M3 Clonee-Kells route selection and archaelogical info

Metrobest

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

Metrobest wrote:

Sorry, but the point of mortoways IS to satisfy large numbers of people.

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.

Metrobest wrote:

This is basic economics. Supply and demand.

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

Metrobest

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.

Metrobest

Sean Moncreiff, Newstalk 106 presenter: "Everybody's saying Tara is valuable, but it seems to be only important to archaelogists. The rest of us are sitting in a traffic jam on the N3 looking at a hill."

Anyone care to disagree?

Victor

Behave!

Gonzo

I live in Dunshaughlin and I am sick and tired of constant delays for the M3, commuting between Dunshaughlin and Dublin is a living hell with traffic often staying at around 20mph from O'Connell Street to Dunshaughlin in the evenings making a 27km journey nearly 2 hours on some of the really bad evenings. We're looking at a minimum of another 4 years before this road even see's the light of day I cant imagine how much worse the traffic will be between now and 2009/2010.

Metrobest

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

Frank McDonald is a good and intelligent journalist but can this piece pass without comment? This is essentially an opinion piece masquerading as an objective piece of reporting.

Who says the report "contradicts" the Taoiseach's belief that the current route is the best one?

Curiously he leaves till last a very important quote from the NRA: "The NRA has said the P route...had "serious drawbacks in terms of its ability to serve traffic demand" as well as impacts on communities and the environment.

Well, Frank, there you go. The reason they're not running the P route is that it wouldn't serve the commuters who need it. Sounds fair enough to me.

BrianD

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.

Victor

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/1208/tara.html

Business leaders back proposed M3 route
08 December 2004 12:46

Local business leaders have entered the row over the routing of the M3 motorway near the Hill of Tara by backing the controversial proposed route.

The Chambers of Commerce from Navan, Kells and Trim have written to all local representatives in Meath and several Government ministers urging them to back the present route.

However, the Meath Historical and Archaeological Society have dismissed their claims.

In the letter, the chambers say that any delay in the delivery of the motorway would have devastating consequences for the people of Meath and Cavan.

They claim that the majority of local people do support the present controversial route.

The Chambers say re-routing the motorway would add years onto the project and cost more.

A spokesperson for the Meath Historical and Archaeological Society say they welcome the chambers entering the debate.

However, the spokesperson says their statement contains many inaccuracies and just repeats what they describe as the 'spin' put out by the NRA.

BrianD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BrianD

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

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

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

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

mackerski wrote:

Tara and Newgrange.

Tara and Skryne.

jlang

I think he actually meant Tara and Newgrange.

is_that_so

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

mackerski

BrianD wrote:

This is not an intercity highway

I'm well aware of the route. I never said it was an intercity road. I said it was a long-distance one. It is. It also stands to benefit traffic using the route as the national road that it is. When I use the N3, I'm usually going all the way.

So by all means let's examine the rights and wrongs of having Motorway from Clonee to Kells. Let's particularly decide whether building one near the Hill of Tara is any worse than the status quo. But right now I don't see why I should give a fiddlers whether the local council has the willpower to enforce responsible development once the road is built. It's a separate argument (and a more important one).

Dermot

Metrobest

BrianD wrote:

How wrong you are Metrobest. Of course the retail will follow, of course the housing will follow!

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?

. If anybody doesn't think that development along the routes or between the roads won't happen then they are living a pipedream.

No, I like Newgrange. I'd be against development at Newgrange. So would most people. You see, I have a sense of scale: you can't protect EVERY monument; some are more special than others. Tara, i'm afraid, tends to fall into the "it's-a-hill" category. And obviously our forefathers didn't think much of it - they built houses and farms proximate to it, not to mention the dangerously choked N3 which is twice as near the hill as the M3 will be!

luckat

They'll have no luck of it.

BrianD

Well while I have concerns about the siting of the M3 close to Tara, i don't see it as the key issue. It is unfortunate that Tara will be blighted by this unnecessary piece of infrastructure. My arguement is that M3 should never be built. There are other infrastructure links within Co/ Meath that should be considered in terms of the overall development of the county and its transportation needs.

You are living in another world if you do not think that the construction of the M3 will not put pressure on planning and development in its vicinity. The convenience of commuters should be secondary to this issue. Unfortunately, it is small minded business and political interested who seem to have the say over professional planners. A huge opportunity missed for co. Meath.

BTW the N3 is not "dangerously choked" as you say - only where it is funnelled on the existing dual carriageway into the M50 and at Dunshaughlin. It is quite clear that the bypass at Dunshaughlin approved in 1999 was deliberately delayed to ease the passage of the tolled M3.

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/4667441?view=Eircomnet

Minister claims he cannot 'vary' Tara route
From:ireland.com
Friday, 17th December, 2004

The Minister for the Environment has said it is not within his power to significantly vary the route of the proposed M3 motorway through Co Meath.

Commenting as members of the Oireachtas Committee on the Environment visited archaeological sites in the Tara/Skryne valley yesterday, Mr Roche said his role in the current controversy was to decide on the method of preservation of archaeological artefacts. "But to vary the route is not my decision" he said.

Under the National Monuments Amendment Act the Minister has the power to direct how individual archaeological sites are preserved, including the authority to insist they remain in situ.

The Minister added the route selection had been "confirmed by Bord Pleanála", but critics of the road say he could effectively block it by insisting that each archaeological site remain intact and in the ground.

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/4667913?view=Eircomnet

Minister says he cannot 'vary' M3 route
From:ireland.com
Friday, 17th December, 2004

The Minister for the Environment has said it is not within his power to significantly vary the route of the proposed M3 motorway through Co Meath.

Commenting as members of the Oireachtas Committee on the Environment visited archaeological sites in the Tara/Skryne valley yesterday, Mr Roche said his role in the current controversy was to decide on the method of preservation of archaeological artefacts. "But to vary the route is not my decision" he said.

Under the National Monuments Amendment Act the Minister has the power to direct how individual archaeological sites are preserved, including the authority to insist they remain in situ.

While the Minister added the route selection had been "confirmed by Bord Pleanála", critics of the road scheme say he could effectively block it by insisting that each archaeological site remain intact and in the ground.

Earlier yesterday Mr Michael Egan, corporate affairs director of the National Roads Authority (NRA), answered questions from the Oireachtas Environment Committee as they toured the area.

Mr Egan told Mr Eamon Gilmore TD that the NRA was hoping to archaeologically excavate and record findings at each site so far identified in the Tara area.

Should a "show-stopper" be discovered - and the Minister wants it preserved in situ - the National Monuments Act provided for the specific section of the motorway to be varied. This could "include putting the road over a monument or around a site without reference to moving the entire motorway or going through the planning process from start", he said.

The process involves the planning authority preparing a report for Bord Pleanála which would then decide if a new environmental impact assessment for the specific section was necessary.

Mr Egan said it was "not unlikely" that such a show stopper would be encountered but he said it could be handled without changing the route "from one valley to the next".

However, Dr George Eogan, professor of Celtic Archaeology at UCD, who was also on the site visit, said that Tara "is defined as a landscape" and the area could not be seen as a collection of separate archaeological sites.

Insisting that "Tara" incorporates the Hill of Tara and the Hill of Skryne as well as the surrounding landscape, Prof Eogan said it was comparable to the pre-historic sites at Loughcrew and at Brú na Boinne .

"The Tara complex is a term we must use. It is the same size as Brú na Boinne which was accepted as a world heritage site by UNESCO," he said.

Dr Edel Bhreathnach, who edited a history of Tara which is to be published next spring, agreed that Tara should be described as a landscape. Dr Bhreathnach said she and other archaeologists were refused permission to attend the visit by Oireachtas members. The Minister is not expected to announce his decision on the preservation of the artefacts until early next year.

Metrobest

BrianD wrote:

You are living in another world if you do not think that the construction of the M3 will not put pressure on planning and development in its vicinity. The convenience of commuters should be secondary to this issue. Unfortunately, it is small minded business and political interested who seem to have the say over professional planners. A huge opportunity missed for co. Meath.

BTW the N3 is not "dangerously choked" as you say - only where it is funnelled on the existing dual carriageway into the M50 and at Dunshaughlin. It is quite clear that the bypass at Dunshaughlin approved in 1999 was deliberately delayed to ease the passage of the tolled M3.

I've said already, the existing N3 is a substandard road. That's the bottom line. Our 19th century forefathers could never have imagined the sheer mad amount of people who today use it.

So we have to modernise. That doesn't mean ugly retail parks plastered all over the hill of Tara. That will NEVER happen. Instead, what is means is that the many thousand of drivers, from as far afield as Fermeanagh, will benefit massively from a safe, comfortable modern road, a wonderful feat of engineering, and if along the drive they get a pleasant view of Tara, what about it?

If our forefathers had had the know-how to build the M3, they'd build it. And ironically, the people who shout loudest about the destruction of sacred Tara would have been the kings' slaves building it!

Off for my annual extended Xmas break. Back in '05. Merry Christmas to all on forum.

Metrobest.

cournioni

I live in East Cavan and I use both the M1 and N3 to get to Dublin. The N3 for normal trips to the city centre etc. and the M1 normally for the Airport.

The N3 is now just as bad as the old N1 between Drogheda (where I used to join the route) and Dublin just before the M1 was built. Which means it is needed. Anyone that travels this route normally will tell you that it IS needed.

So people who do not travel this route, please stop arguing against it. It is needed for the people of Meath, Cavan, Fermanagh and alot of Donegal. By the time this motorway is fully built the old N3 will be beyond a nightmare, it will be a living hell.

BrianD

I've said already, the existing N3 is a substandard road. That's the bottom line. Our 19th century forefathers could never have imagined the sheer mad amount of people who today use it.

I travel it regularly. There is nothing substandard about it (especially compared to other Irish main roads) - it is has always been a well maintained road and certainly sufficiently wide enough for existing and future travel. That's not to say that there is not scope for improvements but it certainly does not justify a complete repacement by a tolled motorway to Kells. Perhaps you don't use it yourself metrobest.

Make no doubt about it - the retail and urban development will follow. Only recently 800 houses were turned down by ABP south of Dunshaughlin and a further 80 "tourist apartments" are being appealed at the old workhouse outside of Dunshaughlin. These developments depend on the N3 no longer being a national primary once the M3 is open. It will follow as sure as day follows night. Any planner will tell you that development plans aren't worth the paper theyt are printed on and as soon as infrastructure such as the m3 arrives new developments can be justified.

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/4988174?view=Eircomnet

Committee tells Save Tara group to apologise for 'innuendo'
From:ireland.com
Thursday, 10th February, 2005

Representatives of the Save Tara - Skryne Valley group were told they should moderate their presentation and apologise for "innuendo" during an Oireachtas Transport Committee hearing yesterday.

In strongly-worded exchanges, the chairman of the committee, Mr John Ellis TD, told Dr Muireann Ní Bhrolchain that unless she and fellow campaigner Mr Vincent Salafia refrained from making allegations against named individuals the hearing would have to be adjourned.

Mr Ellis also warned the group that it should not make allegations against the clerk and staff of the committee, and should confine commentary to transport issues.

Mr Ellis also complained of "misinformation" in relation to the number of letters received by the committee on the motorway issue, and "innuendo" which he said was contained in the group's presentation.

A number of other committee members also complained about the tone of the presentation, with Sen Timmy Dooley (FF) claiming it undermined the committee "by questioning our integrity".

He added: "I object in the strongest possible terms to the kind of language being used."

Sen Dooley said the people who came before the committee to give evidence must accept the guidelines laid down by the committee if they wanted to be heard.

Mr Peter Power TD (FF) also objected to the presentation, saying he felt "a line had been crossed".

Objections from the TD and senators began almost as soon as Mr Salafia began his presentation, and having mentioned the name of Mahon tribunal witness Mr Frank Dunlop in connection with the controversy, Mr Salafia was asked to withdraw "the innuendo" and apologise.

Mr Salafia explained that the group was concerned it had been "excluded" from a recent Environment Committee hearing.

The group said it had supplied the Transport Committee with about 2,000 letters which objected to the motorway.

However, this was rejected out of hand by Mr Ellis, who said the committee had received about 200 such letters.

When Mr Salafia said he wished to "disagree completely", a number of TDs and senators said Mr Salafia had cast a slur on the clerk and staff of the committee.

Mr Ellis said what was being suggested was that essentially letters which were intended for the committee had not been passed on by the staff.

Sen Dooley also objected, saying the committee had the "utmost confidence" in the clerk and staff "and their ability to count".

However, independent senator Mr David Norris asked if it was fair that the committee should subject those who give evidence "to a fusillade of abuse", adding that "it is not appropriate".

Continuing the group's presentation, Dr Ní Bhrolchain was repeatedly advised by Mr Ellis that she should refrain from delving too deeply into the archaeological and environmental impacts of the road as the committee was concerned only with transport issues.

"How can we discuss this," she asked, before adding: "Since when did A&E (archaeology and environment) become dirty words?"

Metrobest

The "Sava Tara" campaigners are getting desperate. So are the Irish Times journalists who seem determined to slant their coverage. We never hear from the silent majority, the people who want this motorway to be built ASAP. I hate the way the Save Tara green goblins are hijacking this issue, pretending they have public support. The commuters of Navan, Dunshaughlin and Dunboyne need this motorway.

Something has got to be done. The senseless "Save" Tara campaign is causing immense suffering - to taxpayers, to commuters.. and to newspaper readers bored out of their trees by this ridiculous protest. I feel that if the "Save Tara" group delays this project any further, they should have to pay the costs. That would soon silence them!

Remember the hippies who hugged the trees in the Glen O'The Downs? Who now would seriously contend that that road was a mistake? Maybe the Irish Times should take a look at its own Trees supplement, published Tuesday, in which options for tree-lined roads were discussed. It was stated that there are now MORE trees on the Glen than ever!

What this means for Tara is this. Screened by trees, miles away from the Hill, twice as far away as the existing N3, the new M3 will be completely unobtrusive.