day 100km/h was the limit, the next day it was 80km/h. Were they wrong to have it at 100km/h? Perhaps (yes, imho but that's not important).

How is that not important? Either the road was safe for a 100km/h limit or it wasn't. And if it was wrong, are you advocating lowering the level on all national roads to 80? Why not? The N3 was built to, and conformed to, the same conditions and specifications as other national roads

AnCatDubh wrote: »

I'll grant you, for a moment, by a wide stretch of the imagination, there is a bean counter in the NRA looking up from over thin framed glasses hanging at the end of their nose, dreaming up ways to make more people use the M3 so the government don't have to compensate the operators, but if this was actually the case, wouldn't it be lower than 80km/h? Surely the additional 5-11 minutes that the journey is being added to isn't enough of a disincentive?

I'm sorry, but I don't believe motorists would be so naive as to fall for it. If it were to go to 60km/h I would probably be understanding this point but not given the times the change has made.

So why wasn't the level changed years ago? It's been 100km/h since the introduction of km/h limits and it was 60mph before that for as long as I can remember. Why was it brought in now? And why was it brought in as part of the M3 project instead of as an ongoing process to review speed limits? And why have the RSA/NRA not announced why the change was made?

damLong · 21-07-2010 12:04pm

IMHO the target and victim here will be the guy travailing along at a safe speed above 80 and less than 100 , who , and i have seen evidence so far ( increased garda presence ) will be targeted for speeding and in my mind this is a money making machine!!

Mimikyu · 24-07-2010 2:45pm

This post has been deleted.

Conor_M1990 · 24-07-2010 9:48pm

Its handy money for the Goverment imo been living in the area so long and I doubt Im alone I just have a habit of doing 100 kph on it

ibarelycare · 26-07-2010 9:23am

Captain Morgan wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

AFAIK the one near Fairyhouse hasn't been working for years. Not sure about the one near Tara.

_Kaiser_ · 26-07-2010 6:10pm

The reduction in speed of the old N3/R147 is completely unnecessary, except as a revenue exercise (which itself is also unnecessary, see below)

- 95% of the road between Blanchardstown and Cavan is of sufficent quality (width, surfacing, visibility) to easily support traffic at 100 km/h.

The fact that traffic rarely got to this speed is (in my experience of driving the road daily for most of the last 6 years) mostly down to idiots who can't maintain speed or drive at anything above 80 km/h holding up those of us who can - that and the sheep who'd form up in convoy behind said idiot.

Yea yea, "it's a limit not a target". That's fair enough, but that doesn't give these people the rights to hold up other traffic either.

It's not for them (or anyone here) to say who's journey is more "important", merely that traffic shouldn't be delayed unnecessarily - move in (when safe to do so) long enough for cars to get past, or leave a gap to the car in front if you've no intention of overtaking, so others can (without having to do 3 in one go).

- The M3 contract specifically includes a clause that if the traffic through the tolls isn't x, the government (ie: every taxpayer in the country) will compensate the operators y amount.

Therefore by leaving the old road at 100 km/h, no revenue is in fact going to be lost at all if more cars continue to use it.

The M3 is great for a quick spin to Blanch, but use it everyday and the toll charges will soon mount up - especially if you've to cross the M50 as well!

- Other former N-roads have had their limits maintained at 100 km/h after being downgraded (Louth CoCo seem to be good at this!). Equally the N2 from Finglas to Ashbourne is 120 km/h despite NOT being a motorway.

There's therefore no legal reason why the old N3 can't have its limit restored.

- As for the "speed kills" argument - not so... INAPPROPRIATE speed kills!

Let's use the example I quoted over on Motors the other day.
The "old" N3 (now M3) at the Damastown turnoff has always been 100 km/h and is actually one of the best stretches of road in the area.

Not surprising then that without ANY structural changes whatsoever at this point, the road has now been reclassified the M3 and the limit upped to 120 km/h.

Does that mean that all those people who got caught before this change by the local Gardai (who were regularly camped out at this spot) for doing 101-121 km/h can now appeal and get their fines refunded and points removed?

Of course not, because - even though it must have been OK to do these speeds all along, as it's now perfectly legal/safe to! - it never had anything to do with "road safety".. it'd a revenue and targets exercise, pure and simple!

N3 Navan to Kells being down graded?

Comments