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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

12357192

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    LFC Murphy wrote: »
    Does anyone know why? I thought that no CPO's had gone thru yet etc??
    Thanks,

    The best thing to do would be to email the NRA. They give me a response 95% of the time :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    As the WRC is going to be completed soon from Ennis to Athenry, I wonder how many rail crossing we will have to contend with over the N18 from Gort to the T junction with the N17 at Clareglaway?

    I can think of 3 at least. :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 67 ✭✭norrie_1001


    I was wondering if the M6 currently under construction has been future proofed for the building of the Rathmorrissy interchange? Given the interchange will be a 3 level stack, if they have not thought about this, there will be massive disruption on the M6 while it is being built. Anyone know more?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭Chris_533976


    Although there hasnt been any pics of the Rathmorrisey site as its very hard to get at, as far as I know there is no futureproofing for the M17/18 scheme. Since only bridges really have to be popped in I imagine a few nighttime closures will do the trick.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    The bridge over the M1 at Holywell was built with very little disruptionMaybe 3 overnight closures on saturday nights, so I'd say the same thing here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 149 ✭✭biffoman


    lets hope that when these 3 roads cònnect
    [m17.m18.m6
    ]they will make it freeflow instead of the 3 level stack rab ...but i doubt it


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,133 ✭✭✭mysterious


    The service station is not going ahead, so I say they will make it proper free flow

    Partial unrolled cloverleaf. Which is a much better design and is also cheaper than a 3 level stack. 3 levels stacks are horrid. They are so overstacked it's almost impossible to make it full free flowing.


    Two loops and rolled turbine slipways alongside it crossing over (or under) the maincarriegways.
    Almost like the N4 Palmerstown. But better designed.


    partunrollcleaf.gif


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 368 ✭✭Roryhy


    mysterious wrote: »
    The service station is not going ahead, so I say they will make it proper free flow

    Partial unrolled cloverleaf. Which is a much better design and is also cheaper than a 3 level stack. 3 levels stacks are horrid. They are so overstacked it's almost impossible to make it full free flowing.


    Two loops and rolled turbine slipways alongside it crossing over (or under) the maincarriegways.
    Almost like the N4 Palmerstown. But better designed.


    partunrollcleaf.gif
    Hadn't come across this design before, looks very efficient and probably relatively cheap to build.


  • Registered Users Posts: 83 ✭✭Enbee


    Roryhy wrote: »
    Hadn't come across this design before, looks very efficient and probably relatively cheap to build.

    It features on the M25 at the M40 interchange. Strange considering it's a pretty busy road and the nearby M4 interchange is a four level stack.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    mysterious wrote: »
    The service station is not going ahead, so I say they will make it proper free flow

    Partial unrolled cloverleaf. Which is a much better design and is also cheaper than a 3 level stack. 3 levels stacks are horrid. They are so overstacked it's almost impossible to make it full free flowing.


    Two loops and rolled turbine slipways alongside it crossing over (or under) the maincarriegways.
    Almost like the N4 Palmerstown. But better designed.


    partunrollcleaf.gif

    Good Design Mate! It's almost an exact copy of the M25/M40 interchange in London. An M50 style design (with larger loops) would also work fine - which ever way, it's certainly better than a 3 level stack!

    Regards!


  • Registered Users Posts: 149 ✭✭biffoman


    It would of made sense to get n6 construction to build a full interchange at Rathmorrissy [freeflow].thus saving costs,disruption to traffic and a smooth integration of roads without the need for massive traffic management.if it was to be designed like so it would encourage a lot of north/south traffic ie n17 users to take this route as there wouldnt be any dreadful holdups at rathmorrissy.Drivers traveling both directions wont have to exit the mainline to continue there journey.also no need for a bypass of claregalway.the cost of this could have being used to construct this interchange.


  • Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    biffoman wrote: »
    also no need for a bypass of claregalway.the cost of this could have being used to construct this interchange.
    I disagree - there will still be a need for a bypass of Claregalway regardless - there is a big population living to the north of the village including places like Turloughmore, Corofin and up to Belclare where it won't make much sense to double back and go towards the motorway and then join M6 and M18 traffic queuing at Doughuisce.

    I do think a proper interchange should be built anyways.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    biffoman wrote: »
    also no need for a bypass of claregalway

    A bypass of Claregalway is still needed, it should be pushed along with the M17/M18.

    The M17/M18 is being designed for long distance travel, north to south of the country to allow easier access for traffic. It's not a bypass of Claregalway still I'm optimistic that some of the commuter belt will use the new route. It will for certain attract alot more traffic that wouldn't use the current road. People will see that Limerick is only an hour drive whereas before it could be up to two hours and also the fact it's an easy motorway drive down.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    tech2 wrote: »
    A bypass of Claregalway is still needed, it should be pushed along with the M17/M18.

    The M17/M18 is being designed for long distance travel, north to south of the country to allow easier access for traffic. It's not a bypass of Claregalway still I'm optimistic that some of the commuter belt will use the new route. It will for certain attract alot more traffic that wouldn't use the current road. People will see that Limerick is only an hour drive whereas before it could be up to two hours and also the fact it's an easy motorway drive down.

    ...yeah, it's a bit like Julianstown on the old N1 - after the M1 Drogheda Toll was opened, about 16k PCUs remained on the old road - that figure has been around 20k for the last couple of years. Like the M17, the M1 Toll is not a bypass - it is a direct (alternative) route into Drogheda North, Dundalk etc - it's not worthwhile using it to go into Drogheda itself - it's out of the way (like the M17 to Galway), and you pay for the privilege! Julianstown needs a bypass - and an S2 will not be sufficient either - at least a 2+2 or S4 will be needed there.

    Taking the above into account, having heard the arguments (relating to the Claregalway Bypass) and having looked at maps, your argument is plain obvious - most Galway bound commuter traffic will probably stay on the existing N17 - so yes, I guess a Claregalway Bypass will be needed too. Anyway, I think the M17 should be redesignated as the M18, while retaining the N17 designation into Galway - then the Saw Doctor's Song about the N17 would need no amendment! :)

    Regards!


  • Registered Users Posts: 149 ✭✭biffoman


    i can see why a bypass of claregalway would be merited.its not that im against it.i guess my main point is for the powers that be could get it right first time round.and to construct intersections with some forward thinking.also my thoughts are with the notion that there will be a bypass in place and a junction half way up the m17 at corrifin.i think that traffic would be dispersed throughout the city in a less congested manor.as it stands regular commuters of the city are going to dispise briarhill.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 12,887 Mod ✭✭✭✭JupiterKid


    I fully agree with Mysterious - a parclo would probably be the best and most cost effective way to build the M17/M18/M6 Rathmorrissey interchange. 3 level stack roundabouts are simply atrocious and they failed in Britain.


  • Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭Nath


    So, assuming this goes ahead, there will be motorway from Patrickswell to north of Tuam within 3 years, assuming a 2 year construction time?

    Apart from a relatively poor stretch from just north of Tuam to Ballindine, there will be a decent road all the way to Charlestown in north Mayo.

    Optimistic it may be, but this would be a good result for the Atlantic Corridor in such a short timeframe.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    Nath wrote: »
    So, assuming this goes ahead, there will be motorway from Patrickswell to north of Tuam within 3 years, assuming a 2 year construction time?

    Apart from a relatively poor stretch from just north of Tuam to Ballindine, there will be a decent road all the way to Charlestown in north Mayo.

    Optimistic it may be, but this would be a good result for the Atlantic Corridor in such a short timeframe.

    3 years might be optimistic but it would be certainly excellent progress on the Atlantic corridor. Dual carriageway standard road from those two points would be excellent.

    But we will still have chronic traffic problems in Galway city, Claregalway queues and a very poor N20.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    It's good to know it's top priority after the inter urbans, hopefully it will be funded by next year although thats very optimistic.
    Businesses in an industrial park in Tuam, which will be adjacent to the new bypass, have been given an assurance that they will get an access onto the route despite this not having been previously included in the plan.

    An extra roundabout on the Tuam bypass? I dont mind at this stage just get the scheme to tender ASAP.


  • Registered Users Posts: 149 ✭✭biffoman


    If the Tuam bypass is to be included into this project then does this mean it will be dulled to north of the town...or not???


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Narrow dualled , like the Galway City bypass we have now but yes , it will be dualled to the northern side of Tuam


  • Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭Nath


    From what I understand, the Tuam bypass was originally to be 2+1.

    Having it as dual carraigeway, which now seems like what is being proposed, make sense, as the Tuam to Claremorris route is also to be dual carraigeway.

    I won't be holding my breath on the latter though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    Nath wrote: »
    From what I understand, the Tuam bypass was originally to be 2+1.

    Having it as dual carraigeway, which now seems like what is being proposed, make sense, as the Tuam to Claremorris route is also to be dual carraigeway.

    I won't be holding my breath on the latter though.

    It will be 2+2 without the hard shoulder.

    Tuam to Claremorris is going to be 2+2 as well. I think nearly all the previous roads planned for WS2 roads are now going to be 2+2. The Casteisland bypass is being constructed 2+2, all nice for overtaking but wouldn't like to have a breakdown on any section of the road.


  • Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭Nath


    Will these 2+2 roads will have a 100km/h speed limit? I assume they will.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    Nath wrote: »
    Will these 2+2 roads will have a 100km/h speed limit? I assume they will.

    Yep but most will be loaded with roundabouts. GSJ's are too expensive.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,589 ✭✭✭patmac


    tech2 wrote: »
    Consortia list for the PPP contract


    Hi could you sent me the link for this as I can't find it on the NRA website.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    patmac wrote: »
    Hi could you sent me the link for this as I can't find it on the NRA website.

    Heres the link:

    http://nra.ie/Publications/DownloadableDocumentation/PublicPrivatePartnership/file,16402,en.doc


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,098 ✭✭✭glineli


    Talking to someone over the weekend, they said Wills have offered to go as far as the new M6 with the road, for free, if they can toll it.
    They also said it should be open in June/July.

    Would you let them build it for free only to toll it then, or get a decent price off them to build it non tolled?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    Would prefer if they would go the whole way to Tuam if putting a hard toll on it and not just as far as the M6.

    Could the government let them build it for free and then have a shadow toll agreement (what they were going to have anyway)?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    KevR wrote: »
    Would prefer if they would go the whole way to Tuam if putting a hard toll on it and not just as far as the M6.

    I agree. The route has to go all the way to Tuam. Given the recent flooding problems at Claregalway the M17 part will be just as urgent now. I believe Wills are in one of the consortia shortlisted for building the the M17/M18 project.

    But on the other hand we are guaranteed motorway/dual carriageway from Galway to Limerick, very tempting! The question is how are they getting money to fund this motorway before it gets tolled or shadow tolled? I would wait to see how the PPP process plans out. If we dont get funding then let them build it straight away with a guaranteed low toll charge.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,098 ✭✭✭glineli


    i think he meant tuam to be honest.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    glineli wrote: »
    i think he meant tuam to be honest.

    If thats the case then I see no problem with a toll as we would be guaranteed a start on it in 2010.

    glineli could you ask next time will the Rathwilladoon overbridge and general area of mainline through the turlough cause a potential delay to the scheme?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    It's worth posting any sort of developments on this scheme:
    glineli wrote: »
    Talking to someone over the weekend, they said Wills have offered to go as far as the new M6 with the road, for free, if they can toll it.
    They also said it should be open in June/July.

    Would you let them build it for free only to toll it then, or get a decent price off them to build it non tolled?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭Chris_533976


    I think the M6 toll at Cappaghtaggle would be too close to that for them to allow it.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    There is talk of a desktop study and small modifications taking the floods into account . The N18 scheme south of Gort is badly flooded in one or two spots but it may be coming from below and the CBM layer may block it once down .


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    There is talk of a desktop study and small modifications taking the floods into account . The N18 scheme south of Gort is badly flooded in one or two spots but it may be coming from below and the CBM layer may block it once down .

    Would it not be down to turloughs/poor drainage areas that rise in the winter when the bad weather returns. But the limestone under the mainline should be blasted out and drainage done. If there is bad flooding in place then the spec for motorway builds needs to be modified.


  • Registered Users Posts: 123 ✭✭black47


    glineli wrote: »
    i think he meant tuam to be honest.

    The intriging offer throws up an interesting few queries.

    1. Are Wills going it alone on this offer or are they also including SIAC (their JV partners on G/C)

    2. Considering both Wills and SIAC are invlved in separate consortia for Gort/Tuam I can't imagine their prospective partners would be too happy with this arrangement.

    3. Are the Government committed to the PPP process now that the scheme has been advertised and shortlisted consortia named or could they negotiate this offer if they chose to.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Turloughs in a word tech2.

    It is just that the turloughs have been turloughier this winter as you may have heard :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    It is just that the turloughs have been turloughier this winter as you may have heard :)

    I've seen them all over the place not hard to find, some on the N61/N62 when I was passing. Obviously they are fine once they are not near a road or access point for a residence. Unfortunately many are beside national roads which eventually lead to flooding the road which the government haven't taken action on. :(


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    Photo on the galway city forum of the N18 flooded:

    96890.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭westtip


    I think I will stick that photo on the WRC thread!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    westtip wrote: »
    If you don't mind I think I will stick that photo on the WRC thread.

    Work away, its not my pic anyway should have posted it was taken by cremeegg on the galway city forum. WRC is going to be a joke!

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63144139&postcount=786


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭westtip


    tech2 wrote: »
    Work away, its not my pic anyway should have posted it was taken by cremeegg on the galway city forum. WRC is going to be a joke!

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63144139&postcount=786

    But a joke at the moment we can no longer talk about!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    A lenghty discussion of the scheme has started on the politics.ie website

    http://www.politics.ie/transport/121571-gort-tuam-motorway-goes-tender.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    Some fairly clueless people in that politics.ie thread. A few know what they're talking about though.

    Referring to Gort-Crusheen as just a bypass of Gort which cost €300 million and saying the whole WRC cost less.Of course, in reality the “Gort Bypass” also bypasses Crusheen (another bottleneck) and the worst 20km of the deathtrap N18.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    KevR wrote: »
    Referring to Gort-Crusheen as just a bypass of Gort which cost €300 million

    The Gort Crusheen construction contract is €92m for 22km or €4.2m a km , ( they also building another 20km of local road realignment inlcusive in that ).

    I don't know about the land acquisition costs but certainly not €90m . There were previous works, geotech, archaeology fencing etc which could not have exceeded €10m the lot either , the main archaeology cost €2.2m the lot, €100k a km.

    Some typically stupid political hack over in that forum reckons that it will cost €1bn to build some 50km of the same grade of road from Gort to Tuam ...or €20m a km. No wonder the country is banjaxed with innumerate morons like that infesting the political process :(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    Heres a parliamentary debate I plucked up online from Feb 2009. Éamon Ó Cuiv gave clear intent the M17/M18 Gort to Tuam will be going ahead this year. More over the top promises:
    Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Regarding the N18, the Limerick tunnel and the road to Gort will be completed next year. The road to Tuam will be built as a PPP, I have been told, all the way to the north of Tuam, which will provide a continuous motorway the whole way from the south of Limerick city——


    Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: What about Gort to Oranmore?


    Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The road from Gort to north Tuam is being built in one section and not two, as was previously intended. That is going ahead as a PPP and those involved are very confident they will get the money


    Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The Claregalway bypass, as Senator Healy Eames knows, is part of the——



    Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: ——Gort to Tuam road that is going ahead next year, as I predicted it would. A relief road within Claregalway received money this year for planning, and I predicted that was the way it would proceed.

    http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=SEN20090224.xml&Page=2&Ex=620#N620

    I hope Éamon Ó Cuív's crystal ball is right this time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 286 ✭✭cremeegg


    tech2 wrote: »
    Work away, its not my pic anyway should have posted it was taken by cremeegg on the galway city forum. WRC is going to be a joke!

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63144139&postcount=786

    Yep my photo folks.. not many trains will plough threw this!

    Also I live in Kilcolgan\clarinbridge...beside the Rahasane turlough.. will be interesting to see the development for new road over this..all very exciting.. i drive the N18 everyday .. its such a nitemare..to limerick.. cant wait for Gort Bypass to be open...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 76 ✭✭ilovegermany


    Does anybody know the planning status of the Tuam Bypass - i know it was granted by the Bord in 2006 - but then it then went back to redesign to allow for 2+2?

    Anybody know if it has been fully granted planning permission?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    It's been discussed many times whether or not the M6/M17/M18 junction is underpowered. I finally got a response from the NRA on this. Here it is.
    Dear Mr. xxx,

    In your email of the 16th December, 2009, you expressed 3 main concerns regarding the design of the junction and also commented on the proposed Motorway Service Area access:

    1. ‘Underpowered’ – You appear concerned that large traffic volumes on the M6 Galway to Dublin motorway and the M17/M18 Limerick to Tuam Motorway will limit the capacity of the junction;
    2. ‘Difficult to upgrade’ – You also expressed concerns that the proposed junction will create difficulties if the junction was to be upgraded to a full free-flow junction such as a cloverleaf, partial cloverleaf, 4-level stack or similar; and
    3. ‘An apparent attempt to save money by using a small land footprint’.

    In May 2004, McCarthy Hyder Consultants Ltd in association with PJ Tobin & Co Ltd, prepared a ‘Junction Strategy Report’ to assess junction options for the 3no. junctions along the N18 Oranmore to Gort Scheme – namely Gort Junction, Kiltiernan Junction and Rathmorrissy junction. For the Rathmorrissy Junction there were 6no. options considered, including, dumbbell type junction (two level), oval roundabout junction (two level), oval roundabout junction with free flow slip lanes (three level), free flow clover leaf junction, roundabout junction (three level) with free flow left turn lanes (360m diameter) and roundabout junction (three level) with free flow left turn lanes (240m diameter). It was concluded in the report that the roundabout junction (three level) with free flow left turn lanes (240m diameter) be recommended as the preferred junction and it was this junction that was taken forward to preliminary design and through to the EIS and approved by An Bord Pleanála. While land take issues were considered in the junction selection, it was not the determining criteria. Junction performance and safety issues were also assessed in conjunction with the overall cost of the junction.

    The proposed Rathmorrissy Junction comprises a three level junction with:

    1. The M6 Galway to Dublin Motorway unimpeded through the junction on the lower level;

    2. The M18/M17 Limerick to Tuam Motorway unimpeded through the junction on the upper level;

    3. Free-Flow unimpeded left turn slip lanes on all four arms:

    i. M18 from Limerick – M6 to Galway;
    ii. M6 from Galway – M17 to Tuam;
    iii. M17 from Tuam – M6 Dublin;
    iv. M6 from Dublin – M18 to Limerick.

    4. Slip Roads off the mainline motorways to a roundabout on the middle level serving the right turn traffic movements of:

    i. M18 from Limerick – M6 to Dublin;
    ii. M6 from Galway – M18 to Limerick;
    iii. M17 from Tuam – M6 to Galway;
    iv. M6 from Dublin – M17 to Tuam.

    The traffic flows (at year of opening) published in the EIS for the M17 Galway to Tuam scheme is summarised below:

    [see attached image]

    You make reference to 50,000 vehicles per day (at opening) passing through the junction, however it should be noted it is only the right turn traffic movements that will interact with the proposed roundabout junction. In addition, the right turning peak hour flows will be tidal, where by in the AM, the peak right turn will be the M17 from Tuam – M6 to Galway and in the PM, the peak right turn will be the M6 from Galway – M18 to Limerick.

    An analysis of the operation of the roundabout has been undertaken using ARCADY (a widely accepted computer program used to model the operation of roundabouts). The analysis indicated that in the peak hour in the design year (20 years after opening), the roundabout will comfortably accommodate the predicted traffic flows with ample spare capacity. In the event that traffic flows do increase significantly greater than those predicted, the layout of the roundabout will accommodate traffic signals (should such remedial measures be required to improve traffic management) since the spacing between adjacent entry / exits are sufficiently large to accommodate vehicle storage.

    We note your comment that the roundabout junction was only specified to provide access to a proposed Motorway Service Area. However the decision on a possible motorway service area was made well after the decision to continue with the roundabout junction (three level), as demonstrated by the timeline listed below:

    · May 2004 – Issue of N18 Oranmore to Gort – Junction Strategy Report – recommending the roundabout junction (three level) with free flow left turn lanes (240m diameter) as the preferred junction arrangement;

    · In 2005 the Authority was requested by the Minister for Transport to undertake a review of policy with regard to the provision of service areas on motorway and high quality dual carriageway sections of the national roads network;

    · The Authority announced in September, 2006, the decision to secure directly, through the PPP mechanism, on-line service areas was accompanied by a map indicating the intended locations of the priority service area facilities to be procured on the major inter-urban routes, including the M6 at the M6/M17/M18 junction.

    · In October 2007, the NRA published ‘Policy for the Provision of Service Areas on Motorways and High Quality Dual Carriageways’ and included in this document was a preferred service area location at the M6/M17/M18 junction;

    I trust the above addresses your queries and concerns.

    Regards

    What does everyone think of their views on the traffic levels coming to/from Galway? 26,000 seems very low.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement