M3 Clonee-Kells route selection and archaelogical info

BrianD · 08-12-2004 05:46PM

The lack of m-way is not going to make any difference to business in the area. The only people who will be affected are opportunists who will attempt to build retail parks and housing at junctions on the route. Perhaps it should read ... Local landowners back proposed M3. I know that a substantial land bank in Batterstown (close to the proposed M3) is owned by an individual who featured in recent tribunals.

Metrobest · 08-12-2004 09:00PM

BrianD wrote:

The lack of m-way is not going to make any difference to business in the area. The only people who will be affected are opportunists who will attempt to build retail parks and housing at junctions on the route. Perhaps it should read ... Local landowners back proposed M3. I know that a substantial land bank in Batterstown (close to the proposed M3) is owned by an individual who featured in recent tribunals.

Development makes wealthy people wealthier. Such is life. Certainly that's no reason to block the M3. In that case nobody would develop anything and we'd all be stuck in traffic jams.

The Interconnector project is going to get the go-ahead and you can bet it's going to make certain folks very rich indeed. And wait till you see the unsustainable development it will spawn! Would you therefore object to the Interconnector too?

chewy · 08-12-2004 10:02PM

i dont' disagree with your point

And wait till you see the unsustainable development it will spawn!

surely people will do their best to keep an eye on this too?

protos · 09-12-2004 07:16AM

Did anyone read the article in the Guardian over the weekend :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1364782,00.html

Its very grim reading.
I've lived in Swtzerland and I'm living in Japan at the moment, and the answer to Irelands infrastructure, commuting and environmental problems is easy - trains.
Pump half the money we're spending on roads into building up a good, extensive public trains system and everyone will be happy.

There's a much greater volume of people coming into central tokyo from outlying suburban areas, but everyone takes the train. In switzerland every small town and village has a train station - its brilliant ...............

Victor · 09-12-2004 07:25AM

Metrobest wrote:

The Interconnector project is going to get the go-ahead and you can bet it's going to make certain folks very rich indeed. And wait till you see the unsustainable development it will spawn!

Off topic, but how do you suggest this? Railway based communities tend to be a lot more sustainable than road based ones.

Metrobest · 09-12-2004 05:26PM

Victor wrote:

Off topic, but how do you suggest this? Railway based communities tend to be a lot more sustainable than road based ones.

I agree railway is sustainable. But what tends to happen in Ireland is that developers cash in by taking cheap land on the perihpery of a station's catchment area. People are lured into the estates by the prospect of shiny Arrows whisking them into Dublin. But soon they find that the station is too far to walk, there's no feeder bus and never will be, the trains are crowded and always late; so why would they not use the car that's parked on the spacious driveway?

I saw an ad in the property pages a few weeks ago. A development in Enfield. Pictured was the train station and a fuzzy map that made it seem like one could walk quickly to it from the semi-detached houses, each equipped with gardens front and back. But a friend who lives near there told me it's a twenty minute walk from Development to Station. And the devil was in the detail. The biggest boast of the ad was: "Just ten traffic lights to Dublin," promoting the idea of idyllic country living with a quick car journey into the City. I pity the poor fools who bought into it. They're probably sitting on the M4 as I write.

Kaner · 09-12-2004 10:29PM

protos wrote:

I've lived in Swtzerland and I'm living in Japan at the moment, and the answer to Irelands infrastructure, commuting and environmental problems is easy - trains.
Pump half the money we're spending on roads into building up a good, extensive public trains system and everyone will be happy.

There's a much greater volume of people coming into central tokyo from outlying suburban areas, but everyone takes the train. In switzerland every small town and village has a train station - its brilliant ...............

Everyone in the New York area takes the train too, but like Tokyo, it is not comparable to Irelands situation.

Switzerland is similar to Ireland in size and population, it has a great railway system, but there are also motorways between every major town and city - I wonder why that is?

is_that_so · 09-12-2004 10:40PM

I know this off topic but felt a need to comment. I have been on public transport all this week but I will be driving to Dublin tomorrow

Total time in car (to and from work) c. 1 hour 50 minutes
Total time on trains today (to and from work) 4 hours !!
Total time on trains yesterday (to and from work) 4.5 hours !!

Victor · 09-12-2004 10:55PM

Kaner wrote:

Switzerland is similar to Ireland in size and population, it has a great railway system, but there are also motorways between every major town and city - I wonder why that is?

It's a lot smaller and has twice the population, coupled with large areas of mountain, most the the population is in a few distinct corridors. In addition, it is integrated with it's neighbours, allowing through services.

www.cia.gov

Switzerland
Population: 7,450,867 (July 2004 est.)
Area: 41,290 sq km
Density: 180/km2

Ireland
Population: 3,969,558 (July 2004 est.)
Area: 70,280 sq km
Density: 57/km2

Kaner · 09-12-2004 11:33PM

Victor wrote:

It's a lot smaller and has twice the population, coupled with large areas of mountain, most the the population is in a few distinct corridors. In addition, it is integrated with it's neighbours, allowing through services.

www.cia.gov

Switzerland
Population: 7,450,867 (July 2004 est.)
Area: 41,290 sq km
Density: 180/km2

Ireland
Population: 3,969,558 (July 2004 est.)
Area: 70,280 sq km
Density: 57/km2

While I agree with your comments Victor, I think the reason the Swiss built 1600km of motorways is because they need them - even with their extensive, and probably pre-existing, rail system. I dont think they necessarily did it to facilitate the Germans, French and Italians.

My basic argument is that 900km of motorway for Ireland is not outrageous, and that the M3 is a good idea. If rerouting it makes sense from a cost/level of service point of view, all the better.

BrianD · 09-12-2004 11:37PM

Metrobest wrote:

The Interconnector project is going to get the go-ahead and you can bet it's going to make certain folks very rich indeed. And wait till you see the unsustainable development it will spawn! Would you therefore object to the Interconnector too?

My understanding that the bulk of the interconnector is going under existing urban landscape as in Dublin city centre! I thought this is what you were repeatedly calling for Metrobest, an underground metro system. Furthermore, as it links a number of existing rail lines (and possible future ones) at long last we will have a metro system for Dublin. We will see see population densities along these lines increase instead of sprawling outwards. Not that's what I call sustainability! So where's the unsustainable bit! Building a motorway to Navan is completely unsustainable, lacks vision, highlights our poor ability to plan and implement a spatial strategy not to mention destroying our national heritage. Unsustainable if I may so.

LOCAL BUSINESS WILL NOT BENEFIT FROM THE M3. LOCAL LANDOWNERS WILL!

is_that_so · 09-12-2004 11:38PM

How many routes did they look at in total ? I heard some talking about Route B and Route P ....

BrianD · 09-12-2004 11:50PM

I recall a few years ago there was a public consultation. Meath CC distributed a newsletter to all households and the detailed route maps were available in local council offices. One interesting point is that each of the alternative routings was not a continuous and discreet route from Clonee to Kells. There were a number of sections and each section had a number of options. For example, there were a number of possible bypass routes for Dunshaughlin east or west of the village. The final routing is a mix and match of these options - obviously some options would impact on the choice of routing further north. I am open to correction on this but that is my collection. Bacjk then I would have been broadly in favour of the m-way but have come to see it for the folly it is.

is_that_so · 10-12-2004 10:57AM

protos wrote:

Did anyone read the article in the Guardian over the weekend :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,1364782,00.html

Its very grim reading.
I've lived in Swtzerland and I'm living in Japan at the moment, and the answer to Irelands infrastructure, commuting and environmental problems is easy - trains.
Pump half the money we're spending on roads into building up a good, extensive public trains system and everyone will be happy.

There's a much greater volume of people coming into central tokyo from outlying suburban areas, but everyone takes the train. In switzerland every small town and village has a train station - its brilliant ...............

Read that article. And have a lot of time for that august title and read it regularly. However from the title it is quite clear that it is

a. a rant
b. Writer knows next to nothing about the state of the country
c. highly selective
d. Driven by the writer's agenda
e. Designed to promulgate the Guardians' desire to influence people and be controversial.

Victor · 10-12-2004 08:41PM

Is it me or is "However, the NRA argues that the new route will be further from Tara than the existing N3" a really bogus argument. It's like saying to a burns victim "I'll only stab you where you were burned".

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/4622126?view=Eircomnet

An Taisce concern over reports on M3-Tara route
From:ireland.com
Friday, 10th December, 2004

The environmental body An Taisce has expressed concern over reports that the National Roads Authority was made aware as far back as 2000 of "superior alternatives" for the M3 motorway route.

The controversial route through the historic Tara/Skryne area of Co Meath will result in the construction of a major by-pass of the existing N3 from Clonee to Kells, by-passing Dunshaughlin and Navan.

Archaeologists, historians and environmentalists have described the proposed route as an act of "cultural vandalism" which would destroy a vital part of Ireland's heritage.

Campaigners against the proposed M3 route say the valley is "one of the most culturally and archaeologically significant places in the world". Many of its monuments predate the pyramids of Egypt.

The Tara site is also now believed to be much more extensive than originally thought and those who are opposing the motorway claim the route would destroy innumerable surrounding artefacts and heritage sites deserving of State and international protection.

However, the NRA argues that the new route will be further from Tara than the existing N3. Business groups in Co Meath have also spoken out this week in favour of the motorway plan, claiming it will costs jobs in the county if it does not proceed.

The Irish Timesreported yesterday that plans to extend an archaeological protection zone around the Hill of Tara, in Co Meath, were abandoned after it became clear that the proposed M3 motorway would run through it.

An archaeological report compiled in August 2000, explicitly referred to "an expansion of the zone of archaeological protection afforded to Tara". However, despite the contents of the report, plans to extend the protection zone were later abandoned.

An Taisce said today that the NRA "was given clear direction" in one report that a route east of Skryne would be preferable in terms of archaeological impact, built heritage, flora and fauna, landscape and visual effects, air quality and noise.

"It has also emerged that this route was also recommended in a second, separate report also commissioned by the NRA in 2000. In an archaeological assessment, Dr Annaba Kilfeather of Margaret Gowen and Company, compiled in August 2000, stated that "the only unreservedly recommended route" would run east of Skryne because "it avoids the area of highest archaeological potential . . . and has the inestimable advantage of being largely invisible from the Hill of Tara".

Dr Mark Clinton of An Taisce's National Monuments and Antiquities Committee said that given increased public concern, there was now a "significant onus" on the NRA to clear suspicions and to make public whether it ever informed the Government of the contents of these reports.

mackerski · 10-12-2004 10:28PM

Victor wrote:

Is it me or is "However, the NRA argues that the new route will be further from Tara than the existing N3" a really bogus argument.

It seems sound enough to me. The argument goes like this:

"It's wrong to build high capacity roads near national monuments", says the campaigner. "Ah!", says the NRA, "but the new road will be further away from the monument as the one that's already there. This way, the Hill of Tara will have more peace and quiet than it ever did".

You're free to argue, of course, that the hill isn't the only bit of the area of archaeological significance and that you'd be better off not building anywhere between Tara and Newgrange. That argument would, IMHO, be a bit more convincing if we were also prepared to protect this large historical zone from housing, farms and all the other stuff it's been putting up with all these years.

Dermot

Victor · 10-12-2004 10:48PM

mackerski wrote:

Tara and Newgrange.

Tara and Skryne.

jlang · 10-12-2004 11:48PM

I think he actually meant Tara and Newgrange.

is_that_so · 11-12-2004 04:15PM

jlang wrote:

I think he actually meant Tara and Newgrange.

Think it refers to the wider area from Tara all the way across to Newgrange

mackerski · 12-12-2004 02:04AM

jlang wrote:

I think he actually meant Tara and Newgrange.

I sure did - basically, it's artefact central in that whole neck of the woods. We need to think long and hard about our policy on building anything in the area. Up until now, planners seem to have taken the view that life must go on, which is why people are allowed to live in this sacred zone. So if you can build houses, should you be allowed to build roads for the people who live in them?

Isn't it funny, BTW, how seldom the constuction of new houses in artefact-rich country seems to turn up archaeological sites? Whereas a publicly-accountable project need only turn sod to stumble on something of national significance. A cynic might wonder how much history has had foundations poured in on top of it "quick before anybody finds out".

Dermot

Metrobest · 12-12-2004 11:57PM

BrianD wrote:

My understanding that the bulk of the interconnector is going under existing urban landscape as in Dublin city centre! I thought this is what you were repeatedly calling for Metrobest, an underground metro system. Furthermore, as it links a number of existing rail lines (and possible future ones) at long last we will have a metro system for Dublin. We will see see population densities along these lines increase instead of sprawling outwards. Not that's what I call sustainability! So where's the unsustainable bit! Building a motorway to Navan is completely unsustainable, lacks vision, highlights our poor ability to plan and implement a spatial strategy not to mention destroying our national heritage. Unsustainable if I may so.

I wouldn’t call the interconnector a metro, BrianD. It has merits, but it’s not 'metropolitan' (just 4 UG stations), nor is it the solution to Dublin’s transport problems. It’ll be lovely for people who live in Kildare and want a nice quick train to Stephen’s Green, but what about the rest of Dublin, particularly the Northside? Zilch. I say look after metropolitan Dublin before Leinster. Otherwise you’re encouraging yet more outer-suburban sprawl and Dublin will continue develop like a doughnut, car use proliferating further. I’ve already put forward a solution: a central Dublin metro (Drumcondra-Ranelagh) and a circle line (a fleshed-out version of the Interconnector tunnel).

Now back to the M3! I can’t believe the media reporting on this. Has anyone actually gone down to Tara and interviewed local people – the people whose lives the motorway will change? Of course not. Instead we hear from B-list Hollywood actors; academics from Galway and green-eyed hippies from South Dublin.

The NRA has a very useful ad in the Sunday papers, pointing out the myths that are being spun in the media. And I blame Frank McDonald for this. He is doing his utmost to tell only one side of the story. Isn’t that the opposite of good journalism?

And installing a train line to Navan won't be a magic solution. Don't delude yourself. A quick look at the map of Dublin confirms this. The rail network is too peripheral to most of the central hubs of employment.

mackerski · 13-12-2004 12:19AM

Metrobest wrote:

I wouldn’t call the interconnector a metro, BrianD. It has merits, but it’s not 'metropolitan' (just 4 UG stations), nor is it the solution to Dublin’s transport problems. It’ll be lovely for people who live in Kildare and want a nice quick train to Stephen’s Green, but what about the rest of Dublin, particularly the Northside? Zilch.

I'll give this another go, though plenty of people have said it already: Look beyond the new stations. We already have a load of suburban lines, two of which serve the northside. Are they delivering metro-like service currently? No. What's stopping them from doing so? Train frequency. OK, electification (and that's envisaged for the Interconnector plan) would help, but you'd put a nice dent in the Metropolitan area's transport problems if you could boost the frequency of the existing lines.

That's what the Interconnector is supposed to do. That it creates a few extra central area stations is a nice bonus, that and the fact that you'll have some extra flexibility as to what zone within the City Centre you wish to end your train journey.

What you have to realise is that Trains from Maynooth, Drogheda and Kildare, as well as the best-of-current-breed DART will all remain as pants as they are today without some creative way of boosting their value. So dropping a new Metro line through virgin territory may well give a nice present to an existing suburb, but it won't solve the inefficiency on the existing lines.

Look at it another way. I live in Blanchardstown, within decent reach of two stations on the Maynooth line, one of which has a car park. Today, I keep out of town as much as possible, even on the weekend. If I have to go in, I drive and pay for parking. I'd prefer to take the train. I'd even consider buses, if I knew I could change routes to land in the part of town I need to reach.

The interconnector, if it can be implemented as proposed, can form the basis for the kind of train service on existing lines that people will want to use - one where, if you show up at a station, you can be pretty sure a train will show up before you die of starvation. And it can do it in a single implementation phase - unlike brand new prestige lines that make great photo-ops but can't transform the transport system (unless you build at about 5 times the rate we saw with Luas).

Dermot

Metrobest · 13-12-2004 01:11AM

mackerski wrote:

I'll give this another go, though plenty of people have said it already: Look beyond the new stations. We already have a load of suburban lines, two of which serve the northside. Are they delivering metro-like service currently? No. What's stopping them from doing so? Train frequency. OK, electification (and that's envisaged for the Interconnector plan) would help, but you'd put a nice dent in the Metropolitan area's transport problems if you could boost the frequency of the existing lines.

That's what the Interconnector is supposed to do. That it creates a few extra central area stations is a nice bonus, that and the fact that you'll have some extra flexibility as to what zone within the City Centre you wish to end your train journey.

What you have to realise is that Trains from Maynooth, Drogheda and Kildare, as well as the best-of-current-breed DART will all remain as pants as they are today without some creative way of boosting their value. So dropping a new Metro line through virgin territory may well give a nice present to an existing suburb, but it won't solve the inefficiency on the existing lines.

Look at it another way. I live in Blanchardstown, within decent reach of two stations on the Maynooth line, one of which has a car park. Today, I keep out of town as much as possible, even on the weekend. If I have to go in, I drive and pay for parking. I'd prefer to take the train. I'd even consider buses, if I knew I could change routes to land in the part of town I need to reach.

The interconnector, if it can be implemented as proposed, can form the basis for the kind of train service on existing lines that people will want to use - one where, if you show up at a station, you can be pretty sure a train will show up before you die of starvation. And it can do it in a single implementation phase - unlike brand new prestige lines that make great photo-ops but can't transform the transport system (unless you build at about 5 times the rate we saw with Luas).

Dermot

I agree with some of what you say. However, where we disagree is in the scale of improvement the Interconnector will bring. Without doubt it will improve services to areas outside the DART system (Drogheda, Maynooth, Kildare). But that may encourage development further and further outside of Dublin. I think that's undesirable. Electrifying Kildare and Maynooth solves frequency issues on these lines; Spencer Dock can be served by LUAS. Instead of spending 1.3bn on the tunnelled section between Heuston and Spencer, I think it would be better to strategically locate that fund into a proper metro that would serve metropolitan Dublin.

The existing DART service is pretty much running at all-time high capacity; frequencies are never going to go much higher than their present levels because of track constraints, level crossings and speed restrictions. Frequencies on the Howth-city stretch of DART could actually disimprove post-Interconnector.

mackerski · 13-12-2004 01:43AM

Metrobest wrote:

But that may encourage development further and further outside of Dublin. I think that's undesirable.

Boggle. I think it's very desirable. One of the biggest problems these days is uncontrolled development on the fringe of the existing Dublin sprawl. Getting it further away is good.

Metrobest wrote:

Electrifying Kildare and Maynooth solves frequency issues on these lines;

No it doesn't. Unless electric trains can suddenly levitate, thereby solving the loop line bottleneck. The priorities if you want increased service on those lines are:

1. Find a place for the extra trains to go, or reroute some of the trains currently in the way.
2. Electrify the lines so your new frequent service are efficient too.
(1a. For Kildare only - stop terminating the train at the edge of the Phoenix Park.)

Spencer Dock has a part to play in the capacity boost, and in a way that doesn't even involve the new tunnel - it's just a place to send trains that isn't on the Loop Line. That it's well-located for a lot of commuters (better than bloody Heuston) is a bonus. That Luas can serve Spencer Dock is a red herring. By all means let it do so.

Metrobest wrote:

Spencer Dock can be served by LUAS. Instead of spending 1.3bn on the tunnelled section between Heuston and Spencer, I think it would be better to strategically locate that fund into a proper metro that would serve metropolitan Dublin.

You won't build your entire Metro system for the cost of the Interconnector tunnel. And you will still have to find a solution to the existing commuter line capacity. Either that or junk them - you could rip up the metals and relay them in European standard gauge for the surface stretches of the "real" Metro.

Don't get me wrong - I see a lot of scope in the existing commuter lines as the basis for a new Metro system that will, in time, have lines added. However, a _lot_ of driving commuters live within range of those suburban lines, phase 1 can deliver a lot of value. And frankly, there's not a lot of point in laying tunnel from Stephen's Green to Broadstone and track to the Airport via Finglas and Ballymun if the poor sods elsewhere on the city rail network have no decent rail connections to let them in on the fun.

If we fix what's broken on the existing rail routes into town, we'll have usable rail frequency to the following places with a choice of city centre destinations:

* Existing DART and onward destinations
* Drumcondra, Phibsborough, Cabra, Castleknock, Blanchardstown to Maynooth.
* Kilmainham, Ballyfermot, Clondalkin to Kildare and beyond.
* Rialto, Drimnagh, Naas Road, Tallaght.
* Ranelagh, Rathmines, Milltown, Dundrum, Sandyford, Leopardstown.

We're right to look at the holes in that map and plan for future lines - but we'd be mad to actually build one until we've gone for the low-hanging fruit. What we want is a network, not a patchwork.

And as for beefing up rail within the city centre, circle lines or any of that rot, say it with me: "You don't need it!". The city isn't huge. Get some city-centre bus routes, or trams if you insist, and make sure they're on the same fares as the trains. Sorted. The only reason London has a circle line is that their underground system started off as a bid to connect the different mainline stations. Just like our Interconnector...

Dermot

Metrobest · 13-12-2004 02:02AM

This thead is about the M3 motorway so I'd rather debate this on another thread please. I'll just say this: I accept the Interconnector will help greatly sort out the existing mess. But it won't sort out the 2 track problems of Connolly-Malahide. And running a spur off the Northern line to the airport is just crazy.

So I'd rather see rescources diverted into entirely new projects. But not the Airport metro. I'm not in favour of that either!

BrianD · 13-12-2004 11:11AM

Nice full page ad in the Irish Times today from the NRA with their spin on the story.

Unfortunately they left out the fact that the road is a monument to bad planning.

Q. We need an increased capacity route to serve Navan and get rid of some bottlenecks.

A (NRA) Sure just build it along the old road. That's what we always do.

The reality is that the traffic jams at Blanchardstown will not change. The delays at Dunshaughlin will go but will be replaced by Q's at the toll gates. That's progress for you. Oh and one of our national monuments will be destroyed and the planning and development plan for south Meath goes out the window.

On the bright side, I was talking to the folks at the weekend and we reckon we could get a Lidl or maybe one of those Ikeas onto our 3.5 acres (provided we flatten the house). It's not far from the M3 and with a few words with the local councillors they might be able to get a slip road built ...

Metrobest · 13-12-2004 12:16PM

BrianD wrote:

Nice full page ad in the Irish Times today from the NRA with their spin on the story.

Unfortunately they left out the fact that the road is a monument to bad planning.

Q. We need an increased capacity route to serve Navan and get rid of some bottlenecks.

A (NRA) Sure just build it along the old road. That's what we always do.

The reality is that the traffic jams at Blanchardstown will not change. The delays at Dunshaughlin will go but will be replaced by Q's at the toll gates. That's progress for you. Oh and one of our national monuments will be destroyed and the planning and development plan for south Meath goes out the window.

On the bright side, I was talking to the folks at the weekend and we reckon we could get a Lidl or maybe one of those Ikeas onto our 3.5 acres (provided we flatten the house). It's not far from the M3 and with a few words with the local councillors they might be able to get a slip road built ...

Sorry, but this is fearmongering of the worst kind. The M3, as part of the development plan for Meath and Navan, is going to pass through the Tara/Skryne Valley. There will be no retail development ANYWHERE NEAR Tara.

Tara is not a national monument. It's a hill. There is no groundswell of public anger that this road is being built; instead there are a couple of journalists, a B-rate actor who lives in California and a bunch of tree huggers. Tara is a bland landscape and if UNESCO thought it was important would have desingnated it a world heritage site. There's plenty more like it.

Ireland is full of monuments. But monuments are totally selective. One person's hill is another person's "sacred landscape." The hidden "treasures" of Tara are not visible to the naked eye. And the M3 will not "destroy" Tara. Again: scaremongering. At its nearest point, the M3 will be 1.5miles away from Tara, twice the distance of the existing N3.

BrianD · 13-12-2004 12:37PM

How wrong you are Metrobest. Of course the retail will follow, of course the housing will follow! You will have the same ill informed councillors standing up at meetings in years to come and they will all be saying "sure the M3 is there with plenty of capacity and this retail park will bring jobs" etc etc. Heard it all before.

Tara is not just a hill. I suggest you take a walk up there (preferably sooner than later). The existing N3 is close to the hill but hardly as obtrusive as a 4 lane highway will be. I find it hard to believe that you have no concept of the importance of Tara!!! In fact I find it quite sad. I suppose Newgrange nearby is just a bunch of rocks?

We have already seen fundamental breaches of the Meath development plan and there is constant pressure to change it. A development for almost 1,000 homes was turned down in Dunshaughlin but will probably get through later. The M3 features in all of these applications.

The M3 is a done deal. It will be built irrespective of what campaign is waged and Co. Meath will be the worse of for it. There was an opportunity to develop a different approach to the radial routing from Dublin. If anybody doesn't think that development along the routes or between the roads won't happen then they are living a pipedream.

mackerski · 13-12-2004 12:55PM

BrianD wrote:

How wrong you are Metrobest. Of course the retail will follow, of course the housing will follow! You will have the same ill informed councillors standing up at meetings in years to come and they will all be saying "sure the M3 is there with plenty of capacity and this retail park will bring jobs" etc etc. Heard it all before.

It seems to me that there are two arguments going on here. The first one is that it would be improper to profane the historic landscape of Tara with a motorway. The second one (a fallback position) can perhaps be summed up as: "well, OK, maybe a motorway might be OK, but think of the development that will follow it."

Thing is, that it's one thing to carefully choose a route for a road through a senstive area (especially if, in doing so, you move the traffic further away from the holy site). It's quite another for the planners of Meath to actually allow ribbon development on sacred ground. Sure, the landowners may try it on. But it's for the planners to reject the applications if they have no merit. We do have planning controls for this kind of thing - you don't have to block a long-distance road development just because it would lead the local councillors into temptation.

Frankly, the matter of further development is for another discussion.

Dermot

BrianD · 13-12-2004 05:40PM

you don't have to block a long-distance road development just because it would lead the local councillors into temptation.

This is not an intercity highway

Distance from Dublin:

Dunshaughlin 27 km
Navan 45 Km
Kells 60 km (end of proposed M3)

M3 Clonee-Kells route selection and archaelogical info

Comments