N4/N5: How should they be developed?

leitrim lad · 01-04-2009 10:39pm #1

does anyone have any info on the mullingar - rooskey upgrade, or is it on the long finger with all the cuts

Stupido · 02-04-2009 10:27am

it is at route selection stage I think.

leitrim lad · 07-04-2009 10:43am

so it will hardly start this year or next year,its badly needed,and so are the jobs it would create, i am open to be set right on the matter but ,is it true longford has the highest rate of umemployment per head of population in the country,and the longford town bypass ,around to the n5 is fcuked aswell

westtip · 02-11-2009 1:26pm

Searched for an N5 thread and got nothing. The N4 after the N6 junction is not considered one of the inter-urbans - on the whole the N4 is not a bad national route - still some work needed on some sections which is planned but the Dromod Roosky DC has made a big difference and the Boyle by pass long in place has made the northern end of the N4 after Carrick a fairly easy drive, although it is wide SC with hard shoulder, rather than DC, and is a notorious speed trap- The Castlebaldwin - Collooney section still needs to be done as does the road in County Longford. On the whole though the N4 has improved immensely.

However the N5 remains a nightmare. With still no Longford bypass and lets face it a pretty grim road all the way through Roscommon and East Mayo.

I had recent correspondence with Fred Barry at the NRA about an alternative way of developing the N4/N5 road.

Simple idea really. I suggested this to the NRA: Look at a map and draw a straight line from Frenchpark to Carrick on Shannon - my suggestion to the NRA was to continue the N5 on this alignment and connect with the N4 at Carrick.

It is a distance of about 22km.

Why - well to simply develop the N4 and N5 in parallel through Roscommon is a waste of money - the new DC around Dromod Roosky is capable of taking 3 times the capacity it is taking on the N4. Upgrading the N5 from Frenchpark to Scramoge a distance of 35 km will pass through considerable archaeology issues around Tulsk, and the N5 Longford bypass to connect with the N4 has not been started, so why not connect the N4 and N5 further north from Longford Town, and simply scrap the 35 km N5 Scramoge - Frenchpark section and indeed the N5 Longford bypass (they are not needed if this new alignment for the N5 is used)

I was quite astonished what Fred Barry CEO of the NRA had to say (very positive really)

"You will be pleased to know that we have already been considering the possibility of improving the N4-N5 connection from near Frenchpark to Carrick on Shannon as an alternative to improving the N5 between Frenchpark and Scramoge, should the archaelogical issues on the N5 prove insurmountable"The letter goes on:

"No decision will be made on this for some time, as the Carrick on Shannon and Ballaghadarreen Bypasses will be built before either the alternatives mentioned above"

I don't know if this thinking has been in the public domain before - I think it makes emminent sense and can't think why the NRA just don't say in public this is what we recommend and get on with it. If they are thinking along these lines I cannot see the Longford N5 bypass being built either.

The alternative route would save on the amount of road pavement that needs laying potentially and also save the need for an N61 southern bypass of Boyle to connect with the N4, look at a map and you will see my reasoning, especially if the N5 link road connected with the N4 around Loch Key Forest Park area.

Personally I think it would make much better use of the improved N4 (ie make the N4 DC all the way to Carrick) and improve traffic flows to and from the West and North West - Anyway food for thought for any N5 and indeed N4 users.

nordydan · 02-11-2009 1:59pm

This has been suggested by a few posters, including myself. In total agreement, it makes sense to upgrade the N4 to at least 2+2 standard up to this point, to make proper use of the Mullingar-Roosky scheme.

In the meantime an S2 bypass of Longford would still be required and not made redundant by any of this (and ideally extended to the N63).

murphaph · 02-11-2009 2:08pm

What's the R370 like today? Any use or in bits?

westtip · 02-11-2009 2:15pm

nordydan wrote: »

This has been suggested by a few posters, including myself. In total agreement, it makes sense to upgrade the N4 to at least 2+2 standard up to this point, to make proper use of the Mullingar-Roosky scheme.

In the meantime an S2 bypass of Longford would still be required and not made redundant by any of this (and ideally extended to the N63).

Nordy I thought it had been suggested somewhere in past but thought the letter from Fred Barry was worth raising the subject again as a new thread. Of course the whole thing is conjecture in the current climate.

Sponge Bob · 02-11-2009 2:22pm

That would mean no Longford N5 bypass ( but a bendy little relief road jobbie instead) and that the crap stretch from Scramogue to Frenchpark via Strokestown remains as is .

They will love ya in Longford

road_high · 02-11-2009 2:36pm

I have to say looking at this it makes total sense. The distances look to add very little glancing at the map. And no big towns left out of the loop.
I'd still give Longford it's bypass though.

Sponge Bob · 02-11-2009 2:41pm

'A bypass' Mfitzy , maybe not the one they have so far planned and with all junctions at grade . Enfieldisation .

munchkin_utd · 02-11-2009 2:53pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

'A bypass' Mfitzy , maybe not the one they have so far planned and with all junctions at grade . Enfieldisation .

indeed, its more of a relief road than anything.
http://www.longfordcoco.ie/uploadedFiles/LongfordCoCo/Our_Departments/Roads/Documents/N5_Longford_Bypass/N5Drawing.pdf

Pity it couldnt have been continued the couple of 100 yards to the N63 Galway/ Roscommon road (although a bohereen is there that'll do the job I presume!).

westtip · 02-11-2009 2:57pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

That would mean no Longford N5 bypass ( but a bendy little relief road jobbie instead) and that the crap stretch from Scramogue to Frenchpark via Strokestown remains as is .

They will love ya in Longford

Sponge - they won't do the crap stretch you refer to if they can't cos of the archaeology at Tulsk which is a big issue...

The Word Is Bor · 02-11-2009 3:14pm

munchkin_utd wrote: »

indeed, its more of a relief road than anything.
http://www.longfordcoco.ie/uploadedFiles/LongfordCoCo/Our_Departments/Roads/Documents/N5_Longford_Bypass/N5Drawing.pdf

Pity it couldnt have been continued the couple of 100 yards to the N63 Galway/ Roscommon road (although a bohereen is there that'll do the job I presume!).

The bohereen is not suitable. However about about 200m further on towards Longford town there is a roundabout which has a link road (through Flancare's site) off it which connects onto the N63.

Sponge Bob · 02-11-2009 3:18pm

westtip wrote: »

Sponge - they won't do the crap stretch you refer to if they can't cos of the archaeology at Tulsk which is a big issue...

Have you any links to help us understand the scale of this Tulsk 'archaeological issue' . Is there a song about it on the lines of 'there's a lot of ruins in Mesopotamia' or am I thinking of the wrong tune there ...hmmmm

Obviously you and Fred can have a knowledgeable natter on it from time to time but I am not up to speed , soz

marmurr1916 · 02-11-2009 3:41pm

An excellent idea which would avoid major road works near Rathcroghan, one of Ireland's most significant archaeological and historical sites.

If the N5 split from the N4 at Carrick-on-Shannon, a new route, roughly following the current alignment of the R370 from Carrick to Frenchpark, could be built.

Alternatively, the N5 could split from the N4 near Boyle, with a new route roughly following the current alignment of the R361 between Boyle and Frenchpark.

The current N5 between Longford and Frenchpark is ca. 51km long.

Carrick to Frenchpark is about 22km, Boyle to Frenchpark is about 16km.

marmurr1916 · 02-11-2009 3:44pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Have you any links to help us understand the scale of this Tulsk 'archaeological issue' . Is there a song about it on the lines of 'there's a lot of ruins in Mesopotamia' or am I thinking of the wrong tune there ...hmmmm

Obviously you and Fred can have a knowledgeable natter on it from time to time but I am not up to speed , soz

This should help give you an idea of how important it is. Basically it's Connacht's equivalent of Tara:

Rathcroghan is a complex of archaeological sites near Tulsk in County Roscommon, Ireland. It is identified as the site of Cruachan, the traditional capital of the Connachta. While it is debatable whether this was a place of residence, it had huge importance as a cemetery and also hosted some of the main ritual gatherings in ancient times. It is an important site in Irish mythology, in particular as the seat of Ailill and Medb, king and queen of the Connachta in the Ulster Cycle. It is the setting for the opening section of the Táin Bó Cúailnge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathcroghan

http://www.cruachanai.com/

Sponge Bob · 02-11-2009 4:01pm

Righty ho. I take it the N61 is not on top of any urgent 'to be done' list either .

westtip · 02-11-2009 4:51pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Righty ho. I take it the N61 is not on top of any urgent 'to be done' list either .

The N61 needs some pretty awful bends taken out of it between Tulsk and Boyle - and needs some elements of widening and realignment - if you drive it on regular basis the stretch north of the N61/N5 crossroads (ie at Tulsk) is a straight as a roman road for about two miles and could probably be left untouched without major calamity and therefore not upsetting the heritage crowd. Between Roscommon Town and Tulsk it is open to widening but it is not a route which needs DC. Quite a lot of the road on this stretch has very wide verges between existing boundary walls and the edge of the road - my guess is a lot of the land needed for widening is already owned by RCC.
Re the N61 - if the idea of making this N4- N5 connector slightly north of Carrick say from Frenchpark to Loch Key Forest Park it could be used by N61 traffic to avoid Boyle town centre, it would be another project which is scheduled being incorporated into this solution.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

They will love ya in Longford

Sponge My idea was not to gain polularity in the town of Longford or in Roscommon county! - I just see it as a more practical solution for the N4/N5 - and clearly one which the NRA was already considering, it would mean less road pavement being laid - it would provide a solution for traffic to the West and it would make more efficient use of the upgraded N4. You see this is one of the problems when infrastructure planning is left in the hands of local politicians - I could never imagine a south roscommon councillor proposing such an idea nor a Longford town councillor - but you see Parish Pump Politicians are not - as I have said before to be really trusted with matters of national planning!

Delta Kilo · 02-11-2009 6:06pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Have you any links to help us understand the scale of this Tulsk 'archaeological issue' .

I think this area here may be the problem sponge bob

I know this place well, there is a prominent ring fort very close to the road and on the other side there is a school which is sitting on the road, at a bend. There is even a special speed limit there at certain times of the day. You would have trouble trying to realign it, let alone add lanes to it!

L1011 · 02-11-2009 6:30pm

The NRA's plans for the N4 appear to be to dual it all the way, whatever is required - between the Mullingar->Longford scheme, the Carrick bypass and the Castlebaldwin bypass there'd just be a WS2/WS2+C gap of about 20km which I've heard mutterings about an online upgrade to 2+2 for. Virtually all of it is 1990s built offline of the old route so theres little impeding an overlay.

serfboard · 02-11-2009 7:05pm

Excellent idea, westtip . I like this one though ...

marmurr1916 wrote: »

Alternatively, the N5 could split from the N4 near Boyle, with a new route roughly following the current alignment of the R361 between Boyle and Frenchpark.

... and I'd modify it slightly and have it turn off at Kingsland and hook up with the Ballaghadereen bypass. Which is going to be built first anyway. That way you don't have to build a Frenchpark bypass either.

The great thing about this is that you could definitely justify 2+2 for the N4 in the long run and save money in maintaining 2 national roads. The old N5 (Ballaghadereen->Longford) could then be downgraded to R road.

Sponge Bob · 02-11-2009 8:57pm

That monument map is pretty extensive and that is only what they know so far.

It would mean 2+2 from Mullingar to around Carrick, the N61 over the mountain south of Boyle is bloody dire , should be retired permanently north of Ratallen and diverted over to Carrick on Shannon , too expensive to divert to Boyle and Boyle is too far north .

I make it that a shot off the end of the Ballaghadereen Bypass to the N4 a few km se of Boyle is around 19km but runs into a hilly section south of Boyle.

Carrying the Ballaghadereen Bypass on towards north of Frenchpark and heading NE for Carrick on Shannon is flatter terrain despite being c.27 km long ( 22 from Frenchpark itself ) .

However Carrick to near Boyle would be 9 km itself so both choices are pretty much equal bar those hills and any deep bog anybody cares to mention .

Incidentally the emerging preferred route for Carrick on Shannon to be announced this month or next from these ones shown below and will include a 2+2 retrofit around that MDF factory .

http://www.leitrimcoco.ie/eng/Services_A-Z/Roads/National_Primary_Roads/CorridorMap.pdf

These guys are in charge of the design

www.roughanodonovan.com

L1011 · 02-11-2009 9:05pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

and will include a 2+2 retrofit around that MDF factory .

Seeing as that section (Jamestown Drumsna bypass) is *grade seperated* WS2 it makes perfect sense to retrofit it rather than acquiring another corridor.

westtip · 02-11-2009 9:57pm

that monument map is quite astonishing - i was just aware that it was a particuarly rich area for monuments and remains etc - maybe the preserving archaeology brigade will this time lead to a better solution - because the NRA will clearly have to find one, and judging by the letter they sent me they pretty much know this is the case.

Yes Serf I would be an advocate to the N5 slightly swinging north to connect with the N4 slightly north of Carrick (to also give boyle its N61 southern bypass), crossing the N61 say about three miles south of Boyle, traffic then going say Sligo - Roscommon - Athlone ont he N61 would avoid Boyle (ok maybe a couple of miles longer but better seamless road).

In the long run i think this option would actually cost less than developing both the N4 and N5 in parallel with each other and of course save on the proposed N61 southern bypass of Boyle.

09bored.ie · 02-11-2009 10:04pm

As far as I can remember ABP refused the first proposed M7/ M8 Schemes in Laois and basically told them go back and redesign except this time avoid the duplication and use the same road for as long as possible.

Amtmann · 02-11-2009 10:24pm

The map pictured above looks like the remains of an ancient town.

westtip · 03-11-2009 12:58pm

marmurr1916 wrote: »

An excellent idea which would avoid major road works near Rathcroghan, one of Ireland's most significant archaeological and historical sites.

If the N5 split from the N4 at Carrick-on-Shannon, a new route, roughly following the current alignment of the R370 from Carrick to Frenchpark, could be built.

Alternatively, the N5 could split from the N4 near Boyle, with a new route roughly following the current alignment of the R361 between Boyle and Frenchpark.

The current N5 between Longford and Frenchpark is ca. 51km long.

Carrick to Frenchpark is about 22km, Boyle to Frenchpark is about 16km.

Marmurr - interesting idea although I think the alignment of R370 would be too radical a swing north for the N5; I am increasingly thinking a preferred route for this plan would be from the end of the Ballaghdereen bypass to a mid point between Boyle and Carrick, probably going north of Cavetown Lough. The more I look at that ancient monuments map around Tulsk the more convinced I am that the current N5 alignment has absolutely no chance of being upgraded and it will be very difficult to find a suitable alignment through that maze of archaeology - and actually why should we go through all this ancient stuff when there is a possibly cheaper and more efficient alternative. I think the save the ringforts rent a mob - who will get involved - may have dealt the NRA a trump card to play on this occassion,and for the NRA to say in the interests of national heritage we have made the decision to re-route the N5 etc.....

Perhaps the solution for the Tulsk area is to really make something of all this archaeology as a tourist attraction and pull visitors to the place for what it has to offer - an area of outstanding historical signifigance, and not because it has notoriety for a new road bashing through ancient sites....There seemingly is a third way on this one.

Delta Kilo · 03-11-2009 7:57pm

I should have added that the map above is just in between Tulsk and Bellinagare, Tulsk is on the bottom right just outside the map.

westtip · 03-11-2009 9:10pm

The green line tho is the N5?

marmurr1916 · 04-11-2009 2:30pm

westtip wrote: »

The green line tho is the N5?

Yes, the existing N5.

westtip · 05-11-2009 10:29am

of course it is! thanks, yes it is very interesting just how diverse and spread out over a significant area those ancient remains are - I think I will get back on to my mate Fred at the NRA about this one - I know this project is a loooong way off - but all of these projects take so long to plan and map out that why bother going down a road (sorry for the pun folks) that they know is going to be fraught with problems when another solution which they know about is already there on a plate for them - me thinks this is their thinking in any case but the politics of the decision are probably the real issue. Hey ho we do what we can as mere mortals and citizens but do they ever listen.

Irish and Proud · 05-11-2009 12:35pm

I'd say:

Motorway (M4 - standard dual) from Mullingar to West of Longford, S2 (N5 - 12.3m pavement) from Longford to West of Termonbarry to replace the current goat track (especially through Termonbarry), Reduced Motorway (M4 - 7.0m carriageways, 1.0m verge strips, 2.6m median with concrete barrier) from Longford to Collooney - 1.1m extra platform width (+2.1m on pavement, -1.0 on verges) on current 2+2 section at Roosky.

Have to go now!

09bored.ie · 05-11-2009 10:17pm

This is a silly idea i.e. using N4 to boyle It adds at least another 15km onto the journey for Mayo Dublin traffic.

westtip · 05-11-2009 11:45pm

09bored.ie wrote: »

This is a silly idea i.e. using N4 to boyle It adds at least another 15km onto the journey for Mayo Dublin traffic.

The suggestion was for the N5 to go west at Frenchpark to join the N4 at Carrick - even if this extended the journey from say Castlebar to Dubln by a few Km it would mean the need for less new road pavement than putting in the Scramoge to Frenchpark section of the N5 and resolve the issue of going through all the archaeology around Tulsk; the potential for the N5 to cut into the N4 around Loch key forest park has also been floated out, we need to consider is it economically sound to develop both the N5 from Longford to Frenchpark and indeed the N4 from Longford to Carrick - the answer is probably not. Taking the N5 north from Frenchpark to Boyle probably is a bit out of the way, but it has got potential

Put it this way if the N5 continued as a seamless road from Frenchpark to Carrick even as a WS2 adn then to Dublin via the N4 at Carrick, with the N4 from carrick being DC including a Carrick bypass - and added a few km to the total journey - what would prefer to do - take this route or keep trundling down the N5 to Longford. The choice of course would be there. I m pretty sure which route I would take - and I think I would use less fuel.

L1011 · 05-11-2009 11:51pm

09bored.ie wrote: »

This is a silly idea i.e. using N4 to boyle It adds at least another 15km onto the journey for Mayo Dublin traffic.

Seeing as the existing N5 can likely *never* be upgraded in parts, its not silly at all. A longer but higher quality, higher average speed route will take the same amount of time as a shorter quality boreen - as the N5 is in parts.

westtip · 05-11-2009 11:56pm

MYOB wrote: »

Seeing as the existing N5 can likely *never* be upgraded in parts, its not silly at all. A longer but higher quality, higher average speed route will take the same amount of time as a shorter quality boreen - as the N5 is in parts.

And be much safer, the N5 is a death trap, be more fuel efficient therefore "greener" and probably be quicker - certainly quicker on this route mentioned.

ilovegermany · 06-11-2009 3:33pm

Is the Mullingar to Longford stretch of the N4 planned as full Motorway or 2+2 like the Rooskey/Dromod scheme?

Am I right in saying that the other schemes being proposed on the N4 (i.e. Carrick on Shannon bypass) will be 2+2 and not single carraigeway?

westtip · 06-11-2009 6:41pm

ilovegermany wrote: »

Is the Mullingar to Longford stretch of the N4 planned as full Motorway or 2+2 like the Rooskey/Dromod scheme?

Am I right in saying that the other schemes being proposed on the N4 (i.e. Carrick on Shannon bypass) will be 2+2 and not single carraigeway?

I think 2+2 a la the Dromod Roosky scheme is the plan - although of course tis all a long way off, however like the inter urbans it will happen eventually - the castlebaldwin - collooney bit is planned as 2+2, but really we don't need full grade motorway all the way - 2+2 all the way to Sligo would make the journey a wheeze...and if the link road from Carrick to the N5 was put in place it would really open the routes to the west out big time...

09bored.ie · 06-11-2009 9:17pm

westtip wrote: »

.2

I had recent correspondence with Fred Barry at the NRA about an alternative way of developing the N4/N5 road.
I was quite astonished what Fred Barry CEO of the NRA had to say (very positive really)

"You will be pleased to know that we have already been considering the possibility of improving the N4-N5 connection from near Frenchpark to Carrick on Shannon as an alternative to improving the N5 between Frenchpark and Scramoge, should the archaelogical issues on the N5 prove insurmountable"The letter goes on:

"No decision will be made on this for some time, as the Carrick on Shannon and Ballaghadarreen Bypasses will be built before either the alternatives mentioned above"

I don't know if this thinking has been in the public domain before -s.

Well you not the only one that was astonished buddy!! I think your a fantasist living in cloud cookoo land as if Fred Barry would write to you! about such a scheme as this!! and as if Fred Barry would say should the archaelogical issues on the N5 prove insurmountable! laughable. What is more it would not be Fred Barry that would be sending the letter to you if such correspondence was entered into anyway.

And whats more there is no such thing as WS2 as you mentioned above. It doesnt exist so you clearly haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Bottom line the traffic will not like your route and will not be attracted to it. Although it is most unlikely either scheme will be built until many years from now.

stepbar · 06-11-2009 9:33pm

09bored.ie wrote: »

And whats more there is no such thing as WS2 as you mentioned above. It doesnt exist so you clearly haven't a clue what you are talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_two

09bored.ie · 06-11-2009 9:36pm

The NRA no longer allow the use of WS2. This has come in over a year ago. Depending on the projected AADT at design year one must use RS2, S2, 2+2, type 1 etc. Refer to TD9

One reason is WS2 has been abandoned is that if finished to particularly high quality, with grade separated interchanges, it has been shown to lead to a false sense of security and more dangerous driving due to the carriageways not being separated

Roryhy · 06-11-2009 9:39pm

09bored.ie wrote: »

Well you not the only one that was astonished buddy!! I think your a fantasist living in cloud cookoo land as if Fred Barry would write to you! about such a scheme as this!! and as if Fred Barry would say should the archaelogical issues on the N5 prove insurmountable! laughable. What is more it would not be Fred Barry that would be sending the letter to you if such correspondence was entered into anyway.

And whats more there is no such thing as WS2 as you mentioned above. It doesnt exist so you clearly haven't a clue what you are talking about.

Bottom line the traffic will not like your route and will not be attracted to it. Although it is most unlikely either scheme will be built until many years from now.

From the NRA itself- page 7
http://www.nra.ie/Publications/DownloadableDocumentation/RoadDesignConstruction/file,3620,en.pdf

"WS:2- Two-lane wide single carriageway, normally with lane widths of 5.0m"

And buddy, there's no need to take out your bad day on people who are informing us about correspondence they've had, the NRA aren't so busy these days that it's entirely beyond belief that Fred Barry would respond to an e-mail.

Roryhy · 06-11-2009 9:42pm

09bored.ie wrote: »

The NRA no longer allow the use of WS2. This has come in over a year ago. Depending on the projected AADT at opening year one must use RS2, S2, 2+2, type 1 etc. Refer to TD9

One reason is WS2 has been abandoned is that if finished to particularly high quality, with grade separated interchanges, it has been shown to lead to a false sense of security and more dangerous driving due to the carriageways not being separated

Of course it still exists, they won't build it anymore but i can assure you that existing schemes wont just evaporate.

09bored.ie · 06-11-2009 9:50pm

Well obviously they are not going to rip up all the WS2 in the country justbecause the standards change , you fool. To even make such a statement is just beyond the beyonds especially in the current economic climate:rolleyes: Thanks for your reassurances but you dont sound like a very reassuring type of person!!!! ''Evaporate''

Westtit was proposing the use of a WS2 cross section between frenchpark and carrick on shannon and it was in that context I meant that WS2 does not exist quite simply as it does not exist as it is not in the current TD9 simple as.

Roryhy · 06-11-2009 10:16pm

Its easy to be a smartass, i know a 3 year old that has mastered it. I think i know 2 of them now. Responding like a grownup and not taking cheap digs is something you might want to work on. We are all here to talk and learn and you getting personal with me and another poster above doesn't help anybody. Of all the posts you have made it looks like 75% of them are outright negative towards others. It is possible to put your opinion across without confronting or offending others you know.

09bored.ie · 06-11-2009 10:28pm

more like your a sulking 3 year old with a humour deficiency

Email Fred ''it's entirely beyond belief that he would respond to you''. might even give you a few sweets to stop sulking

L1011 · 06-11-2009 10:31pm

09bored.ie wrote: »

Bottom line the traffic will not like your route and will not be attracted to it.

It took less than ten years of road signs and 'the green line on the map' sending people via Loughrea rather than Athenry to break the habits of centuries on Dublin-Galway. The roads were equivalent quality then.

Change the signage, ensure the speed limits are appropriate that sat navs route people that way and people will use the route, end of.

I like the way you're accusing someone else of 'sulking' when you've stormed in here a huff screaming and shouting.

09bored.ie · 06-11-2009 10:43pm

Then why did they decide to abandon that silly loughrea idea and straight line the M6 from Ballinasloe to Athenry to Galway? Simple answer really, TRAFFIC

Again another silly post that has been proven wrong by the route chosen for the soon to be opened M6 GEB.

also its quite funny you say it took less than 10 years as if 10 years was like a short period of time!

L1011 · 06-11-2009 10:50pm

09bored.ie wrote: »

Then why did they decide to abandon that silly loughrea idea and straight line the M6 from Ballinasloe to Athenry to Galway? Simple answer really, they got it wrong when they did what you said above!!!

Again another silly post that has been proven wrong by the route chosen for the soon to be opened M6 G2BE

I don't see how them rerouting the motorway back towards Athenry has anything, at all, to do with my post?

My comment was that traffic will, in general, go where they're told to. That is all. You've posted something completely redundant (forgivable enough) but then put in a pointless attack. Can't see you lasting long for this forum, to be honest.

L1011 · 06-11-2009 10:51pm

09bored.ie wrote: »

Then why did they decide to abandon that silly loughrea idea and straight line the M6 from Ballinasloe to Athenry to Galway? Simple answer really, TRAFFIC

Again another silly post that has been proven wrong by the route chosen for the soon to be opened M6 G2BE

Ah, you've edited your post. I'm not editing my first reply though.

No, they moved the route back to pass Athenry because its more direct. Absolutely no Galway to Dublin traffic goes via Athenry because the Loughrea route is now far higher quality, and as a result, quicker.

09bored.ie · 06-11-2009 10:58pm

''Absolutely no Galway to Dublin traffic goes via Athenry because the Loughrea route is now far higher quality, and as a result, quicker.''

We shall see whose right on Dec 17th! Did you ever here of the M6??

N4/N5: How should they be developed?

Comments