Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

M3 Clonee-Kells route selection and archaelogical info

1235712

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,991 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Drove the N3 from Kells to Dublin during the rush this morning (8am). I know schools are off. Only point of congestion was at Fairyhouse cross roads. I was being very careful to observe the road, the width or carriageway, the visibility and adjoining properties along the route. I genuinely believe that high quality bypasses of Kells, Navan and Dunshaughlin (may as well be dual carriageway as they're new roads anyway but at least 2+1), grade separation at Fairyhouse and 2+1 carriageway on the existing route which has plenty of room either side for this. Re-open railway to Navan, providing plenty of P&R along the way. No need for a tolled money spinner for NTR to operate. Being realistic, what major centres of population exist beyond Navan on the N3?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,647 ✭✭✭impr0v


    All that money wasted on consultants preparing the scheme when all that had to be done was to let you drive the route once and come back with your recommendations.

    And what has NTR got to do with it? The tendering process for the scheme has yet to even produce a shortlist of applicants. I think you're mixing up your roads. Perhaps you'll have a drive down the M50 tomorrow and sort that one out too.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    impr0v wrote:
    Already started? ... (quotation truncated) I can't imagine them allowing a planning free for all in the region simply because a motorway now runs though it.

    I have a relative who is a planner. A substantial number of applications for industrial and residential projects have already been put in. Many are based on the existence of the M3 and access to same. For example, 800 houses south of Dunshaughlin with the single access point onto the existing N3 (refused) and a development of "holiday apartments and a visitor centre" in the old Workhouse outside of Dublin (appealed). There are numerous other retail developments around Navan. Substantial landbanks have been purchased in an around the M3 route. County councils have a strange way of justifying these types of developments once the right influence is applied and it will all seem more logical once the M3 is there as a justification. The M3 will actually create more unsustainable sub-urban dvelopment in the county.

    The county doesn't a commuter rat run into Dublin that just amplifies the current development issues. It needs to look at ways that people can work and live within the county instead of just sleeping there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,647 ✭✭✭impr0v


    BrianD wrote:
    The county doesn't a commuter rat run into Dublin that just amplifies the current development issues. It needs to look at ways that people can work and live within the county instead of just sleeping there.

    Surely the industrial projects you mention, and the retail developements around Navan that you also make reference to, 'many [of which] are based on the existence of the M3 and access to same' provide a way for people to work in the county?

    The road itself isn't a commuter rat run, it allows traffic in both ways at all times. It's the fact that people have to go to Dublin to get work that makes them commuters, they'll still do this without a new M3, because they have no choice. The road will also allow the work to come to the commuters, as evidenced by the planning applications which you referred to.

    Roads don't promote or allow unsustainable sub-urban development, planners and planning policy do.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    It doesn't justify the construction of the M3. Industry within the county can be supported by a modest upgrade of the N3 or the counstruction of an alternative routing perhaps linking into the upgraded N2 or the M1. Other roads within the county could be upgraded to support this strategy in tandem with investment with public transport modes.

    The N3 is a commuter rat run. Lets call a spade a spade! The traffic flows are all in one direction at peak times. The M3 will bring no more work to them then an upgraded N3. The M3 will just justify the opening up of more land for dormitory villages and create more commuters (to the delight of the toll operators).

    I agree that roads don't promote or allow unsustainable development by themselves but its a bit chicken or egg, which comes first. The fact is that this road is an expamle of badly thought out infrastuctural planning that will lead to further bad planning decisions. New development will be justified because of the new route and indeed encouraged to almost justify its existence in the first place.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,991 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    impr0v wrote:
    All that money wasted on consultants preparing the scheme when all that had to be done was to let you drive the route once and come back with your recommendations.

    And what has NTR got to do with it? The tendering process for the scheme has yet to even produce a shortlist of applicants. I think you're mixing up your roads. Perhaps you'll have a drive down the M50 tomorrow and sort that one out too.

    This is the land of wasting money on consultants. Often they're best mates of politicians (or as in the case of NTR & Westlink, the politician was the consultant!). You really have such faith in consultants' reports? How naiive.

    I used NTR as an example. I'm not mixing up any roads. People here are unfamiliar with any other toll operator (wonder why).

    In any case, I prefaced my opinions contained within my post with "I genuinely believe". I, unlike some, can accept that I might actually be wrong, but I'm still entitled to my opinion. :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,647 ✭✭✭impr0v


    BrianD wrote:
    The M3 will bring no more work to them then an upgraded N3.

    I thought that your relative said that there were numerous applications for industrial projects and retail developments around Navan already made, many referencing the M3? As I said above, surely developments such as these bring jobs with them?
    BrianD wrote:
    Other roads within the county could be upgraded to support this strategy in tandem with investment with public transport modes.

    Absolutely, but wherever industry or commercial ventures locate within the county, especially those organisations that are internationally focused, the only road they'll be worried about will be the one direct to the capital. The one that leads to the airport, the nearest large port, and the financial and services centre.
    murphaph wrote:
    This is the land of wasting money on consultants. Often they're best mates of politicians (or as in the case of NTR & Westlink, the politician was the consultant!).
    Again, we're talking about the M3, not the M50, and using the case of a notoriously corrupt politician, to tar all, or 'many', engineering consultants with is a serious slight upon the profession, and is well within the realm of conjecture. If you have allegations to make about corruption within the ranks of the technical consultants whose services were sought in connection with this project I suggest you take them to a higher forum than this.
    murphaph wrote:
    You really have such faith in consultants' reports? How naiive.
    You may think it is naiive to have faith in the professional opinion of a qualified consultant, with many years of experience in the field, but when offered the choice between that and the opinion of someone who seems to have difficulty differnentiating between this project and the entirely different M50, and who's view on the current state of the road vary from calling it a linear parking lot to proclaiming it largely congestion free within a few days, I consider it good judgement.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,991 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    impr0v wrote:
    Again, we're talking about the M3, not the M50, and using the case of a notoriously corrupt politician, to tar all, or 'many', engineering consultants with is a serious slight upon the profession, and is well within the realm of conjecture. If you have allegations to make about corruption within the ranks of the technical consultants whose services were sought in connection with this project I suggest you take them to a higher forum than this.
    Oh my God. Doon't be so rediculous. This is an open forum, not a court of law. It's here for us to express opinions. Opinions do not have to be based on facts. Anyway, you brought the M50 into the discussion. ;)

    You'll get your M3, of that I have no doubt. Somebody stands to make far too much money from it not to happen. It's short changing the people of Meath though, when they could have a nice rail link instead and a toll free road to the M50.You think when the M3 comes on stream that traffic will magically begin to flow freely at the M50 inerchange? hah, the traffic jams will stretch back miles because there will be nothing to regulate traffic flow. Enjoy.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭Metrobest


    Some people on this forum cannot grasp that the M3 is a piece of national infrastructure. As much as for Meath, the M3 will benefit all the Northern counties. It's 2005. You cannot expect people to risk their lives travling on antiquated, substandard roads.

    I see many of the people here, like sheep, are echoing a Frank McDonald article in which he said the M3 should be shelved in favour of a 2+1 and a link to the M1. That would be madness, utter madness. There's no point building a motorway if it's going the wrong way. And the 2+1 example of Sweden is dubious. Northern Sweden is more sparsely populated than Ireland. In the South of Sweden you'll find a spaghetti bowl of motorways snaking through the countryside. We could learn a lot from the Swedes.

    "Psychic" BrianD's prediction that the M3 will spawn development is also flawed. Bad planning, county Laois-style, spawns bad development. It's not the road - it's the mindset that controls it. Incidentally, I cannnot see there ever being industrial development in the vicinity of Tara. Too much fuss has been made by the protesters. No politican, no matter how corrupt, would want to attract these sort of loopy protests.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,647 ✭✭✭impr0v


    murphaph wrote:
    You'll get your M3, of that I have no doubt. Somebody stands to make far too much money from it not to happen.

    Conjecture again!
    murphaph wrote:
    You think when the M3 comes on stream that traffic will magically begin to flow freely at the M50 inerchange?

    No I don't think it will, and I don't think it will flow freely even when the M50 upgrade is completed, because roads alone aren't the answer to the problems that are causing the congestion. However, I don't think the M3 is as flawed a project as the furore around it suggests it to be. Before the media took the 'through the hill of Tara' line and fanned the subsequent flames the M3 had, with the exception of a fairly drawn out Oral Hearing, been very uncontroversial, especially considering the size of scheme it is. It's my opinion that once it's built it will prove itself to be unworthy of all the controversy and be seen as a valuable part of the national road network.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,991 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    @Impr0v;
    You're damned right I'm speculating and conjecturing that someone will make a fortune from the poor ba$tard$ that'll be using it. As I said, enjoy your commuter motorway but don't make out like this commuter expressway is critical to national infrastructure. There is shag all industry in Meath, Cavan, Leitrim or Donegal. We haven't even linked Cork, Limerick or Galway!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭Metrobest


    I noticed today the latest abuse of the english language in the Irish Times, with the area through which the M3 will pass being referred to as the "Tara archaeological complex". Whilst accurate in a Kevin Myers sense, the use of the word "complex" confers upon the invisible relics a super-important, undeserved status.

    Let's face it. Tara is not a beloved landscape, nor is an important landscape in the context of what can be seen in the rest of Ireland. Our country is beautiful but must we preserve every square inch of it, every blade of grass upon which our ancestors once trod?

    The Rough Guide to Ireland damns the location with faint praise, saying the Tara hill looks like a well-kept golfcourse. They also remind us that this is the location to which "all the highways of Ireland once led". Further, tourists are advised to access Tara from the existing N3, which is very close by the hill.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,267 ✭✭✭DubTony


    Metrobest wrote:
    They also remind us that this is the location to which "all the highways of Ireland once led".

    So it seems the planning hasn't changed a lot. All the highways just lead a little to the southeast these days :D

    Tony


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Let's face it. Tara is not a beloved landscape, nor is an important landscape in the context of what can be seen in the rest of Ireland

    Yawwn you said that around ten times now and you were wrong the first time and let me guess your still wrong.

    Is there a reasont why they cant reroute the M3 away from tara?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,991 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    jank wrote:
    Is there a reasont why they cant reroute the M3 away from tara?
    Eh, it is already routed further away from Tara than the existing N3. I personally have no objection to the routing on environmental grounds.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,832 ✭✭✭Enduro


    You may not object, but there is a huge body of both Irish and international expert archaeological opinion that does. Can you not see the huge delay that this will cause to the building of the motorway? Glen of the Downs / Carrickmines were minor trivialities in comparison. If your only interest is in getting a M3 (as opposed to THE proposed M3) built as soon as possible then surely you would be better off getting the thing re-routed onto one of the many proposed less sensitive routes. What is it that so important about the current route that you are unwilling to countenance one of the alternative routes?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Metrobest wrote:
    Let's face it. Tara is not a beloved landscape, nor is an important landscape in the context of what can be seen in the rest of Ireland. Our country is beautiful but must we preserve every square inch of it, every blade of grass upon which our ancestors once trod?

    BS. in any case, it's not a landscape like the cliffs of moher but it is essential that it is preserved. Tara, probably one of the best known things about Ireland as it is immediately associated with the country.

    It is important that you understand the arguements about the M3. While some people are concerned about the impact on the Tara-Skryne area the majority are concerned about the M3 for what it is - an appaling example of bad infrastructural development that will only lead to more bad development in the country.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    Metrobest wrote:
    Some people on this forum cannot grasp that the M3 is a piece of national infrastructure. As much as for Meath, the M3 will benefit all the Northern counties. It's 2005. You cannot expect people to risk their lives travling on antiquated, substandard roads.

    Risk there lives on the N3? Rubbish. It is a wide well aligned road and well capable of taking the current traffic. Busy at peak hours.
    I see many of the people here, like sheep, are echoing a Frank McDonald article in which he said the M3 should be shelved in favour of a 2+1 and a link to the M1. That would be madness, utter madness. There's no point building a motorway if it's going the wrong way. And the 2+1 example of Sweden is dubious. Northern Sweden is more sparsely populated than Ireland. In the South of Sweden you'll find a spaghetti bowl of motorways snaking through the countryside. We could learn a lot from the Swedes.

    The only one that is blinkered is you! Read your post. Why would the alternatives be going the wrong way?? All roads must lead to Dublin? A dual carriage way accross from say Navan to the M2 and M1 would achieve exactly the same results and tap into two under utilised roads. This would ease pressure on the existing N3 south of Navan while more than serving Navan residents and those north of it. It also opens up a corridor from east-west accross the county.

    The 2+1 idea is not necessary at all and I wouldn't advocate it either. All we need is overtaking lanes every 10km like in Australia. The N3 is in need of upgrading but a m-way is overkill and contributes little or nothing to our national infrastructure.
    "Psychic" BrianD's prediction that the M3 will spawn development is also flawed. Bad planning, county Laois-style, spawns bad development. It's not the road - it's the mindset that controls it. Incidentally, I cannnot see there ever being industrial development in the vicinity of Tara. Too much fuss has been made by the protesters. No politican, no matter how corrupt, would want to attract these sort of loopy protests.

    Well, well well. What prompted the recent decision of the Laois councillors. The extension of the M7 into Laois was seized upon as justification for these rezonings. Now granted this is a different case as the N7/M7 is an intercity route and like the M1 should be an m-way. But put the road in and pro-development councillors and land owners will use it as an excuse. It is the same scenario in Meath but unlike the M&, the M3 is surplus to requirements. I agree it is the mindset that leads to the bad planning but it it is the same mindset that is giving us the M3 and is lobbying for it. Don't forget these pro-M3 groups are as "unelected" as the M3 protestors. They were happy to proceed with the M3 despite the fact that 70% of questionnaires returned during the public consultation opposed it.

    FACT: The M3 will spawn development and most of it will be substandard and unsustainable in the long run.

    The irony of the situation is that in the time wasted to cobble together the M3 PPP project we could be already be some way through an upgrade programme for the N3 that allievate some of the botlenecks and shortcomings of the existing road.

    I also note that the southern toll booths will be located at the Blackbull/Piercetown so it nicely catch all including those going to the proposed park and ride rail facility in Dunboyne.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,991 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Enduro wrote:
    You may not object, but there is a huge body of both Irish and international expert archaeological opinion that does. Can you not see the huge delay that this will cause to the building of the motorway? Glen of the Downs / Carrickmines were minor trivialities in comparison. If your only interest is in getting a M3 (as opposed to THE proposed M3) built as soon as possible then surely you would be better off getting the thing re-routed onto one of the many proposed less sensitive routes. What is it that so important about the current route that you are unwilling to countenance one of the alternative routes?
    Enduro, may I suggest that you actually read the whole thread before flying off the handle. I object to the road's construction on other grounds as already outlined. I have no interest in getting the M3 built at all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,991 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    BrianD wrote:
    I also note that the southern toll booths will be located at the Blackbull/Piercetown so it nicely catch all including those going to the proposed park and ride rail facility in Dunboyne.
    A fact not lost on IE in their recent feasablity study. This is a problem as far as they are concerned but remember it's more important that the toll operator makes heaps of cash than actually alleviating traffic coming into Dublin. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,721 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    BrianD wrote:
    A dual carriage way accross from say Navan to the M2 and M1 would achieve exactly the same results and tap into two under utilised roads. This would ease pressure on the existing N3 south of Navan while more than serving Navan residents and those north of it. It also opens up a corridor from east-west accross the county.
    [Homer voice]Let's call it the "M51"[/Homer voice]


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭thejollyrodger


    anyone watching Questions and answers about the M3. Hot topic alright. Very heated on both sides. What I want to know is, why is the motorway being built with NO provision for the railway. I think thats pretty cynical. I think they should still go ahead with the motorway, and eventually extend it all the way to the border.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,991 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    I think they should still go ahead with the motorway, and eventually extend it all the way to the border.
    Why?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    anyone watching Questions and answers about the M3. Hot topic alright. Very heated on both sides. What I want to know is, why is the motorway being built with NO provision for the railway. I think thats pretty cynical. I think they should still go ahead with the motorway, and eventually extend it all the way to the border.

    When you say no provision do you mean that the railway is only being talked about with no definite plan or that there is no bridges over the m3 to accomodate a future route?

    Railway has always been a separate issue but was recently thrown into the debate as a sop to the opposition. In reality, there is no strategic plan - that's why the M3 is being built and the railway is only proposed. There is no need for a M3 route as it serves no real need what so ever otherthan give those on the route a motorway instead of a 2 wayroad. The plan is poor its almost arbitary they way these plans go ahead.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭thejollyrodger


    Well, they could include a bridge so that a railway could be built without having to come back (M50 style) and close the motorway in later years. Road is going to transport everyone, so the lack of a bridge is a disgrace and another instance of paddy planning being alive and well.

    I think the motorway should be eventually extended all the way to the border for economic development. People in Derry and Donegal have a better chance of working there with a if there is high quality road going to the border.

    A Rail corridor could eventually be extended to Cavan as well


  • Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,742 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    murphaph wrote:
    Why?
    Because it would help areas like Belturbet and Ballyconnell grow. It is needed for that area of Cavan. Plus the fact that Cavan town is a disaster when it comes to traffic.


  • Moderators, Regional North East Moderators Posts: 12,742 Mod ✭✭✭✭cournioni


    BrianD wrote:
    There is no need for a M3 route as it serves no real need what so ever otherthan give those on the route a motorway instead of a 2 wayroad.
    Yeah how often do you travel on the N3? Not very often by the look of things... :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭Metrobest


    I wonder was it true, what a guy in the Questions and Answers audience was saying about the M3 route slicing through the rail-line. If that's the case then, please, build a bridge and avoid future mayhem.

    I have less sympathy for those who moan about tolls. Anyone unhappy with the toll can use the existing N3. My guess is most people will pay to avail of the quality road. Pay up, or shut up, is my feeling.

    Nothing - and nobody - should now stand in the way of Meath people getting the road they deserve. It's quite clear the vast majority of people are delighted with the chosen route. Over 90 percent has given it the nod. Notice how the shrillest voices in the "Save" Tara group, principally Mr Safira [plus Mr McGrath- who has a strange opinion on the Third Reich] speak with Dublin 4 accents. Oh yeah, and I forgot about Stuart Townsend, who lives in .. Hollywood.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 75 ✭✭Crossley


    Can anyone explain to me the purpose of the Blundelstown Interchange which is to be situated in the Tara-Skyrne valley? It's not to access Navan as the Kilcarn junction further on does that. If the Blundelstwon Interchange didn't exist I'd be far less concerned about eventual commercial development in the area.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭thejollyrodger


    I think P11 or someone should be demanding a bridge be built to accomadate 2 railway lines. The cost of the bridge wouldnt be a lot and would save a huge fiacso in the future.

    Personally I think once the motorway is built, it fit in very well with the landscape. Road building here does cost a lot more than other European countries but we do build our roads to a high standard (i.e what Is built as opposed to whats not built) and it isnt one straight line from Dublin to Navan. There will be imaganative use of lightening etc and its further away from tara and lower into the ground at key areas

    But no bridge for rail ?? That is a disgrace


Advertisement