NRA: removing pedestrian and cycle ways along the old N3

oppenheimer1

Of course this will cause accidents. What sort of simpletons would go walking on a national primary road? FFS, theres even a picture of someone pushing a buggy?!!?

Go on do us a favour and do Darwin proud.

biko

After Hours -> Infrastructure

Dostoevsky

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Of course this will cause accidents. What sort of simpletons would go walking on a national primary road? FFS, theres even a picture of someone pushing a buggy?!!?

Go on do us a favour and do Darwin proud.

:rolleyes: Then again, you could actually read the thread and you will discover that the NRA has removed pedestrian access to the towns and villages by subsuming the existing N3 outside each urban area leaving local residents without walking access to these towns.

baalthor

Dostoevsky wrote: »

:rolleyes: Then again, you could actually read the thread and you will discover that the NRA has removed pedestrian access to the towns and villages by subsuming the existing N3 outside each urban area leaving local residents without walking access to these towns.

From a safety POV, should pedestrians have been walking on the N3 shoulder in the first place?

I presume this affects people who are several miles outside Navan for example?

Dostoevsky

baalthor wrote: »

From a safety POV, should pedestrians have been walking on the N3 shoulder in the first place?

Probably not but the houses were there long before the N3 was built on their traditional access ways so they had no alternative but to use the N3's hard shoulder. At present they have nothing along the side of the road to walk on due to the M3 subsuming the N3 at this point.

baalthor wrote: »

I presume this affects people who are several miles outside Navan for example?

Precisely. And people within a couple of kilometres of Dunshaughlin and Kells. I believe there is a similar problem in Trim connected with new road and roundabout construction (but not the M3).

Aard

OP, could you give an example of a journey between two affected towns?

oppenheimer1

Yes its an accident waiting to happen, but you have to ask yourselves whos fault is it? People in that area know its unsafe to walk on the road, yet continue to do so. See the photo above, hardly observing the keep left rule? If the route is used by plenty of people on foot, then the community should be looking for footpaths behind the barriers, not reinstatement of the hard shoulder.

EDIT: Just had a look at m3roundabouts.org , Christ they're walking on the carriage way when the locals could easily choose to walk behind the crash barrier.... the mind boggles.

hi5

People fight tooth and nail for the right to one off housing and the right to build on their own land.
Then expect someone else to pay for foothpaths and street lighting.

Euro_Kraut

Off-road inter town cycle and pathways are the way forward. Busy roads should be left to motor vehicles. Its not like in an urban environment where space restrictions mean that road space must be shared.

On network of rural cycle/walking paths is planned in the National Cycling policy. It would be attractive from a tourist perspective and also from a safety perspective. We are way behind most of Europe on this.

I'm pretty keen on my cycling but there is no way I would support this campaign to be honest. Cyclists and pedestrians should not be sharing a road with a speed limit of greater than 80kmp/h. Its not reasonable to make car go slower on inter urban routes so the only viable alternative is off road routes.

oppenheimer1

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

Off-road inter town cycle and pathways are the way forward. Busy roads should be left to motor vehicles. Its not like in an urban environment where space restrictions mean that road space must be shared.

On network of rural cycle/walking paths is planned in the National Cycling policy. It would be attractive from a tourist perspective and also from a safety perspective. We are way behind most of Europe on this.

I'm pretty keen on my cycling but there is no way I would support this campaign to be honest. Cyclists and pedestrians should not be sharing a road with a speed limit of greater than 80kmp/h. Its not reasonable to make car go slower on inter urban routes so the only viable alternative is off road routes.

A lot of the old railway alignments could be opened up as new inter-town foot and cycling highways. The routes would be relatively flat and might even prove popular with the more casual cyclist.

Euro_Kraut

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

A lot of the old railway alignments could be opened up as new inter-town foot and cycling highways. The routes would be relatively flat and might even prove popular with the more casual cyclist.

That has been touted. Not sure it would work in Meath as the old lines there are back in use now. Also there is an issue I understand around private owners of certain parts of old lines.

Its a great idea I think. The most obviously route that come to my mind that could be used in this way is the Clifden-Galway routes.

Overall though we need a lot more routes than just what the old railways can provide. Would be a good start prehaps.

Slutmonkey57b

Dostoevsky wrote: »

This is an ignorant thing to say. The sole public way people have had of walking to their local towns has been via the hard shoulders. These have now been removed so their sole way of walking to the same places is on the M3/N3 itself.

How is it ignorant? Like someone pointed out above, exactly why aren't the pedestrians in the video walking behind the barrier, if they are "being forced" to walk along the motorway? As to the people walking their kids to school along the motorway.... well... hmm.. if only there was some sort of metal cage on wheels you could put them in to take them to and from school safely. Maybe, a big one, if there are a lot of them all going to the same place?

etchyed

Dostoevsky wrote: »

The M3 has subsumed the N3, and thus the walking routes.

Dostoevsky, I actually agree with you that roads with hard shoulders should have been replaced like-for-like.

But could you be a bit more careful with the way you phrase this? If you had in the first place the last three pages of sniping may not have been as bad. Stop referring to people "walking on the M3" and walking routes being "subsumed" by the M3. Maybe you mean the M3 project in general but the way you're phrasing it leaves you open to nitpicking.

segaBOY

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Yes its an accident waiting to happen, but you have to ask yourselves whos fault is it? People in that area know its unsafe to walk on the road, yet continue to do so. See the photo above, hardly observing the keep left rule? If the route is used by plenty of people on foot, then the community should be looking for footpaths behind the barriers, not reinstatement of the hard shoulder.

EDIT: Just had a look at m3roundabouts.org , Christ they're walking on the carriage way when the locals could easily choose to walk behind the crash barrier.... the mind boggles.

I have to agree with this post. Another great bug bearer of mine is when people don't simply keep as far right as they can while walking on the road.

Whenever I'm walking on a rural road I make sure to keep in as close to the ditch as possible.

However plenty of times I have come around corners to meet people walking double file on the road (which takes up over half of the road sometimes) which means I have to completely overtake into the oncoming lane.

If the person in the picture could just keep in a foot or so more it would already make a big difference for people using that lane.

GeneHunt

Dostoevsky wrote: »

At present they have nothing along the side of the road to walk on due to the M3 subsuming the N3 at this point.

Precisely. And people within a couple of kilometres of Dunshaughlin and Kells. I believe there is a similar problem in Trim connected with new road and roundabout construction (but not the M3).

Hi Dostoevsky,

I think you need to stop referring to the the "M3" or "M3 motorway" in this thread and with your campaign in general, as it is misleading. Your could refer to the M3 project or the M3 link roads for the M3.

I believe you do not want pedestrians on the actual motorway, with traffic passing at 120kph beside them, but on the link roads of the M3, but please comfirm. Looking at this thread and the website and the fact that I know the area that is the problem for you and your group - it is where the new R125 joins the N3 with a roundabout north of Dunshaughlin. I do agree that there is no footpath at or on this roundabout, however I think Meath County Council is at fault here, as they realigned the N3 at both sides of Dunshaughlin with Bus lanes the year before the roundabout was built. The next roundabout (Dansany road - L2208) south of the above-mentioned roundabout has footpaths and the footpath continues on over the new M3 bridge. The new R125 section has a width hard shoulder and lots of locals can be seen out walking this new road each day. It also has footpaths for pedestrians on the new bridge and roundabouts of junction 6. So the M3 contractors are building footpaths around there roundabouts. Went the bus lane was installed in 2008 (I think) north of Dunshaughlin, the County Council should have installed a footpath then and also specified a footpath on M3 construction drawings that a footpath by installed on the N3/R125 roundabout to join with there footpaths.
IMO you are barking up the wrong tree, go after Meath council!
Also your group should have been more informed by visiting the County Council Office in Dunshaughlin, they had drawings up on display for a few years showing these new roads, junctions and roundabouts that were going to be built in the area, as I used to look at them went I'd go in to Tax my car...

The other roundabout mentioned in your website (under Some Scary Pictures...) the "Drumree roundabout" or "roundabout at Drumree" is the roundabout where the R125 joins the R154. I am at a total lose to why this roundabout should have a footpath. Don't get me wrong, but why should this roundabout have a footpath - it is in a VERY rural area. The new R125 has a width hard shoulder all the way up to this roundabout, but the R154 never had on hard shoulder or a footpath. Anyone that walks the new R125 upturns at this point and walks back the Dunshaughlin. I can only think of one person that walks that stretch of the R154 and it's not Dee Reilly!:rolleyes:

GeneHunt

Dostoevsky wrote: »

Probably not but the houses were there long before the N3 was built on their traditional access ways so they had no alternative but to use the N3's hard shoulder.

Can you explain this statement a little better, please!
I do know the N3 from Dunshaughlin to Navan is a relatively new road in the history of Ireland as the Dunshaughlin via Dunsany, Kilmessan to Navan was the old road, the current N3 has been there now for about a century or so.;)

Zoney

Agree with GeneHunt's comments - even reading the OP and other posts carefully, it isn't entirely clear what is being talked about (although it seems to be link roads and re-aligned former N3 being discussed, *not* the M3 itself which would be absurd).

It is important that people don't think that you are lobbying for people to be allowed to walk along a motorway proper.

Obviously

I'm a parent in Dunshaughlin - just noticed how bad all these roundabouts are since this group highlighted it.

I think it's clear from the m3roundabouts.org site - the issue is with "Access roads for the new M3 motorway...". It's not about walking on a motorway - that's almost as thick as the roundabout designs.

Now, about the "ye shouldn't walk on roundabouts" comments...
Some roundabouts have been plonked in the middle of small communities - it used to be relatively safe to walk to your neighbours. Some are plonked between houses and their nearest town or village. Not everybody is young and nimble and able to hop in behind the crash barrier - especially if pushing a buggy, a wheelchair (yes, one of these about 20metres from a wheelchair user!) or out for a cycle with the kids. They are deathtraps inserted into rural communities - there is no doubt. Even a hard shoulder on the roundabout would have been better than what's there!

Even where there are paths, they're half-arsed - I don't see a single safe one from Dunboyne to Fairyhouse, Dunshaughlin and Kells. This flies in the face of government Social, Health and Tourism policies. Oh yeah, and the road safety ones!

GeneHunt

Todays Pat Kenny Show covered the Dunshaughlin roundabouts issue.

The report is at 36m45s on todays show.

Link
http://dynamic.rte.ie/quickaxs/209-r...010-04-28.smil

M3 roundabouts

El Weirdo wrote: »

You want people to be allowed to walk and cycle along the hard shoulder of a motorway?

No! Of course we don't want to walk on motorways! All these roundabouts you see in pics and film footage are in and around our village. In order to help traffic flow easily from our villages to the new motorway the NRA built many roundabouts and sometimes new roads. They are all great for cars but absolutely lethal for pedestrians. We HAVE to cross these roundabouts to get to school, GAA club, visit friends. And, because absolutely no consideration has been given to pedestrians many residents all along the M3 now have to drive the few hundred metres to the GAA pitch/ school etc.

M3 roundabouts

GeneHunt wrote: »

Hi Dostoevsky,

I think you need to stop referring to the the "M3" or "M3 motorway" in this thread and with your campaign in general, as it is misleading. Your could refer to the M3 project or the M3 link roads for the M3.

I believe you do not want pedestrians on the actual motorway, with traffic passing at 120kph beside them, but on the link roads of the M3, but please comfirm. Looking at this thread and the website and the fact that I know the area that is the problem for you and your group - it is where the new R125 joins the N3 with a roundabout north of Dunshaughlin. I do agree that there is no footpath at or on this roundabout, however I think Meath County Council is at fault here, as they realigned the N3 at both sides of Dunshaughlin with Bus lanes the year before the roundabout was built. The next roundabout (Dansany road - L2208) south of the above-mentioned roundabout has footpaths and the footpath continues on over the new M3 bridge. The new R125 section has a width hard shoulder and lots of locals can be seen out walking this new road each day. It also has footpaths for pedestrians on the new bridge and roundabouts of junction 6. So the M3 contractors are building footpaths around there roundabouts. Went the bus lane was installed in 2008 (I think) north of Dunshaughlin, the County Council should have installed a footpath then and also specified a footpath on M3 construction drawings that a footpath by installed on the N3/R125 roundabout to join with there footpaths.
IMO you are barking up the wrong tree, go after Meath council!
Also your group should have been more informed by visiting the County Council Office in Dunshaughlin, they had drawings up on display for a few years showing these new roads, junctions and roundabouts that were going to be built in the area, as I used to look at them went I'd go in to Tax my car...

The other roundabout mentioned in your website (under Some Scary Pictures...) the "Drumree roundabout" or "roundabout at Drumree" is the roundabout where the R125 joins the R154. I am at a total lose to why this roundabout should have a footpath. Don't get me wrong, but why should this roundabout have a footpath - it is in a VERY rural area. The new R125 has a width hard shoulder all the way up to this roundabout, but the R154 never had on hard shoulder or a footpath. Anyone that walks the new R125 upturns at this point and walks back the Dunshaughlin. I can only think of one person that walks that stretch of the R154 and it's not Dee Reilly!:rolleyes:

I think you are missing the point here. These are NEW roads built in 2010 in Ireland and they are cutting off neighbours from each other. Do you not see how crazy it is? Neighbours, especially children, literally cannot walk out their front gate and walk to their neighbours on the other side of the roundabout. People in Dunshaughlin village, for example, do actually like to leave the village by bike or by foot. Are you saying they have no right? Are you saying that people out in Drumree have no right to walk or cycle into Dunshaughlin? Are you saying that everyone has to go by car? Roundabouts are extremely hazardous. Go out and try walking or cycling on it. And then remember that these were designed by supposedly intelligent people in an Ireland trying to encourage people to walk and cycle to school an to the shops.

M3 roundabouts

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Of course this will cause accidents. What sort of simpletons would go walking on a national primary road? FFS, theres even a picture of someone pushing a buggy?!!?

Go on do us a favour and do Darwin proud.

Yes, and how else should these people get into their village? People have been walking this road for hundreds of years, the NRA comes along and designs a ludicrous roundabout ... and then people give out to residents for daring to try to continue to walk into their village.

M3 roundabouts

baalthor wrote: »

From a safety POV, should pedestrians have been walking on the N3 shoulder in the first place?

I presume this affects people who are several miles outside Navan for example?

As far as I understand it the only place pedestrians are not allowed is a motorway. So, how can you say 'should pedestrians be using ....' Why can we not walk or cycle places? People do live on these roads and have done for centuries. If your neighbour lives 100 metres from you but on the other side of these NEW roundabouts, should you have to get into your car to visit them?

The Word Is Bor

M3 roundabouts wrote: »

Yes, and how else should these people get into their village? People have been walking this road for hundreds of years, the NRA comes along and designs a ludicrous roundabout ... and then people give out to residents for daring to try to continue to walk into their village.

But by virtue of the motorway being there the traffic using those roads should be greatly reduced. So it should be safer.

M3 roundabouts

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Yes. Yes, clearly it's the fault of the planners that your children will get killed - walking along the side of a main road where there's no pavement, never mind a motorway. After all, it's not like there is any other way for children to travel from town to town, now is it?

And people wonder why all the tragic road accidents tend to happen down the country.

So, everyone has to drive then? Is this your point? You may not walk or cycle?

The Word Is Bor

M3 roundabouts wrote: »

As far as I understand it the only place pedestrians are not allowed is a motorway. So, how can you say 'should pedestrians be using ....' Why can we not walk or cycle places? People do live on these roads and have done for centuries. If your neighbour lives 100 metres from you but on the other side of these NEW roundabouts, should you have to get into your car to visit them?

The hard shoulder is solely a place of refuge for vehicles that have broken down or a means for emergency vehicles to reach a crash, not an ad-hoc footpath. Anyone walking along a major national road isn't exactly displaying a huge interest in their own safety. BTW you harping on about being cut off from the town/village/neighbour is a red herring.

M3 roundabouts

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Yes its an accident waiting to happen, but you have to ask yourselves whos fault is it? People in that area know its unsafe to walk on the road, yet continue to do so. See the photo above, hardly observing the keep left rule? If the route is used by plenty of people on foot, then the community should be looking for footpaths behind the barriers, not reinstatement of the hard shoulder.

EDIT: Just had a look at m3roundabouts.org , Christ they're walking on the carriage way when the locals could easily choose to walk behind the crash barrier.... the mind boggles.

and how can a person pushing a buggy walk in the field behind the crash barrier, or a child on a bicycle cycle in the field on the way to school? There seem to be very low expectations of the right to walk or cycle places.

M3 roundabouts

M3 roundabouts wrote: »

and how can a person pushing a buggy walk in the field behind the crash barrier, or a child on a bicycle cycle in the field on the way to school? There seem to be very low expectations of the right to walk or cycle places.

and, by the way, the family here is walking with the traffic because there is absolutely NO hard shoulder on the other side - it was taken away to make the road wider for this bus lane. this happened in 2008, I think it was. Wake up people, our rights to walk and/or cycle safely are being eroded slowly but surely.

M3 roundabouts

The Word Is Bor wrote: »

But by virtue of the motorway being there the traffic using those roads should be greatly reduced. So it should be safer.

not necessarily. all traffic leaving the motorway to access Dunshaughlin/ Drumree/Trim will be using these roundabouts! So there's actually a big concentration of traffic expected on them. The space is there, even a hard shoulder would suffice.

M3 roundabouts

The Word Is Bor wrote: »

The hard shoulder is solely a place of refuge for vehicles that have broken down or a means for emergency vehicles to reach a crash, not an ad-hoc footpath. Anyone walking along a major national road isn't exactly displaying a huge interest in their own safety. BTW you harping on about being cut off from the town/village/neighbour is a red herring.

why is being cut off from the town/village/neighbour a red herring? It is, in fact, an essential part of this whole argument.

Re: the hard shoulder - on a motorway it's for emergencies obviously but on non-motorway roads the hard shoulder is where people walk/cycle. There is no other option. Unless we all drive everywhere of course, even the 500 metres to the shops etc.