NRA: removing pedestrian and cycle ways along the old N3

markpb

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.

Nonetheless pedestrians are allowed to walk on N roads so where no footpath is provided, they walk on the hard shoulder. It might not be the intended use of the space - perhaps they should walk in the driving lane instead?

BTW you harping on about being cut off from the town/village/neighbour is a red herring.

Care to explain that at all?

The Word Is Bor

markpb wrote: »

Nonetheless pedestrians are allowed to walk on N roads so where no footpath is provided, they walk on the hard shoulder. It might not be the intended use of the space - perhaps they should walk in the driving lane instead?

No but perhaps walking along the hard shoulder of a major national primary road isn't exactly the best idea. Any parent that would let their child cycle along such a road again wouldn't be exercising the best judgement.

markpb wrote:

Care to explain that at all?

Yes, simple really. There is no physical barrier impeding movement from one side to the other. N'est pas?

Perhaps if people had been concerned about the safety of their children walking along this very busy road then perhaps they should have lobbied MCC years ago about providing footpaths.

Also someone made the point earlier if people insist on building one off houses outside urban areas then they can't really quibble with not having the same sort of infrastructure that the urban would have.

markpb

The Word Is Bor wrote: »

No but perhaps walking along the hard shoulder of a major national primary road isn't exactly the best idea. Any parent that would let their child cycle along such a road again wouldn't be exercising the best judgement.

Would you prefer those parents drove their children to school contributing to traffic, making the roads (even those closer to the villages) more unsafe for pedestrians and making their children more unhealthy?

Perhaps if people had been concerned about the safety of their children walking along this very busy road then perhaps they should have lobbied MCC years ago about providing footpaths.

No local authority is going to provide footpaths in rural areas - the money just isn't there. Who knows, maybe they have been lobbying for years - do you know that they haven't?

Also someone made the point earlier if people insist on building one off houses outside urban areas then they can't really quibble with not having the same sort of infrastructure that the urban would have.

True but I'm no fan of OOHs but those houses are there, the local authority granted permission for them, failed to provide footpaths and is now making it more dangerous for pedestrians. The local authority has as much responsibility for allowing this situation to occur.

The Word Is Bor

markpb wrote: »

No local authority is going to provide footpaths in rural areas - the money just isn't there.

So why the argument now?

markpb wrote:

True but I'm no fan of OOHs but those houses are there, the local authority granted permission for them, failed to provide footpaths and is now making it more dangerous for pedestrians. The local authority has as much responsibility for allowing this situation to occur.

If people chose to live in the country away from a population centre should the local authority have to provide a footpath linking that house to the town/village? Should they also have to provide public lighting along that footpath? Should they have to provide a fully functioning sewer system beneath that footpath?

No, why, because it would be like setting fire to money. Local authorities can provide better infrastructure in areas when the population is not dispersed. People who decide to live in the country have made a choice to trade the disbenefits of living in an urban area for the benefits of living in a rural area, they can't have it both ways.

M3 roundabouts

The Word Is Bor wrote: »

No but perhaps walking along the hard shoulder of a major national primary road isn't exactly the best idea. Any parent that would let their child cycle along such a road again wouldn't be exercising the best judgement.





Yes, simple really. There is no physical barrier impeding movement from one side to the other. N'est pas?

I invite you to come out to Dunshaughlin and try and walk across that roundabout - and tell me that isn't a physical barrier. you may be able to do it - just as you may be able to climb a wall - but it is still a physical barrier. Please remember these roundabouts are being built NOW as we speak - it's 2010 for goodness sake.

Perhaps if people had been concerned about the safety of their children walking along this very busy road then perhaps they should have lobbied MCC years ago about providing footpaths.

very funny. you've obvioulsy never gone to your council with a complaint. Want to see the folders and folders of complaints, letters, records of phone calls, engineers reports etc.?

Also someone made the point earlier if people insist on building one off houses outside urban areas then they can't really quibble with not having the same sort of infrastructure that the urban would have.

The wheelchair pic is of a family who have been living in that house for generations. Their uncle used to walk into the village with his donkey and cart every day. They were there before the masses of cars. Planners just decided that cars were more important and pedestrians had absolutely no rights on the roads anymore. If you don't drive, tough. Do you not think that's sad?

markpb

The Word Is Bor wrote: »

So why the argument now?

Because now the local authority is removing a previously useful hard shoulder and made it more dangerous for pedestrians. You might have an ideological objection to OOHs and people walking on N roads but does anyone believe they're suddenly going to start driving everywhere or sell their houses to move somewhere with a footpath?

I'm not advocating building a footpath in a rural area, I'm advocating maintaining existing facilities where practical.

M3 roundabouts

The Word Is Bor wrote: »

So why the argument now?





If people chose to live in the country away from a population centre should the local authority have to provide a footpath linking that house to the town/village? Should they also have to provide public lighting along that footpath? Should they have to provide a fully functioning sewer system beneath that footpath?

No, why, because it would be like setting fire to money. Local authorities can provide better infrastructure in areas when the population is not dispersed. People who decide to live in the country have made a choice to trade the disbenefits of living in an urban area for the benefits of living in a rural area, they can't have it both ways.

These roundabouts are NEW, they are being built right now. There is tonnes of room for a hard shoulder at the very least. Of course people in rural areas don't expect footpaths throughout the countryside but these are NEW roundabouts. Come out to Dunshaughlin and try and walk one, they are lethal. They are stopping people from walking and cycling who USED TO DO IT. This is such an important point. The govt. is trying to stop obesity, encourage children to exercise but yet is building these ludicrous roundabouts.

oppenheimer1

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.

They're not all pushing buggys




Why haven't the children been told to walk behind the barrier for their own safety? Were not the plans for the road up in Meath County Council offices for inspection by the public? If it was such a concern how come it wasn't raised at planning when it could have been more easily dealt with?

I have little sympathy for your plight because I can bet almost no one went and examined the plans. In addition you have to be incredibly foolish to push a pram around a roundabout. You'd almost deserve what happens to you...

Furthermore thoe roundabouts seem to be in very rural areas, it is not common practice to place footpaths along such roads.

oppenheimer1

markpb wrote: »

Would you prefer those parents drove their children to school contributing to traffic, making the roads (even those closer to the villages) more unsafe for pedestrians and making their children more unhealthy?

Is it any wonder so many pedestrians are killed on our roads with a mindset like that? Who in their right mind would send children to school walking along a national primary road?

Yes I would prefer the parents drove them, better they be unhealthy than dead quite frankly.

paulm17781

Aren't you supposed to cycle on the road not the footpath / hardshoulder?

Zoney

M3 roundabouts wrote: »

These roundabouts are NEW, they are being built right now. There is tonnes of room for a hard shoulder at the very least. Of course people in rural areas don't expect footpaths throughout the countryside but these are NEW roundabouts. Come out to Dunshaughlin and try and walk one, they are lethal. They are stopping people from walking and cycling who USED TO DO IT. This is such an important point. The govt. is trying to stop obesity, encourage children to exercise but yet is building these ludicrous roundabouts.

Actually they should have footpaths at the roundabouts at least. That isn't entirely unusual on new road projects even in rural areas (particularly near towns/villages). Plenty of such situations where there are no footpaths leading to the rbout but footpaths on the actual junction itself.

L1011

Firstly, how many people are actually affected? The roundabouts are in rural areas where very few people would have walked anyway.

Secondly, why didn't you complain YEARS ago when the plans were made out? I know that if a major road scheme was going near my house I'd be over the EIS with a fine tooth comb, not waiting till a month before its finished to complain!

Rebelheart

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Why haven't the children been told to walk behind the barrier for their own safety?

Why, pray tell, should the children be forced to stop using the side of the road now that the NRA has decided to throw a new roundabout on top of the N3 road and in the process take away the existing hard shoulder?

In fact, and it has not yet been said, the NRA has imposed no less than SIX roundabouts around Dunshaughlin village. All of these roundabouts on access points to Dunshaughlin are taking the walking way to the village for each of the communities on those SIX roads into Dunshaughlin village. That is a lot of people affected by the NRA's sheer arrogance and disregard for the basic walking rights of these local communities. It is completely in contravention of numerous government policies to promote sustainable and safe communities. And that is just in Dunshaughlin. The same NRA-created problems have just been made, in 2010, in Garlow Cross, Kells and elsewhere in Meath. Now, in April 2010, the National Roads Authority is riding roughshod over people's rights of access to their local urban centres.

The NRA has come into that community and taken away the walking route to the village in order to build its roundabout. They are the culprits - not the kids, and not the parents who have lived there since long before this year. It is the NRA which should be compelled to at least replace what they have taken from those people. It is the NRA which, through its actions, is threatening the lives of pedestrians on that road.

It's pathetic to blame the people living there who want to continue to walk to the village as they have always done.

The Word Is Bor

One minute it's the hard shoulders being converted to bus lanes then the next it's the roundabouts. Make up your minds.

MCC, probably in conjunction with Bus Eireann/Dublin Bus, have converted hard shoulders to bus lanes.

The continued insistance that the M3 has removed these ('footpath') is a red herring. The insistance that the community has been severed again is a red herring.

I've looked at the photos and it looks to be that people were sent out with the express intention of taking the photos rather than taking photos of people who happen to be walking along the road.

Regardless of the current situation every pedestrian, cyclist, motorist etc. has the obey the rules of the road, and be as safe as possible. That people are walking with the traffic on the road and the roundabouts demonstrates a lack of judgement being excercised which does not help the campaign.

All that aside and because I am feeling very charitable today I will give you some advice.

Firstly, the removal of the hard shoulder and conversion to a bus lane(s)- this is the responsibility of MCC in the first instance. Did MCC carry out a Part 8 planning procedure? Did anyone make any comments upon it? Has a Stage 2 or Stage 3 Road Safety Audit been carried out on the project?

Secondly, the lack of footpaths at the roundabouts- did anyone make a submission at the ABP Oral Hearing? Ask MCC has a Stage 2 and/or Stage 3 RSA been carried out on the link roads/roundabouts.

Rebelheart

The Word Is Bor wrote: »

Regardless of the current situation every pedestrian, cyclist, motorist etc. has the obey the rules of the road, and be as safe as possible. That people are walking with the traffic on the road and the roundabouts demonstrates a lack of judgement being excercised which does not help the campaign.

Would you please read what has been said already:

M3 roundabouts wrote: »

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.

So, again: why are you trying to blame the local pedestrians when the sole reason they are walking with the traffic is because their hard shoulder on the correct side has been removed? They did not cause this problem but they still have to get to their local village so please stop trying to shift the blame on to them.

The Word Is Bor wrote: »

One minute it's the hard shoulders being converted to bus lanes then the next it's the roundabouts. Make up your minds.

Both, clearly, have taken the hard shoulder. On the Navan/northern entrance to the village the lefthand hardshoulder has been removed and replaced with a bus lane. In addition, all six roundabouts have been built on the old roads and in the process broken the straight hardshoulders by putting roundabouts on these access points which break the walking route to the village. The hardshoulder/walking path ends at all of the roundabouts. So stop trying to be a smartarse about this: there is no "make up your mind" needed.

The Word Is Bor wrote: »

The continued insistance that the M3 has removed these ('footpath') is a red herring. The insistance that the community has been severed again is a red herring.

And you know this how, oh omniscient one? The hard shoulder has, in fact, been removed from the areas mentioned. This is not a "red herring", but an easily verifiable fact. As for your claim that communities have not been severed, if you listened to the Pat Kenny show yesterday morning, for instance, you would have heard irate locals talking about their battle with the NRA going back years to stop them putting in these roundabouts that don't facilitate pedestrians. Maybe before commenting on this you'd check your facts first.

Today with Pat Kenny: scroll down to 'Dunshaughlin roundabouts'


As for the rest of your post I don't know anything about that. I do, however, know local people who are directly affected by this issue, an issue which the NRA could rectify very, very quickly - and undoubtedly would if the Minister for Transport/Environment told them that until safety for pedestrians has been ensured at these new roundabouts the new toll (and all its money) cannot be opened. Simple as.

loyatemu

I can't believe the attitude of some of the posters on this thread - the NRA\Meath CoCo have effectively built new roads (or rebuilt old roads, whichever way you want to look at it) on the outskirts of towns and villages and made no provision whatsoever for pedestrians and cyclists.

That is terrible design and planning and the OP is quite right to be upset about it.

oppenheimer1

Rebelheart wrote: »

Why, pray tell, should the children be forced to stop using the side of the road now that the NRA has decided to throw a new roundabout on top of the N3 road and in the process take away the existing hard shoulder?

In fact, and it has not yet been said, the NRA has imposed no less than SIX roundabouts around Dunshaughlin village. All of these roundabouts on access points to Dunshaughlin are taking the walking way to the village for each of the communities on those SIX roads into Dunshaughlin village. That is a lot of people affected by the NRA's sheer arrogance and disregard for the basic walking rights of these local communities. It is completely in contravention of numerous government policies to promote sustainable and safe communities. And that is just in Dunshaughlin. The same NRA-created problems have just been made, in 2010, in Garlow Cross, Kells and elsewhere in Meath. Now, in April 2010, the National Roads Authority is riding roughshod over people's rights of access to their local urban centres.

The NRA has come into that community and taken away the walking route to the village in order to build its roundabout. They are the culprits - not the kids, and not the parents who have lived there since long before this year. It is the NRA which should be compelled to at least replace what they have taken from those people. It is the NRA which, through its actions, is threatening the lives of pedestrians on that road.

It's pathetic to blame the people living there who want to continue to walk to the village as they have always done.

Why should they walk behind the barrier? I thought that it would be clear to most people, its far far safer than walking on a live carriageway! No one here has answered why it has taken so long for the community groups to get annoyed about this. Did they not examine the plans? If this is the case then only they have themselves to blame for this. Also talk of delaying the opening of the M3. Beggars belief some of these clowns. Do they not realise the sooner the road opens there will be far less traffic on the roads in their area? It sounds like some people are being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

As for M3Roundabouts.org I don't think I've seen photos as staged before in my life!

As for the hard shoulder, I have yet to see any roundabout built with one, anywhere ever!

GeneHunt

Originally Posted by Rebelheart


In fact, and it has not yet been said, the NRA has imposed no less than SIX roundabouts around Dunshaughlin village. All of these roundabouts on access points to Dunshaughlin are taking the walking way to the village for each of the communities on those SIX roads into Dunshaughlin village. That is a lot of people affected by the NRA's sheer arrogance and disregard for the basic walking rights of these local communities. It is completely in contravention of numerous government policies to promote sustainable and safe communities.

TWO of the "SIX" roundabouts are part of a motorway junction - no communities living there....

Only two roundabouts are on "access points" to Dunshaughlin - one on the N3 north of Dunshaughlin and the other is on the Dunsany road. the Dunsany road roundabout has a footpath... The other FOUR roundabouts are off the Dunsany roundabout.
If you didn't know Dunshaughlin, you'll think from that post that it had a Orbital Ring Road around it!!!!!

Dostoevsky

The Irish Times did an article on this two days ago, and in today's Letters page ('Counting the costs of footpaths') two people, including a local man, have written in supporting the rights of local people to walk safely to their local towns.


The problem remains: the NRA has removed the ability of people outside these towns and villages to walk safely to their respective local centres. It has done this by removing the hardshoulder which had been used for walking for as long as the N3 has been there. The NRA has replaced this hardshoulder with nothing, absolutely nothing, while imposing its roundabouts linking the N3 with the M3.

Because their hard shoulder has been removed, local people, including school children and elderly people, are compelled to walk on the road due to the NRA's unilateral removal of these routes. This is arrogance beyond belief. It is unnecessary and atrocious PR. It is bad public policy for a state which professes to encourage walking and exercise - never mind sustainable communities - to remove walking routes. Noel Dempsey of all people is not coming out of this well. Not at all.

Dostoevsky

PS: Somebody above said there are not six new roundabouts placed around Dunshaughlin. According to Mary Wallace at the public meeting in the village at the end of April there are precisely six new roundabouts built around the village. I know five of them - Dunshaughlin, Roestown and Drumree being the busiest - and every day you will see people walking or running up and down the hard shoulder on the road linking all roundabouts only to have to jump into the verge at each roundabout, simply because the NRA has removed the hard shoulder. It's indefensible, so please stop trying to defend it.

PPS: At the same meeting representatives of Dunshaughlin Athletic Club came up and told about how they, too, in their evening and morning runs have also to run on the road as a result of the NRA's removal of the hard shoulder.


There are no excuses for what the NRA has done here. If somebody is killed, heads in the NRA along with Noel Dempsey's better fly.

jack presley

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

That kid in the picture isn't wearing a helmet or a hi-viz vest. has she no regard for her own safety?

sdanseo

If I understand its meaning to be to allow people walk on a motorway correctly, the person in charge of this campaign should be arrested and charged with reckless endangerment.

It is illegal, incredibly stupid and verging on suicidal to contemplate walking on the hard shoulder of a motorway. Motorists do not and will not expect a person to be there and if someone hits you they'll need about six different body bags to put all the bits in.

You can still walk on the N3. No right to be a pedestrian on that has or will be removed, the road wil just be reclassified at the RXXX (whatever).

OP is either deluded, a headcase or just a total spanner.

Amtmann

sdonn, this has been explained in several posts throughout the thread. The old N3 is what is being discussed for the most part. Still, I have just renamed the confusingly-titled thread to try to clear things up a bit.

sdanseo

Furet wrote: »

sdonn, this has been explained in several posts throughout the thread. The old N3 is what is being discussed for the most part. Still, I have just renamed the confusingly-titled thread to try to clear things up a bit.

Yeah - skipping 40 posts in my readthrough probably didnt help :P Apols!

Zoney

Dostoevsky wrote: »

PS: Somebody above said there are not six new roundabouts placed around Dunshaughlin. According to Mary Wallace at the public meeting in the village at the end of April there are precisely six new roundabouts built around the village. I know five of them - Dunshaughlin, Roestown and Drumree being the busiest - and every day you will see people walking or running up and down the hard shoulder on the road linking all roundabouts only to have to jump into the verge at each roundabout, simply because the NRA has removed the hard shoulder. It's indefensible, so please stop trying to defend it.

PPS: At the same meeting representatives of Dunshaughlin Athletic Club came up and told about how they, too, in their evening and morning runs have also to run on the road as a result of the NRA's removal of the hard shoulder.


There are no excuses for what the NRA has done here. If somebody is killed, heads in the NRA along with Noel Dempsey's better fly.

As I pointed out earlier, it's all the more unacceptable given that at plenty of other semi-rural/link roundabouts, footpaths are installed on the roundabout proper even if there are no footpaths on the approaches. I cannot fathom why they haven't done this for the ones in question here.