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

M17/M18 - Gort to Tuam [open to traffic]

Options
1…6869717374…319

Comments

  • Options
    #2102
    flat 2 the.....
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭flat 2 the.....


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Yes, but the vesting order to officially change the ownership of the land hadn't been processed.

    So the land is paid for but not in the NRA name


  • Options
    #2103
    Limerick74
    Registered Users Posts: 452 ✭✭Limerick74


    Vesting orders are generally published where there is no known owner of the lands or the landowners don't respond to the previous CPO notices etc. The orders don't need to be completed before works as the CPO lands are effectively the council's to use as they wish 21 days after the CPO is confirmed by the Board.


  • Options
    #2104
    josey_whale
    Registered Users Posts: 284 ✭✭josey_whale


    According to the Irish times, this project is set to become a "ghost motorway"

    As someone who regularly uses the both the N17 and N18, I really can't understand the NRA's figures.


  • Options
    #2105
    jd
    Registered Users Posts: 5,685 ✭✭✭jd


    josey_whale wrote: »
    According to the Irish times, this project is set to become a "ghost motorway"

    As someone who regularly uses the both the N17 and N18, I really can't understand the NRA's figures.

    Frank McDonald says it will be a ghost motorway. If it was running at capacity you'd need to upgrade to a 3 lane per carriageway motorway.


  • Options
    #2106
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,910 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    What a horribly misinformed "article" - actually, as you can't comment on it it seems to be an op/ed piece.

    *If a road's at design capacity when it opens, you built too small a road
    *Its not going to be tolled, so his little distraction about compensation payments is irrelevant - it has to be paid for by the exchequer regardless
    *2+1s are not built new anymore as the experiment failed - they're dangerous and cause severe fustration issues as well as very high risks of the entire road getting blocked in one direction by one breakdown.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2107
    mackerski
    Registered Users Posts: 2,278 ✭✭✭mackerski


    jd wrote: »
    Frank McDonald says it will be a ghost motorway. If it was running at capacity you'd need to upgrade to a 3 lane per carriageway motorway.

    So let me understand this - Frank McDonald has criticised a motorway scheme?


  • Options
    #2108
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    josey_whale wrote: »
    According to the Irish times, this project is set to become a "ghost motorway"

    After reading the byline, I knew it to be rubbish.


  • Options
    #2109
    jd
    Registered Users Posts: 5,685 ✭✭✭jd


    mackerski wrote: »
    So let me understand this - Frank McDonald has criticised a motorway scheme?

    McDonald quoting Nix. Missing Sweetman for the hat-trick!


  • Options
    #2110
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    jd wrote: »
    McDonald quoting Nix. Missing Sweetman for the hat-trick!
    But James Nix, policy director of An Taisce, said the existing N18 between Oranmore and Claregalway was “more than adequate” to cater for traffic.

    Somebody should bring that t*sser to Claregawlay to see just how wrong he is.


  • Options
    #2111
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    If Frank McDonald had his way there would be nothing built in this country.

    Fed up with him telling us why we can't build above 5 storeys in Dublin. Ridiculous.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2112
    the untitled user
    Registered Users Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭the untitled user


    What I can't understand about that article, ignoring the fact that McDonald or anyone else quoted in it clearly has never driven on the existing routes they refer to, in the body of the article McDonald glosses over the fact that the predicted ROI is over four to one! That's a phenomenal return for an infrastructure project in a developed country, you'd don't often see the like. The fact it's so high just goes to show how badly needed such a project is to the region, and to what extent there has been insufficient investment in the region for the last few decades!

    Given the editor of the IT used be the ed. for Tuam Herald, I find it hard to believe he would authorize such ignorance to be written in his pages. Really disappointing from the IT.


  • Options
    #2113
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    the untitled user wrote: »
    Given the editor of the IT used be the ed. for Tuam Herald, I find it hard to believe he would authorize such ignorance to be written in his pages.

    Papers are always publishing contrary opinions, it generates controversy and sells papers. That's the whole point of columnists like Myers or John Waters.

    You can predict what MacDonald will say about any project before he touches the keyboard.


  • Options
    #2114
    the untitled user
    Registered Users Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭the untitled user


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Papers are always publishing contrary opinions, it generates controversy and sells papers. That's the whole point of columnists like Myers or John Waters.

    You can predict what MacDonald will say about any project before he touches the keyboard.

    There are journalistic standards though. You know, the whole research and verification of facts bit? Quoting your drinking buddy about whether or not a road is suitable for an area does not fulfil the criteria for publication.


  • Options
    #2115
    jacko1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 357 ✭✭jacko1


    whatt an outrageously inaccurate article

    a one point he says
    Like the M3, the Gort-Tuam motorway is a public-private partnership (PPP) project. Thus, the Direct Route consortium (Roadbridge, John Sisk and Lagan) may be entitled to claim compensation if traffic levels fail to meet the NRA’s projections

    Frank - this is not a tolled road and there are NO traffic guarantees !!!


  • Options
    #2116
    nowecant
    Registered Users Posts: 332 ✭✭nowecant


    He also completely ignored the safety issues. It is by fay a much safer means driving than on the existing roads. How much pain, suffering and even cost have the accedents and deaths on the existing roads like the n17 n18 cost over the years.

    Personally I cant wait to see them start Cork to Limerick, and hopefully someday Sligo to Dublin


  • Options
    #2117
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,220 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    jacko1 wrote: »
    whatt an outrageously inaccurate article

    a one point he says



    Frank - this is not a tolled road and there are NO traffic guarantees !!!

    I've not read the contract and I suspect you haven't either but the nature of a PPP whose real purpose is to massage govt debt figures rather than involving a real risk transfer will mean that there are variable payments by the govt which will reflect traffic movements. That being said, I suspect low traffic numbers should only involve top ups in payments to the expected level rather than involving a true penalty. High traffic numbers would be penalising although the consortium would have higher maintenance and repair costs to part defray them.

    From a financial perspective, it is a toll road but the toll is paid by the govt.

    It would be interesting to see how much could have been achieved via bypasses. Certainly the traffic volumes seem hard to justify a full motorway with all that entails


  • Options
    #2118
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Marcusm wrote: »
    It would be interesting to see how much could have been achieved via bypasses.

    None of it, idiotically bad idea.


  • Options
    #2119
    the untitled user
    Registered Users Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭the untitled user


    Marcusm wrote: »
    Certainly the traffic volumes seem hard to justify a full motorway with all that entails

    That assertion though doesn't really marry though with the motivations behind the M18 in the first place. It was never about traffic volume, it was always about access & journey times between regional hubs. The N17 and N18, while national routes that in theory can carry the volume of traffic passing through it already, are still in many places extremely windy and narrow. It's very hard to predict journey times in the west, you can do Galway to Donegal in 3 hours on a good day, but get stuck behind HGVs in the wrong area, you can easily add another hour to your journey. Then of course there's the increased risk of having to overtake a HGV every 10 miles.

    Now, relate that back to the economy, in the West of Ireland, we don't have the population density to sustain small and medium enterprises anymore. In the case of business to business type enterprise. You can be based in Galway and still have clients as far away as the north of Donegal. For non B2B, tourism footfall is relied upon to sustain them over the year. Access and predictable journey times become very important as a result. A motorway in the region, even if it never hits the peak volume will still open up the likes of North Mayo, Sligo and even Donegal to new markets. These are three massively unexploited regions at the moment, and probably the part of the country deepest in recession still.

    It all boils down the ROI which McDonald glossed over in his article. It doesn't make sense to build a motorway looking purely at the traffic, but, from an economic perspective, it's a no-brainer in terms of the boost such a project will give to the region through job creation, linking businesses, cutting down commutes and making the hubs more accessible to tourists. As I mentioned earlier the projected ROI for this project is staggering for a developed economy, 4 to 1, perhaps even double that. Typical ROI for roads investments in developed countries is well below 1.5.


  • Options
    #2120
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,220 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    antoobrien wrote: »
    None of it, idiotically bad idea.

    What a nice warm welcoming post, it was a question.
    the untitled user wrote: »
    That assertion though doesn't really marry though with the motivations behind the M18 in the first place. It was never about traffic volume, it was always about access & journey times between regional hubs. The N17 and N18, while national routes that in theory can carry the volume of traffic passing through it already, are still in many places extremely windy and narrow. It's very hard to predict journey times in the west, you can do Galway to Donegal in 3 hours on a good day, but get stuck behind HGVs in the wrong area, you can easily add another hour to your journey. Then of course there's the increased risk of having to overtake a HGV every 10 miles.

    Now, relate that back to the economy, in the West of Ireland, we don't have the population density to sustain small and medium enterprises anymore. In the case of business to business type enterprise. You can be based in Galway and still have clients as far away as the north of Donegal. For non B2B, tourism footfall is relied upon to sustain them over the year. Access and predictable journey times become very important as a result. A motorway in the region, even if it never hits the peak volume will still open up the likes of North Mayo, Sligo and even Donegal to new markets. These are three massively unexploited regions at the moment, and probably the part of the country deepest in recession still.

    It all boils down the ROI which McDonald glossed over in his article. It doesn't make sense to build a motorway looking purely at the traffic, but, from an economic perspective, it's a no-brainer in terms of the boost such a project will give to the region through job creation, linking businesses, cutting down commutes and making the hubs more accessible to tourists. As I mentioned earlier the projected ROI for this project is staggering for a developed economy, 4 to 1, perhaps even double that. Typical ROI for roads investments in developed countries is well below 1.5.

    I can absolutely see the need for a higher speed road (which essentially means a 2+2) to enable connectivity even if the actual throughput isn't great. Motorway design originally was centred around freight movement with a limited number of access and exit points designed to faciliate artics (or large military vehicles). As there is little heavy industry along this route, there is not a preponderence of large freight vehicles ont he route, I wonder what could have been saved with a 2+2 DC with more access points but not cloverleaf style, ie cheaper.

    The 57km will be great for the end points to deliver commuters into and out of Galway city but I wonder whether a DC road with more access points could help reduce rural desettlement and aid villages along the route. If building to that standard could have saved 10%, it would be very interesting to see what €55m would have done to the N roads in west Galway to balance the benefits around the county.


  • Options
    #2121
    serfboard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭serfboard


    josey_whale wrote: »
    According to the Irish times, this project is set to become a "ghost motorway"
    MYOB wrote: »
    What a horribly misinformed "article" - actually, as you can't comment on it it seems to be an op/ed piece.

    *Its not going to be tolled, so his little distraction about compensation payments is irrelevant - it has to be paid for by the exchequer regardless
    *2+1s are not built anymore as ... they're dangerous
    the untitled user wrote: »
    There are journalistic standards though. You know, the whole research and verification of facts bit? Quoting your drinking buddy about whether or not a road is suitable for an area does not fulfil the criteria for publication.
    Frank McDonald has now gone into full John Waters territory - don't let not having a clue or not researching something stop you from giving your opinions.

    And, where the facts might contradict what you think, just ignore them.

    1. Frank doesn't seem to know that the NRA have decided not to built 2+1 roads any more for safety reasons.

    2. Frank doesn't seem to know that this is not a tolled road and therefore the issue of compensation to "make up the difference" doesn't apply.

    3. For the M17 Frank quotes figures - "between the N63 and Tuam" - of 7K. I have no idea where that number comes from but the current AADT of that section is 13K. And you'll notice that Frank conveniently leaves out the section south of the N63 - which currently has an AADT of almost 21K. And those figures do not mention the many drivers that divert via other roads like Cregmore. The Cregmore divert is so bad that it is the site of numerous crashes and is a notorious accident black-spot. (Here, here and here).

    4. For the M18, the figure quoted is 8K. The N18 near Clarinbridge carries 18K currently. The quietest section of the current M18 is just south of Gort and carries almost 10K. South of Ennis, that goes up to 23K and then to 34K near Cratloe.

    The article is rubbish. And mendacious rubbish at that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2122
    the untitled user
    Registered Users Posts: 1,332 ✭✭✭the untitled user


    Marcusm wrote: »
    As there is little heavy industry along this route, there is not a preponderence of large freight vehicles ont he route,

    You'd be surprised. There's an awful lot of HGVs and arctics on the N17/N18, most of it being goods distribution to the regional hubs from Foynes/Shannon/Galway I think.
    Marcusm wrote: »
    I wonder what could have been saved with a 2+2 DC with more access points but not cloverleaf style, ie cheaper.

    The 57km will be great for the end points to deliver commuters into and out of Galway city but I wonder whether a DC road with more access points could help reduce rural desettlement and aid villages along the route. If building to that standard could have saved 10%, it would be very interesting to see what €55m would have done to the N roads in west Galway to balance the benefits around the county.

    Very valid points. I believe safety is the main reason for the Motorway as opposed to DC, cloverleaf tend to have much less collisions? I seem to remember there being an awful lot of safety issues with the DC outside Letterkenny on the Derry road for example when I was living there, most of which caused by human error but would have been prevented if the junctions were cloverleaf.


  • Options
    #2123
    ardmacha
    Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    the untitled user wrote: »
    There are journalistic standards though. You know, the whole research and verification of facts bit?

    Journalistic standards, in Ireland? The bulk of the media have no standards whatsoever. Misleading spin is routinely presented as fact.


  • Options
    #2124
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Marcusm wrote: »
    What a nice warm welcoming post, it was a question.

    If you'd done a bit of research you wouldn't have asked such a horrendously stupid question, thus earning the welcoming post.

    According to the RSA, there were 14 fatal accidents between 2005 & 2012 costing 18 lives on this route. Only one of these accidents could theoretically have been prevented by spot bypasses.


  • Options
    #2125
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,220 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Actually of the 14 deaths which occurred on the road (as opposed to on adjacent roads), 4 of them occurred in single vehicle accidents and 3 others were in 50/60 khm zones so I'm unconvinced that there will be the rapid fall off. If that was a determining factor, Donegal would be covered in motorways or at least Inishowen would.


  • Options
    #2126
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Marcusm wrote: »
    4 of them occurred in single vehicle accidents and 3 others were in 50/60 khm zones

    Exactly: if these folks had been on a motorway instead, such accidents would be much less likely.


  • Options
    #2127
    Marcusm
    Registered Users Posts: 10,220 ✭✭✭✭Marcusm


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Exactly: if these folks had been on a motorway instead, such accidents would be much less likely.

    That we cannot say as there is insufficient data; single vehicle accidents often happen for reasons unrelated to the nature of the road or its conditions. As the other accidents occurred in "built up areas", we cannot assume that the vehicles wouldn't have been on those self same roads had a motorway existed.

    Irrespective, I don't doubt the need for better roads keeping vehicles travelling at constant speeds, I just wonder whether there is a little fetishisation of motorways as opposed to DCs delivering 90% of the same benefits. There is a reason why the UK still has lots of DC A roads.


  • Options
    #2128
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,910 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Marcusm wrote: »
    Irrespective, I don't doubt the need for better roads keeping vehicles travelling at constant speeds, I just wonder whether there is a little fetishisation of motorways as opposed to DCs delivering 90% of the same benefits. There is a reason why the UK still has lots of DC A roads.

    Irish motorways are now only built to DC standards anyway.


  • Options
    #2129
    nowecant
    Registered Users Posts: 332 ✭✭nowecant


    One of the major benefits of the road being declared a motorway is in relation to access. AFAIK anyone who owns land beside a DC can apply for planning permission to open an entrance. If it is the only possible means of entrance they almost have to be given permission. Given the state of irish planning this allows for a lot of bad access routes on and off DCs which can slow traffic down and cause accidents

    As i understand it is almost impossible to gain access to a motorway. Thus future proofing against bad planning.


  • Options
    #2130
    mackerski
    Registered Users Posts: 2,278 ✭✭✭mackerski


    MYOB wrote: »
    Irish motorways are now only built to DC standards anyway.

    Explain what you mean by this. It's a somewhat throwaway remark as phrased.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2131
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,910 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    mackerski wrote: »
    Explain what you mean by this. It's a somewhat throwaway remark as phrased.

    There is no difference between a standard dual carriageway and a standard motorway in the NRA specifications except the provision of emergency telephones.


Advertisement