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…3536384041…319

Comments

  • Options
    #1112
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,985 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    westtip wrote: »
    You mean they didn't build the interchange at the same time as building the M6 in anticipation of the planned M17/18 crossroads and whilst they had all the basic plant infrastrucuture and engineers in place - so all that would need to be done in the future is to build the motorways to link in with the junction?? with absolutley no disruption......:D

    OF COURSE NOT - THIS IS IRELAND!!!!
    Why on earth would they do that? What if the other project didn't happen - what if the other project had its alignment changed due to issues unearthed after the M6 was complete. What if the spec of the other project changed and now they needed a different interchange, etc.


  • Options
    #1113
    westtip
    Registered Users Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭westtip


    spacetweek wrote: »
    Why on earth would they do that? What if the other project didn't happen - what if the other project had its alignment changed due to issues unearthed after the M6 was complete. What if the spec of the other project changed and now they needed a different interchange, etc.

    Fair point but this is what planning is about - you make sure the next phase is planned and you build the contingency into it. I think when they built the M42 from the midlands to the M5 they left a junction spur in situation for the new M40 to connect - this didn't happen for many years after and admittedly it wasn't as complex as what is planned at this junction/freeflow interchange - but the slip/spur road sat there all the time just waiting to be connected to the new M40 and there was minimal disruption. It probably wasn't done due to cost - and now it will cost more - in terms of disruption to East/West/East traffic on the M6 it should be minimal - similar say to the disruption at the Downs interchange being put in on the N4 Mullingar bypass. Restricted speed limits and reduced lane sizes with the possibility of some coning to single lane now and again - but probably with use of the hard should dual carriage will remain in place at the interchange.

    I wonder when this road is built will it pull much mayo traffic (say from Castlebar downwards) to this route to Dublin rather than the N5?


  • Options
    #1114
    unit 1
    Registered Users Posts: 548 ✭✭✭unit 1


    westtip wrote: »
    Fair point but this is what planning is about - you make sure the next phase is planned and you build the contingency into it. I think when they built the M42 from the midlands to the M5 they left a junction spur in situation for the new M40 to connect - this didn't happen for many years after and admittedly it wasn't as complex as what is planned at this junction/freeflow interchange - but the slip/spur road sat there all the time just waiting to be connected to the new M40 and there was minimal disruption. It probably wasn't done due to cost - and now it will cost more - in terms of disruption to East/West/East traffic on the M6 it should be minimal - similar say to the disruption at the Downs interchange being put in on the N4 Mullingar bypass. Restricted speed limits and reduced lane sizes with the possibility of some coning to single lane now and again - but probably with use of the hard should dual carriage will remain in place at the interchange.

    I wonder when this road is built will it pull much mayo traffic (say from Castlebar downwards) to this route to Dublin rather than the N5?

    Just checked it on aa routeplanner and its 11 minutes longer and €7 more fuel from castlebar via tuam and m6 than n5.
    This actually means (even for baxter and allergan) that the priority road for Enda Kennys constituency;) should now be tuam gort, sorted, and its link to castlebar via claremorris, with the old n5 somwhat neglected for a better link via carrick on shannon.


  • Options
    #1115
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    westtip wrote: »
    Fair point but this is what planning is about - you make sure the next phase is planned and you build the contingency into it. I think when they built the M42 from the midlands to the M5 they left a junction spur in situation for the new M40 to connect - this didn't happen for many years after and admittedly it wasn't as complex as what is planned at this junction/freeflow interchange - but the slip/spur road sat there all the time just waiting to be connected to the new M40 and there was minimal disruption. It probably wasn't done due to cost - and now it will cost more - in terms of disruption to East/West/East traffic on the M6 it should be minimal - similar say to the disruption at the Downs interchange being put in on the N4 Mullingar bypass. Restricted speed limits and reduced lane sizes with the possibility of some coning to single lane now and again - but probably with use of the hard should dual carriage will remain in place at the interchange.

    I wonder when this road is built will it pull much mayo traffic (say from Castlebar downwards) to this route to Dublin rather than the N5?

    WestTip, Regarding future planning of the N5 into the west of Ireland
    Why was there never an feasibility study done to use the westerly route shown in the attached image in RED as the main single road into this region, instead of proceeding with all the bypasses of Swinford, Charlestown, Ballaghdereen, and now into Roscommon.

    The section in Blue is already done or in the planning stage. The Proposed M17 marked in Green.

    The proposed route shown starts on the M4 and finishing near Bohola or Ballyvary would serve all these places listed above but also provide quicker links for Westport, Castlebar, Ballina, Claremorris, Knock Airport, Ballyhaunis, Castlerea, Roscommon etc etc .

    You would have a single road for this western region which using the population centres marked in green would give sufficient traffic volumes for a motorway. These population centres are dispersing onto M6, N5 and N4 through various routes, this could all be channelled to one road and allow the NRA to concentrate their resources.

    I'd expect the cost differential would not be much more expensive that what the completing of the existing N5 would come to, especially once maintenance of a single road over many is added. The smaller towns would not need bypasses but smaller spur roads, to this main route.

    It also removes the need for a new costly N60 from Castlebar - Claremorris.


  • Options
    #1116
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Well given that fact that N5 passes through Cruachán and the site is up for potential UNESCO world heritage status I doubt any work will be done on that section anytime soon. At least the design in your map passes well to the south of the site.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1117
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    dubhthach wrote: »
    Well given that fact that N5 passes through Cruachán and the site is up for potential UNESCO world heritage status

    Nominated 2 years ago.

    http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5528/

    This was after Westtip had discussed the northerly route ( Ballaghaderreen - Carrick on Shannon ) with Fred Barry.

    The red route mentioned above is the old main road to Castlebar up to the 1970s, the T39 west of Roscommon. It ran.

    Roscommon-Ballymoe-Castlerea-Ballyhaunis-Claremorris-Balla-Castlebar-Westport-Louisburgh. Now N60 (Roscommon-Castlebar), N5 (Castlebar-Westport) and part of R335 (Westport-Louisburgh).

    east of Roscommon it was also a T road. The T15.

    The N5 was the 'minor' T77.


  • Options
    #1118
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,985 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'd expect the cost differential would not be much more expensive that what the completing of the existing N5 would come to, especially once maintenance of a single road over many is added. The smaller towns would not need bypasses but smaller spur roads, to this main route.

    It also removes the need for a new costly N60 from Castlebar - Claremorris.
    Some good ideas in that map. I'd take issue with the green circles around the towns though, I assumed you had scaled these according to population but Ballaghaderreen is only 500 people. The only three towns large by population are Ballina, Castlebar, Claremorris and Ballyhaunis. So it seems your roads would serve these well.


  • Options
    #1119
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,985 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    westtip wrote: »
    Fair point but this is what planning is about - you make sure the next phase is planned and you build the contingency into it. I think when they built the M42 from the midlands to the M5 they left a junction spur in situation for the new M40 to connect - this didn't happen for many years after and admittedly it wasn't as complex as what is planned at this junction/freeflow interchange
    Am I right in saying that the M17/18 was originally planned to run via Oranmore instead of Athenry - so if they'd built the M6/17/18 interchange at Oranmore when the M6 was being built it would be in the wrong location.

    Surprised about the M40, I thought that was a Thatcherite scheme added as an afterthought. I thought that the original motorway plan for Britain was for the London-Birmingham route to be served by the M1, but it filled with traffic so fast they had to duplicate it with the M40.


  • Options
    #1120
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    spacetweek wrote: »
    Am I right in saying that the M17/18 was originally planned to run via Oranmore instead of Athenry - so if they'd built the M6/17/18 interchange at Oranmore when the M6 was being built it would be in the wrong location.

    No, it was always planned to be well east of Oranmore. When the road was first proposed people assumed it'd be closer to Oranmore & Claregalway, so as to act as a more natural bypass (as many people think that this one won't bypass CG in particular).

    There was a lot of "wtf are they doing putting it out in Athenry?" initially, but since the motorway opened, a lot of people have realised that it's only a 5 minute driver from Glenascaul (current N18) to Athenry - and the jucntion will be closer again.

    More information is available on the GCC project site, but here's a quick summary:

    Route selection, the EIS etc was all done in 2006, before they even started work on the M6, so the only reason that they couldn't do it would be land ownership. The CPOs were published in 2007. So in theory they could have built a lot of the the junction before the M6 was opened as they could have gotten the land in/about the junction at this stage.


  • Options
    #1121
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    I can recall looking at maps of all the motorway schemes in Galway in 2004. The junction was in the exact same place as when they started the design process. The route selection for this road (M17/M18) is close on 10 years old at this stage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1122
    the keen edge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,533 ✭✭✭the keen edge


    dubhthach wrote: »
    The route selection for this road (M17/M18) is close on 10 years old at this stage.

    It's actually a good few years older than 10 years; I have a NRA/GCC publication of the proposed and preferred route that was published in 1999/2000!


  • Options
    #1123
    f2
    Registered Users Posts: 231 ✭✭f2


    After hearing Roadbridge part of the Direct Route consortium, the preferred builders of M17 have landed a big job in Russia,supposed to be shifting plant to there. Will they still be interested in M17


  • Options
    #1124
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    spacetweek wrote: »
    Some good ideas in that map. I'd take issue with the green circles around the towns though, I assumed you had scaled these according to population but Ballaghaderreen is only 500 people. The only three towns large by population are Ballina, Castlebar, Claremorris and Ballyhaunis. So it seems your roads would serve these well.

    No, i was just showing the towns that it would give access to. The route in red would bring the main road through or close to the population centres of both counties. The current N5 take an out of the way route through low density areas. This then has the effect of Ballina, Castlebar, Claremorris and Westport and similar all taking back-routes to get on main arteries to Dublin.


  • Options
    #1125
    westtip
    Registered Users Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭westtip


    Deleted User wrote: »
    WestTip, Regarding future planning of the N5 into the west of Ireland
    Why was there never an feasibility study done to use the westerly route shown in the attached image in RED as the main single road into this region, instead of proceeding with all the bypasses of Swinford, Charlestown, Ballaghdereen, and now into Roscommon.

    .
    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Nominated 2 years ago.

    http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5528/

    This was after Westtip had discussed the northerly route ( Ballaghaderreen - Carrick on Shannon ) with Fred Barry.

    The red route mentioned above is the old main road to Castlebar up to the 1970s, the T39 west of Roscommon. It ran.

    Roscommon-Ballymoe-Castlerea-Ballyhaunis-Claremorris-Balla-Castlebar-Westport-Louisburgh. Now N60 (Roscommon-Castlebar), N5 (Castlebar-Westport) and part of R335 (Westport-Louisburgh).

    east of Roscommon it was also a T road. The T15.

    The N5 was the 'minor' T77.



    Mayfomaffia I cannot answer your question; but I have never really advocated just upgrading the N5 along its existing route and as mentioned by spongebob in a later post I did have an exchange of letters with Fred Barry at the NRA about the folly of even thinking about putting a new road through the Tulsk area due to the archaeology in that area - there are old posts on this if anyone wants to search them out! - I actually think a new N5 connector with the N4 north of the DC bypass of dromod and roosky as much more economically sound; it would maximise the capacity of the Dromod/Roosky DC, which I am pretty sure at the moment is massively under capacity for the grade of road. The NRA informed me they had looked at this contingency - nothing will of course happen for eons on this route; and the folly of involving the county councils in any national planning could scupper it anyway. My comment about Castlebar/Claremorris Dublin bound traffic is simply with the new road north of Tuam cutting into the Knock/Claremorris bypass - I am pretty sure that even though tolled, and slightly longer the N(M)17/M6 route will make for safer and quicker drive to Dublin from South Mayo. One thing is for sure I am certain it would be faster than the existing N5 even with some of the bypasses that are now (thankfully) in place. It is also going to be a boom for Knock airport for all passengers from Athlone westwards and will increase the target market for the Airport immensely. From a purely selfish point of view - securing the position of Knock as the premier airport in the west is good news for me!


  • Options
    #1126
    jenningso
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭jenningso


    I'm happy that Knock airport is doing so well, but this motorway will open up a large market to shannon airport too, who will soon be able to manage themselves (independently from the DAA). Soon, I can see them offering the same kind of deals that Knock is currently offering to Ryanair in terms of landing fees, turnaround times etc. In general, I hope both airports continue to do well and with a proper motorway infrastructure, we'll have great choice and connectivity to the outside world from the west of Ireland.


  • Options
    #1127
    westtip
    Registered Users Posts: 4,282 ✭✭✭westtip


    Yes indeed it will help Shannon too - which as you say for the west is most welcome. Above all though it will bring in reliability and safety in travel times on this route - one only has to think of the families who have suffered losses on the N17 due almost entirely to the fatal nature of the road, this is more important than anything else - and if we need a reason to do this upgrade just think of the tragic loss of those three students two winters ago. May all those who have been lost on this deathtrap of a road rest in peace.


  • Options
    #1128
    Goofy
    Registered Users Posts: 272 ✭✭Goofy


    They've already built the start of the sliproads on the M6. At the junction location the hard shoulder get considerably wider. The over bridges can be built the with minimal disruption as no realignment of the M6 is necessary. The approach embankment can be built with no disruption. The pouring/installing of the central columns may need lane restrictions but not for long. And the bridge spans can be built off site and craned at night.
    I think this is a much better option than building a junction with the M6 for a motorway that came very close to getting scrapped.


  • Options
    #1129
    glineli
    Registered Users Posts: 1,098 ✭✭✭glineli


    f2 wrote: »
    After hearing Roadbridge part of the Direct Route consortium, the preferred builders of M17 have landed a big job in Russia,supposed to be shifting plant to there. Will they still be interested in M17

    If this is the case how would this impact the project?


  • Options
    #1130
    lotusm
    Registered Users Posts: 313 ✭✭lotusm


    westtip wrote: »
    Mayfomaffia I cannot answer your question; but I have never really advocated just upgrading the N5 along its existing route and as mentioned by spongebob in a later post I did have an exchange of letters with Fred Barry at the NRA about the folly of even thinking about putting a new road through the Tulsk area due to the archaeology in that area - there are old posts on this if anyone wants to search them out! - I actually think a new N5 connector with the N4 north of the DC bypass of dromod and roosky as much more economically sound; it would maximise the capacity of the Dromod/Roosky DC, which I am pretty sure at the moment is massively under capacity for the grade of road. The NRA informed me they had looked at this contingency - nothing will of course happen for eons on this route; and the folly of involving the county councils in any national planning could scupper it anyway. My comment about Castlebar/Claremorris Dublin bound traffic is simply with the new road north of Tuam cutting into the Knock/Claremorris bypass - I am pretty sure that even though tolled, and slightly longer the N(M)17/M6 route will make for safer and quicker drive to Dublin from South Mayo. One thing is for sure I am certain it would be faster than the existing N5 even with some of the bypasses that are now (thankfully) in place. It is also going to be a boom for Knock airport for all passengers from Athlone westwards and will increase the target market for the Airport immensely. From a purely selfish point of view - securing the position of Knock as the premier airport in the west is good news for me!

    Got a brochure from the National roads design office in Roscommon. Now this is a few years old and appears to be at stage 3 at the time "Route Corridor Selection"... Not sure how relevant it is but see attached details..


  • Options
    #1131
    spacetweek
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 4,985 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Lads can yis take the N5 stuff off this thread? Thanks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1132
    Nath
    Registered Users Posts: 89 ✭✭Nath


    Any more news in the grapevine regarding commencement of this project?


  • Options
    #1133
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Nath wrote: »
    Any more news in the grapevine regarding commencement of this project?

    Right now it's a case of anybody who is passing Tuam, Rathmorrisy and Gort will probably know more that the press will.


  • Options
    #1134
    The Idyll Race
    Closed Accounts Posts: 367 ✭✭The Idyll Race


    westtip wrote: »
    Yes indeed it will help Shannon too - which as you say for the west is most welcome. Above all though it will bring in reliability and safety in travel times on this route - one only has to think of the families who have suffered losses on the N17 due almost entirely to the fatal nature of the road, this is more important than anything else - and if we need a reason to do this upgrade just think of the tragic loss of those three students two winters ago. May all those who have been lost on this deathtrap of a road rest in peace.

    Roads are inert things, bad drivers are another matter entirely.


  • Options
    #1135
    The Idyll Race
    Closed Accounts Posts: 367 ✭✭The Idyll Race


    jenningso wrote: »
    I'm happy that Knock airport is doing so well, but this motorway will open up a large market to shannon airport too, who will soon be able to manage themselves (independently from the DAA). Soon, I can see them offering the same kind of deals that Knock is currently offering to Ryanair in terms of landing fees, turnaround times etc. In general, I hope both airports continue to do well and with a proper motorway infrastructure, we'll have great choice and connectivity to the outside world from the west of Ireland.

    Ryanair and buses - a quare sort of paradise to be offering.


  • Options
    #1136
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Was driving Eastbound past Rathmorrisey (proposed junction with N6) last night and I noticed that there are concrete dividers behind the traffic cones where the exit would be. I don't remember them being there before (but I'm not usually paying attention to such things). Anybody notice when they were put there?


  • Options
    #1137
    KevR
    Registered Users Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    antoobrien wrote: »
    Was driving Eastbound past Rathmorrisey (proposed junction with N6) last night and I noticed that there are concrete dividers behind the traffic cones where the exit would be. I don't remember them being there before (but I'm not usually paying attention to such things). Anybody notice when they were put there?

    There have been concrete dividers there for quite some time.

    Didn't notice anything new there when I passed by on Sunday evening. I'll keep an eye out this weekend to see if anything has changed there.


  • Options
    #1138
    islanderre
    Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭islanderre


    Noticed about 2 miles Galway side of Abbeyknockmoy that what looks like a site office is been constructed by WILLS BROS. Perhaps this is connected with the M17-M18 new Road?????


  • Options
    #1139
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Wills were not in either first or second choice consortia. They were in the third or fourth ranked consortium ( we never found out which) . This was the shortlist.

    Maybe they have a water scheme or something.

    1 BAM Balfour Beatty BAM PPP
    Balfour Beatty Capital Ltd
    2 Direct Route Allied Irish Bank
    Strabag SE
    John Sisk & Sons (Holdings) Ltd
    Roadbridge
    Lagan Construction Limited
    3 Eurolink (N17/N18 Consortium)
    Cintra Concesiones De Infrastructuras de Transporte S.A.
    SIAC Construction Ltd
    4 GASTA Roads Global Via Infraestructuras S. A.
    Macquarie Capital Group Limited
    P.Elliott & Company Ltd
    Wills Bros Ltd


  • Options
    #1140
    islanderre
    Registered Users Posts: 714 ✭✭✭islanderre


    Fair enough Spongebob; was hoping against hope that they were setting up shop and getting this project moving. Ah well, hopefully soon it will kick off in the near future


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1141
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Wills were not in either first or second choice consortia. They were in the third or fourth ranked consortium ( we never found out which) . This was the shortlist.

    It's possible that BAM/Roadbridge (the 1-2) have subcontracted to Willis - they both have other contacts that would make it harder to take up this one.

    It's also possible that it has something to do with the 3 sets of resurfacing work that were tendered last year for the N63 (Lackagh, Danganbeg & Mountbellew) - not sure though how big a yard that a total of 1.5km of surfacing works needs.


Advertisement