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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

Options
1…308309311313314…319

Comments

  • Options
    #9302
    nim1bdeh38l2cw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 689 ✭✭✭nim1bdeh38l2cw


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Nor does it go near Galway.

    No problem there, he was going to Tuam...


  • Options
    #9303
    m17
    Registered Users Posts: 4,322 ✭✭✭m17


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    A fool could see that the M17/M18 was built too Far East. Much too Far East.

    What a waste of money this whole scheme has become.

    This whole scheme has been brilliant you drive tuam to limerick 3 times a week and see if you call it a waste of money, its better spending 3 hours extra a week with my family then stuck in traffic


  • Options
    #9304
    AugustusMinimus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,541 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    m17 wrote: »
    This whole scheme has been brilliant you drive tuam to limerick 3 times a week and see if you call it a waste of money, its better spending 3 hours extra a week with my family then stuck in traffic

    That great but the majority of traffic that this scheme should have accommodated was not Tuam to Limerick traffic.

    The road could have been pushed further west. It would have added a few more miles to the Tuam Limerick commute but it would have been a whole lot more useful for Galway city traffic.


  • Options
    #9305
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    AugustusMinimus wrote: »
    That great but the majority of traffic that this scheme should have accommodated was not Tuam to Limerick traffic.

    The road could have been pushed further west. It would have added a few more miles to the Tuam Limerick commute but it would have been a whole lot more useful for Galway city traffic.

    While I don't necessarily disagree, it wasn't, so what's the point talking about it. Not like they are going to lift and drop it a few miles closer. The position it now occupies is the position it will stay in for the next 1,000 years

    In that context, it is the correct location for the road. Right now it's too far out, but as Galway City and county develop, the population along the west increases, towns along the route grow, and trade increases, it will fulfill its role more completely than if it simply acted as a direct replacement for the N17/N18 feeding directly into Galway city.

    To sum up, its the wrong route for now but its the right route for the future.


  • Options
    #9306
    Ruhanna
    Registered Users Posts: 163 ✭✭Ruhanna


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Those numbers lead credence to the dire need for a bypass of Claregalway

    Deleted User wrote: »
    This [M17 motorway] will have a major impact on those used to 40 min tail backs in Claregalway

    Deleted User wrote: »
    The position it now occupies is the position it will stay in for the next 1,000 years

    To sum up, its the wrong route for now but its the right route for the future.




    "1000 years". Now that's definitely LOL.

    Construction of the M17 had very little to do with planning for the next thousand years. The mandarins and merchants don't think like that. They don't even think ten months ahead when it comes to one major, proven effect of road building, which is induced traffic.

    Neither was it built to reduce traffic on the N17.

    Neither was it built for reasons that were anything to do with its relative placement geographically.

    It was built as economic stimulus for its own sake. A classic boondoggle.

    https://connachttribune.ie/gort-to-tuam-motorway-gets-go-ahead-in-stimulus-package/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9307
    dubhthach
    Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    Deleted User wrote: »
    While I don't necessarily disagree, it wasn't, so what's the point talking about it. Not like they are going to lift and drop it a few miles closer. The position it now occupies is the position it will stay in for the next 1,000 years

    In that context, it is the correct location for the road. Right now it's too far out, but as Galway City and county develop, the population along the west increases, towns along the route grow, and trade increases, it will fulfill its role more completely than if it simply acted as a direct replacement for the N17/N18 feeding directly into Galway city.

    To sum up, its the wrong route for now but its the right route for the future.

    It would have been harder to bring it more inbound given the Army firing range at Oranmore. Which of course the Department of Defense are keen to keep a hold of as it offers a potential major development site in future (I recall that's one of reasons proposal to move airport there was 'shot down')

    Even if they had brought it to the 'near side' of the wood where Apple wanted to build their data centers if they couldn't go through shooting range it would have led to widespread demolition in and around Athenry Golf club which wouldn't gone down well with the local electorate!


  • Options
    #9308
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    m17 wrote: »
    This whole scheme has been brilliant you drive tuam to limerick 3 times a week and see if you call it a waste of money, its better spending 3 hours extra a week with my family then stuck in traffic

    I have no personal interest in the M17 or M18. It is not a road I am likely to use often. However, it is obvious to me that other roads should have been built first. That is all.

    Obviously, if it of personal benefit to you, then of course you are in favour of it.

    It is built now so the question is moot.


  • Options
    #9309
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,633 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    The M17/18 priority has become the new M9 priority on here - and we all know how that turned out!


  • Options
    #9310
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Building it about 3km further west would have been much better at facilitating Galway traffic, which after all is the main purpose of the N17 and N18 routes. But alas it is done now.

    What's far more of a travesty is the lack of other roadbuilding going on, given that we are the 5th country in the world in GDP per capita (leprechaun economics aside - we are not poor) and have the 2nd fastest growing economy in Europe. Maintaining that growth will be difficult given the mess of a transport system we have, and the lack of will to deal with this is disappointing.

    In 2000, traffic between Midleton and Sligo had to pass through Cork (Mayfield etc), Blackpool, Rathduff, Mallow (partial), Newtwopothouse, Buttevant, Ballyhea, Charleville, Banogue, Croom, Patrickswell, Raheen, Limerick, Hurlers Cross, Newmarket on Fergus, Clarecastle, Ennis, Barefield, Crusheen, Gort, Ardrahan, Kilcolgan, Clarinbridge, Oranmore (partial), Claregalway, Tuam, Milltown, Ballindine, Claremorris, Knock, Charlestown, Bellaghy, Curry, Tobercurry, Ballinacarrow.

    Today, traffic between Midleton and Sligo passes through Cork (Mayfield etc), Rathduff, Mallow (partial), Newtwopothouse, Buttevant, Ballyhea, Charleville, Banogue, Milltown, Ballindine, Charlestown, Bellaghy, Curry, Tobercurry and Ballinacarrow.

    By 2027, traffic will pass through Milltown and Ballindine.

    The usefulness of this entire corridor is becoming apparent now. It will be quite something when it is complete.


  • Options
    #9311
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    dubhthach wrote: »

    (maps)

    Was on the 2005-2011 LAP plan, but it seems to be missing in the 2015-2021 Gaeltacht zoning plan document:
    http://www.galway.ie/en/media/1.%20Variation%20No.2b%20to%20GCDP%20-Gaeltacht%20Plan.pdf


    Ive seen these too, but I've seen an updated version somewhere, with the southern junction removed and replaced with something vaguely resembling a LILO, the middle junction removed all together and the northern one a roundabout.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9312
    EmptyTree
    Registered Users Posts: 748 ✭✭✭EmptyTree


    marno21 wrote: »
    In 2000, traffic between Midleton and Sligo had to pass through Cork (Mayfield etc), Blackpool, Rathduff, Mallow (partial), Newtwopothouse, Buttevant, Ballyhea, Charleville, Banogue, Croom, Patrickswell, Raheen, Limerick, Hurlers Cross, Newmarket on Fergus, Clarecastle, Ennis, Barefield, Crusheen, Gort, Ardrahan, Kilcolgan, Clarinbridge, Oranmore (partial), Claregalway, Tuam, Milltown, Ballindine, Claremorris, Knock, Charlestown, Bellaghy, Curry, Tobercurry, Ballinacarrow.

    Today, traffic between Midleton and Sligo passes through Cork (Mayfield etc), Rathduff, Mallow (partial), Newtwopothouse, Buttevant, Ballyhea, Charleville, Banogue, Milltown, Ballindine, Charlestown, Bellaghy, Curry, Tobercurry and Ballinacarrow.

    By 2027, traffic will pass through Milltown and Ballindine.

    The usefulness of this entire corridor is becoming apparent now. It will be quite something when it is complete.
    What a genuinely enlightening and refreshing post (non of the above ever occurred to me anyway). Nice to see a positive look to the future.


  • Options
    #9313
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    Also, I really don't see the purpose of this M17/M18 vs M20 debate. It was never a choice between those two.

    What's a lot more scandalous is the fact that getting projects from start to An Bord Pleanala takes 3-4 years. The cost of this exercise is approximately €15m. If this process had started in 2014, the M20 would be almost at planning permission stage now. Instead, it's about to start into a feasibility study, and won't be ready to start construction for several years. It's not true to say that the country could not afford this over the period in question. The state took in €58.4bn in 2017, and very little was spent on useful capital projects. The spend required on the M20 in 2017, were the project restarted in 2014, would have been approximately €5-8m, or ~0.00009% of that year's income.


  • Options
    #9314
    marno21
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,344 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    EmptyTree wrote: »
    What a genuinely enlightening and refreshing post (non of the above ever occurred to me anyway). Nice to see a positive look to the future.
    The section between Tuam and Knock, especially Tuam-Claremorris will really stand out by then. It'll be the only non dualled section between Sligo and east of Cork.

    Hopefully in the future the remainder is completed including dualling the Claremorris/Knock bypass, building Tuam-Claremorris and sorting out the M18 J4-J9 low standard dual carriageway. The part near Shannon could be solved quite cheaply.


  • Options
    #9315
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,394 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    marno21 wrote: »
    Building it about 3km further west would have been much better at facilitating Galway traffic, which after all is the main purpose of the N17 and N18 routes. But alas it is done now.

    What's far more of a travesty is the lack of other roadbuilding going on, given that we are the 5th country in the world in GDP per capita (leprechaun economics aside - we are not poor) and have the 2nd fastest growing economy in Europe. Maintaining that growth will be difficult given the mess of a transport system we have, and the lack of will to deal with this is disappointing.

    In 2000, traffic between Midleton and Sligo had to pass through Cork (Mayfield etc), Blackpool, Rathduff, Mallow (partial), Newtwopothouse, Buttevant, Ballyhea, Charleville, Banogue, Croom, Patrickswell, Raheen, Limerick, Hurlers Cross, Newmarket on Fergus, Clarecastle, Ennis, Barefield, Crusheen, Gort, Ardrahan, Kilcolgan, Clarinbridge, Oranmore (partial), Claregalway, Tuam, Milltown, Ballindine, Claremorris, Knock, Charlestown, Bellaghy, Curry, Tobercurry, Ballinacarrow.

    Today, traffic between Midleton and Sligo passes through Cork (Mayfield etc), Rathduff, Mallow (partial), Newtwopothouse, Buttevant, Ballyhea, Charleville, Banogue, Milltown, Ballindine, Charlestown, Bellaghy, Curry, Tobercurry and Ballinacarrow.

    By 2027, traffic will pass through Milltown and Ballindine.

    The usefulness of this entire corridor is becoming apparent now. It will be quite something when it is complete.
    This is the thing, there is progress but it's slow. Ultimately these motorways will save many many lives and lessen journey times up and down the Western parts of the country. It's just a pity progress couldnt be faster.


  • Options
    #9316
    serfboard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,675 ✭✭✭serfboard


    Ruhanna wrote: »
    It was sold to us (at a cost of €550 million) as, among other things, "a bypass of Claregalway".
    ...
    http://clarechampion.ie/taoiseach-digs-gort-tuam-road
    It was also sold (in that article) as a bypass of Clarinbridge. The AADT numbers for Clarinbridge are:

    2016 - 19.4K
    2018 - 10.3K

    a reduction of 9.1K, or 47% in traffic, and this in a period of increased car numbers on the roads overall.

    Taking over nine thousand cars a day out of Clarinbridge is a success in my book, and I'm sure that the residents of Clarinbridge appreciate it too.

    Of course, the effect on Claregalway is not as dramatic:

    2016 21.6K
    2018 17.9K

    a reduction of 3.7K or 17%. So, on the face of it, not so successful it would appear.

    But here's something interesting - there has also been a reduction on the N84 road south of Clonboo:

    2016 12.2K
    2018 7.8K

    a reduction of 4.4K or 36% - which is interesting, considering that numbers further north on the N84 have actually increased. What explains this? I know anecdotally of plenty of people who used to travel on the N84 as a way of avoiding Claregalway and the numbers suggest to me that they've either switched back to Claregalway or are now on the M17.

    The total for the two counters (N83 & N84) is:

    2016 33.8K
    2018 25.7K

    The total reduction for both the Clareglway (N83) and N84 traffic is 8.1K or 24%.

    Again, to me, eight thousand cars a day being removed from the N83 & N84 total is a success, particularly when you consider the state of the N84.

    So the total removal of traffic from the existing roads caused by the entirety of the new motorway is seventeen thousand cars a day.


  • Options
    #9317
    Chris_5339762
    Registered Users Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭Chris_5339762


    marno21 wrote: »
    Also, I really don't see the purpose of this M17/M18 vs M20 debate. It was never a choice between those two.

    .


    It wasn't. However, the old adage that the west gets everything made the M17/18 happen. The Ennis bypass was desperately needed, so that got done, then Crusheen - Gort got over the edge as the economy collapsed, then the M17/18 scheme was born as Gort - Oranmore, Oranmore - Tuam and the Tuam bypass were all shovel ready and good to go, all rolled up neatly into one scheme.


    The M20 was not even being seriously planned during most of that.


    The governments mistake when they were building the Main Interurbans was making it so Dublin centric. Cork - Limerick should have been included in that as the 2nd and 3rd cities in ROI, and the M6 interurban should have included the Galway bypass.


  • Options
    #9318
    Ruhanna
    Registered Users Posts: 163 ✭✭Ruhanna


    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    The Ennis bypass was desperately needed

    the M6 interurban should have included the Galway bypass.



    Modal share for driving to work increased in Ennis from 63% in 2006 to 69% in 2011.

    That's what bypasses do in Ireland: increase traffic.

    Galway will be no different.


  • Options
    #9319
    m17
    Registered Users Posts: 4,322 ✭✭✭m17


    The m17 at Ballybanagher Corofin 18/08/16
    siTQwFV.jpg
    27/09/17
    LiHGJhO.jpg


  • Options
    #9320
    m17
    Registered Users Posts: 4,322 ✭✭✭m17


    The m18 going over the galway to Dublin railway line
    8VYCqKi.jpg


  • Options
    #9321
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,740 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Ruhanna wrote: »
    Modal share for driving to work increased in Ennis from 63% in 2006 to 69% in 2011.

    That's what bypasses do in Ireland: increase traffic.

    Galway will be no different.
    Firstly, so what? Taking your figures at face value and assuming, for the sake of argument, that they are correct, your own figures show that the "increase" didn't even cause the figures to leave the 60s. Ennis is a town and people using individual transport in smaller urban areas isn't so unusual.

    Then you say that's what bypasses do "in Ireland: increase traffic." Yet in another post, you say that more roads = more motorists as a general rule:
    Ruhanna wrote: »
    The mandarins and merchants don't think like that. They don't even think ten months ahead when it comes to one major, proven effect of road building, which is induced traffic.

    So it sounds to me like you're just bashing Ireland and Ireland's people for trends that you imagine all across the world, and that's just patently unfair.

    Also, from your posts on this matter, assuming you are as hostile to the people of Ennis as you are to those of Galway, you would have prevented the Ennis bypass from being built if you were given the chance to do so. Two questions now arise:
    1. What do you think the people of Ennis would think of that?
    2. Who - and name them specifically - would have benefitted in some directly measurable way, by the bypass not being built? And how would the benefit of those people have negated the ongoing downside of continuing to route stupid amounts of long distance traffic through the town?
    Try asking the people of Ennis if there's "more traffic" now than there was in 2006, I expect you'll get a very short answer.

    And don't give me some horsecrap about climate change because that argument is specious at best for 3 reasons:
    • Even if there was a slight increase in car usage, cars travelling at consistent speeds on roads emit fewer CO2 emissions than cars crawling from junction-to-junction in stop-start movements.
    • The national car fleet is projected to be electrified over the coming years, and even todays combustion engines are getting cleaner and more efficient.
    • Even if there actually was a carbon cost associated with the Ennis bypass, preventing it would only have offset about 5 minutes of increases in CO2 output from China and India.

    Neither was it built to reduce traffic on the N17.

    Neither was it built for reasons that were anything to do with its relative placement geographically.
    More horse manure. It was clearly designed to make it easier for people to get around the region, but never expected to solve all the problems on its own.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9322
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,443 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    Good road. Could have been great but for the stupidly designed triple stack roundabout junction with the M6. For me that makes it the worst motorway in Ireland (narrowly behind the M9 with it's rediculous terminus with the N25). Design them properly or don't build them at all.


  • Options
    #9323
    veryangryman
    Registered Users Posts: 5,531 ✭✭✭veryangryman


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Good road. Could have been great but for the stupidly designed triple stack roundabout junction with the M6. For me that makes it the worst motorway in Ireland (narrowly behind the M9 with it's rediculous terminus with the N25). Design them properly or don't build them at all.

    Id honestly sooner have them designed the way they are than not at all. But its late night, fekc logic sure...


  • Options
    #9324
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Good road. Could have been great but for the stupidly designed triple stack roundabout junction with the M6. For me that makes it the worst motorway in Ireland (narrowly behind the M9 with it's rediculous terminus with the N25). Design them properly or don't build them at all.

    You really need to build a triple stack and get over it


  • Options
    #9325
    m17
    Registered Users Posts: 4,322 ✭✭✭m17


    Annagh Hill
    Bh1LD9N.jpg


  • Options
    #9326
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    Good road. Could have been great but for the stupidly designed triple stack roundabout junction with the M6. For me that makes it the worst motorway in Ireland (narrowly behind the M9 with it's rediculous terminus with the N25). Design them properly or don't build them at all.
    As I've said (several times) before, all it needs is some paint to be made free-flow.

    From what others are saying, the traffic volumes turning at the junction don't justify a multi-layered dedicated lane for all movements type of a junction.


  • Options
    #9327
    m17
    Registered Users Posts: 4,322 ✭✭✭m17


    The m17 22/12/18
    6nJEIRq.jpg


  • Options
    #9328
    Rulmeq
    Registered Users Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭Rulmeq


    m17 wrote: »
    The m18 going over the galway to Dublin railway line
    No provision for dual tracking in the future.


  • Options
    #9329
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Rulmeq wrote: »
    No provision for dual tracking in the future.
    Yes there is, look at the positioning of the track under the bridge, it's off centre, plenty of space for a second track if needed (or should that be reinstalling).


  • Options
    #9330
    Rulmeq
    Registered Users Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭Rulmeq


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yes there is, look at the positioning of the track under the bridge, it's off centre, plenty of space for a second track if needed (or should that be reinstalling).

    I guess, but it looks tight. I didn't know it was dual before.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9331
    m17
    Registered Users Posts: 4,322 ✭✭✭m17


    The Kilmore roundabout tuam 22/12/18
    JqHkird.jpg


Advertisement