M3 Clonee-Kells route selection and archaelogical info

Are they not currently constructing a new dual carriageway alongside the existing N2? If not strictly m-way standard it will still be as good as. I refer to it as the M2 to distinguish it from the existing road.

Its funny that people who complain about Dublin sprawl and a lack of planning are critical of the one piece of forward planning that makes sense, that is the spatial strategy for the Leinster area. The plan calls for satellite towns and cities connected to Dublin port and airport and with motorway and rail links to the city. This will slow Dublin sprawl while creating 20 or 30 mile green belts between the city and these towns.

If towns like Navan, Drogheda, Dundalk, Mullingar etc grow to 50,000 to 75,000 within 15 years then it will take a lot of pressure off the Dublin area. Creating infrastructure in Dublin is too expensive, whereas it can be put in much more cost effectively as these satellite towns develop. However, jobs and not just people need to move to these towns.

A town like Navan with a projected population of 75,000 needs a motorway to Dublin. It will be as big as Limerick, so does it not make sense to put a 21st century road in now? Businesses need road transport more than they need rail transport and moving new jobs and businesses out of the Dublin area is what this is all about. Sure a rail link is a great idea, and it will come, but the road will make a bigger contribution to regional development.

There is another motorway in the spatial strategy linking M1 near Drogheda, the M3 near Navan, and the N7 at Naas. This will help alleviate the pressure on the M50, although God knows when it will be built.

jank wrote:

Eh no its not!

Other roads should get priority than the M3 that goes nowhere other than satisfy commuters along its route and make business men richer.

How about a real motorway linking Cork to Limerick/ or to Galway!

This for the time being is a waste of money imo and will only futher the mistakes that urban sprawl is somehow good!!

Sorry, but the point of mortoways IS to satisfy large numbers of people. This is basic economics. Supply and demand. How you think Cork-Galway needs a motorway and Navn-Dublin doesn't is beyond me.

sliabh wrote:

Yes and no. You are assuming that just beause it is being built there must be a demand. And that is one of the points up for discussion.

I could build a motorway from one end of Aran Mór to the other, but that doesn't then imply that it will be used by a large number of poeple.

True, but this may be a case of putting the cart before the horse. There is supply (the M3) but questionable demand.

All available evidence would point out that the existing N3 cannot cope with the volume of traffic currently on it, nor was it designed to do so. Demand is questionable, no matter what the project is. A measure of common sense is needed. And common sense dictates that a motorway is needed to link Navan and Dublin.

From Ireland.com:

Tara alternative outlined in 2000 study
Frank McDonald, Environment Editor
*
"The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern's belief that there is no better alternative than running the M3 motorway through the Tara-Skryne valley is contradicted by a report compiled by consultants for the National Roads Authority, The Irish Times has confirmed.


This 2000 report examined a range of alternative routes for the proposed motorway under several headings, including archaeology. It shows that a route to the east of Skryne would be "the least intrusive" with "the least impact" archaeologically.


Such a route would also be "the least visually intrusive in terms of the Hill of Tara" because much of the motorway would be screened by the Hill of Skryne. "The route does not come particularly close to, or cross through, any of the archaeological features in the area."


The report went on: "There appears to be no need for mitigation in the case of this route. A field study would be required to check for above ground monuments and features, but . . . most of the archaeology in this area is well defined and recognisable in the field."


By contrast, it said routing the motorway through the Tara-Skryne valley - as currently proposed - would have a "profound" effect on the Hill of Tara and on its outlying monuments and would have "severe implications from an archaeological perspective".


The report also cautioned that it was "unlikely that cost-effective proposals to meet the mitigation requirements could be supported for this route in this area". (Since then, 42 archaeological sites have been identified along the 15 km route through the valley).


"Route B1 passes through the most sensitive area of Tara from an archaeological view and B3/B4 comes closest to the largest number of archaeological monuments/sites," the report said. Yet one of the B routes (B2) became the "preferred route" for the motorway.


The report, compiled by consultants Halcrow Barry in advance of the decision to opt for the B2 route, noted that the north-eastern end of it "follows the same proposed line as that of B1, and its route and river crossings carry the same archaeological implications".


While there appeared to be no severe impact on built heritage, it showed that the P1 route east of Skryne is the least affected, while the B routes were the most affected because of their impact on the setting of Bellinter Bridge and possible archaeological finds.


Route P1 also emerged as the preferred option in terms of its impact on flora and fauna, after mitigation measures were taken. "This route does not impact on any ecological sites," the report said. By contrast, the B route affected the highest number of sites.


Mr Brendan Magee, of the Meath Roads Action Group, which has been monitoring the M3 since its inception, said he was "astonished" to discover that, in none of the criteria against which it was assessed, the route eventually chosen was not recommended.


In terms of archaeology, it recommended the P route. This route also scored on built heritage, flora and fauna, landscape and visual effects, air quality and noise. As a result, Mr Magee said the action group was at a loss to know why the NRA had not opted for it. The claim by the NRA - repeated in the Dáil last week by the Minister for Transport, Mr Cullen, - that the route chosen for the M3 had been "evaluated as the best choice or equal best under 14 out of 18 assessment headings" did not, in Mr Magee's view, "stand up".


Mr Magee also described as "blatantly untrue" a claim made by the NRA's chairman, Mr Peter Malone, that "the route of the motorway is twice as far from Tara as the existing N3 Dublin to Navan road". Even a cursory look at the map would show that this was not the case.


"I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt that it is a mistake on their part, but the same assertion . . . was repeated at the NRA presentation to Meath County Council and it has also been repeated by politicians.


"I have written to the chairman of the NRA, to whom the statement was attributed to in print, asking for it to be retracted, but to no avail," Mr Magee said.


The NRA has said the P route, running east of Skryne, which would have been less damaging to the archaeological landscape around Tara, had "serious drawbacks in terms of its ability to serve traffic demand" as well as impacts on communities and the environment."

Metrobest, since when has there be a capacity issue on the N 3?? The only bottlenecks are Dunshaughlin and the approaches to the M50! Other than that it is a relative free flow on the route. Traffic may be heavy. We need to stop the M3 in its tracks as fast as possible. The route is inconsistent with both our needs now and just about every national plan that the government as drawn up.

The best way forward is to upgrade the N3 to allow a bypass of Dunshaughlin, better overtaking facilities and safer junctions. Investigate a route linking Navan across to the N2 (this is currently under construction). This means the needs of Navan will be served. It is worth noting that areas south of Navan including Dunshaughlin are not designated for development as commuter housing. Obviously the provision of this motorway will create a demand for these areas to be developed. Why build it in the first place if this is not the intention?

In regard to the McDonald report, the reality is that all of the possible routes are usable and all have their pros and cons. Otherwise they would not have been short listed as possible alternatives.