Should the West Link toll be extended to all M50 users?

BrianD

Leaving aside the arguement that there should be no tolls, would it not be fairer if the tolling regime be extended to the entire M50?

It seems unfair that two types of users are being tolled or penalised for using the M50 - national traffic that uses the M50 as a bypass of Dublin by travelling and commuters that use the route between Exits six and seven.

Given that barrier free tolling can be extended should the government not be tolling all users of the road? Tolls could be structured so that short 'rat runs' are relatively higher in price than those who travel longer lengths of the route.

Any thoughts?

Heroditas

But isn't the toll in place to charge people using the bridge .... not the motorway itself?

IIMII

Maybe as a congestion charge, but it'd be political suicide. It would be fairer though.

But when does fairness ever come into it? If you live in Kells and want to work anywhere south of Ballyfermot/Palmerstown you'd have to pay six tolls a day to make that 30-odd mile trip return, once the M3 opens with it's dual tolling

One thing I've learned is that Irish transport infrastructure is akin to oil tanker with a mind of it's own. It goes and does what it wants to do itself, and there is no emergency stop cord

No matter what, M50 tolling won't change unless certain political factors come into play. And those political factors don't come into play in the GDA commuter belt ever

minikin

The minister made the argument that the toll was necessary to fund development of the M(N)50... they already get a combined €6 billion tax revenue from motorists already... it's costing €600 million to buy out ntr, I'd be in favour of a 10% levy on annual road tax, fuel vat etc ringfenced for one year only rather than this ongoing highway robbery

(The road was a disaster from the toll bridge right up to ballymun this morning... can't face another two years of this before this section of the road is finished... by which time the traffic volumes will have increased to nullify any predicted benefit... farce)

jimmycrackcorm

seeing as the toll is supposed to say for the upgrade then it would make sense to apply charging along the length proportionally. However I personally believe that the bulk of traffic is going mostly via the bridge and capturing the other traffic is not worth the effort.

BrianD

It would be interesting to get stats on the vehicle movements on the length of the M50. Given the number of junctions on the southern leg of the motorway, there must be a lot of people who join the motorway there and exit before the tolls.

Does anybody recall the fact that when the M50 was extended from the Exit 7 south to Exit 11 (N81) that the plinths for toll booths were installed on all the exit/entry ramps. Even though there were no booths it was a statement of intent. There was such a fuss over it that the plinths were actually removed (you could see the outline of the plinths for years afterwards).

Del2005

BrianD wrote: »

Leaving aside the arguement that there should be no tolls, would it not be fairer if the tolling regime be extended to the entire M50?

It seems unfair that two types of users are being tolled or penalised for using the M50 - national traffic that uses the M50 as a bypass of Dublin by travelling and commuters that use the route between Exits six and seven.

Given that barrier free tolling can be extended should the government not be tolling all users of the road? Tolls could be structured so that short 'rat runs' are relatively higher in price than those who travel longer lengths of the route.

Any thoughts?

The M50 was paid for by Irish and EU taxpayers, the toll bridge was built by a private company.

The goverment have bought out the toll bridge not the M50 so why should we have to pay to use something we have already paid for? We could ask why NTR got such a sweet deal for building the 2nd bridge but that doesn't affect the fact that the M50 was publicly funded and the bridges where privately.

As IIMII said the only way would be as part of congestion charging, but that won't happen for a good few years till we get decent reliable public transport with proper park and ride

D.L.R.

BrianD wrote: »

It would be interesting to get stats on the vehicle movements on the length of the M50. Given the number of junctions on the southern leg of the motorway, there must be a lot of people who join the motorway there and exit before the tolls.

Does anybody recall the fact that when the M50 was extended from the Exit 7 south to Exit 11 (N81) that the plinths for toll booths were installed on all the exit/entry ramps. Even though there were no booths it was a statement of intent. There was such a fuss over it that the plinths were actually removed (you could see the outline of the plinths for years afterwards).

I use the M50 J12-16 regularly. If there was a toll I would use it less.

Del2005

D.L.R. wrote: »

I use the M50 J12-16 regularly. If there was a toll I would use it less.

And the only alternative route is on residental roads, so in order to reduce traffic on the relief road we force people onto residental roads

BrianD

Del2005 wrote: »

And the only alternative route is on residental roads, so in order to reduce traffic on the relief road we force people onto residental roads

Actually this is a bit of an 'urban legend' as you wouldn't have to use residential roads at all. You would just be using the city street system as technically there is no side-by-side alternative to the M50.

Del2005 wrote:

The M50 was paid for by Irish and EU taxpayers, the toll bridge was built by a private company.

The goverment have bought out the toll bridge not the M50 so why should we have to pay to use something we have already paid for? We could ask why NTR got such a sweet deal for building the 2nd bridge but that doesn't affect the fact that the M50 was publicly funded and the bridges where privately.

Is the upgrade and future management of the M50 not a PPS according to those signs that they have on the side of the road? Is any of the money from the tolls being diverted to this organisation that manages the M50? (I don't the answer to this one but somehow these people are being paid).

Del2005 wrote:

As IIMII said the only way would be as part of congestion charging, but that won't happen for a good few years till we get decent reliable public transport with proper park and ride

Strictly speaking the M50 is designed as a car route to bypass the city but I have no doubt that there is public transport options for many people using it. However, as long as it's free there is no incentive for people to pursue these options.

Del2005

BrianD wrote: »

Actually this is a bit of an 'urban legend' as you wouldn't have to use residential roads at all. You would just be using the city street system as technically there is no side-by-side alternative to the M50.

What I meant was it will be taking people off a safe road and putting them onto streets where there is approaching traffic and pedestrians. And since the M50 is now in the middle of Dublin there are a lot of residental streets that are the only alternative to driving on the M50

Is the upgrade and future management of the M50 not a PPS according to those signs that they have on the side of the road? Is any of the money from the tolls being diverted to this organisation that manages the M50? (I don't the answer to this one but somehow these people are being paid).


Strictly speaking the M50 is designed as a car route to bypass the city but I have no doubt that there is public transport options for many people using it. However, as long as it's free there is no incentive for people to pursue these options.

There are very few if any public transport alternatives for the M50 at the moment. All public transport is routed through the city centre and at rush hour, when most people need it, it's already dangerously over crowded. And who wants to spend ages going the wrong direction to get into work. If they ran orbital routes then more people would use it.

One thing I don't like is the way people assmume that everyone in a car wants to be there. If I had a way to get to work where I could sleep/be hungover and get chauffeur driven to somewhere close to where I work I'd jump at the chance. And I'm sure that the people who are spending several hours a day in their cars think the same.

DWCommuter

BrianD wrote: »

It would be interesting to get stats on the vehicle movements on the length of the M50. Given the number of junctions on the southern leg of the motorway, there must be a lot of people who join the motorway there and exit before the tolls.

Does anybody recall the fact that when the M50 was extended from the Exit 7 south to Exit 11 (N81) that the plinths for toll booths were installed on all the exit/entry ramps. Even though there were no booths it was a statement of intent. There was such a fuss over it that the plinths were actually removed (you could see the outline of the plinths for years afterwards).

I'll take you back further in time to a horrible land full of demonic council officials and brown envelope politicians that actually started building the toll booths at the entry points to the very first section of the M50 built between Tallaght and Blanch. It has been well documented that two tolls were planned for the M50. One for the bridge and one for the road itself.

As for the OPs original question, my answer is a definitive no. We have travelled so far into a public transport crisis in the GDA, that even mere congestion charging will yield nothing. Poor governance at local and national level has created a car dependent culture that will suck up additional charges, despite the provision of good public transport alternatives. In Ireland the car is still seen as a status symbol. It infects you just after the leaving cert and never leaves your system. On top of that we have a wildly dispersed work/live/school setup that defies logic. Its nearly impossible to plan for and our planners aren't even trying, so where does that leave us.

In my opinion a recession that delivers high unemployment might just bring us back to a reasonably blank canvas, so we can start again. Lets be honest, we need to as the current trend is unsustainable. Its a bit like trying to save your sandcastle from the incoming tide and thats the best lesson I ever learned in life because it has such wide ranging interpretations.

serfboard

DWCommuter wrote: »

In my opinion a recession that delivers high unemployment might just bring us back to a reasonably blank canvas, so we can start again.

I can't imagine anyone who is not immune to such a recession, saying something as silly as this.

murphaph

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

seeing as the toll is supposed to say for the upgrade then it would make sense to apply charging along the length proportionally. However I personally believe that the bulk of traffic is going mostly via the bridge and capturing the other traffic is not worth the effort.

M50 Ballinteer: 76566
M50 Tallaght: 75822
M50 Tymon: 84412
M50 Red Cow: 71158
M50 Toll: 87073
M50 Blanchardstown: 90500
M50 Finglas: 92004
M50 Santry: 74169

Fairly even spread. Impossible to tell from this basic counter data how many of those are passing through more than one counter.

Leaving the argument about tolls aside (I'm staunchly against), it is clearly UNFAIR now that the state owns the Westlink Bridge along with the rest of the motorway, to only charge the poor suckers who use the bridge part, especially given that the state is paying vast sums to improve every other bit of the M50 whereas iit was NTR who improved the bridge (building a second parallel one!) in recent years.

If we must have a toll on this crucial piece of national as well as regional infrastructure, it should be variable tolling with discounts for using more and penalties for using fewer junctions. Using the entire motorway from end to end should be free.

murphaph

Del2005 wrote: »

The M50 was paid for by Irish and EU taxpayers, the toll bridge was built by a private company.

The goverment have bought out the toll bridge not the M50 so why should we have to pay to use something we have already paid for? We could ask why NTR got such a sweet deal for building the 2nd bridge but that doesn't affect the fact that the M50 was publicly funded and the bridges where privately.

As IIMII said the only way would be as part of congestion charging, but that won't happen for a good few years till we get decent reliable public transport with proper park and ride

Del, the government just bought the bridges. They are now funded publicly like the rest of the road. It is irrelevant how they were funded in the past. We (the state) now owns them yet has decided to charge a toll on them to pay for the upgrade on the entire road. People who use the bridge are now paying a toll for something they already paid for-your exact complaint about applying tolls across the entire M50!;)

RichMc70

If Gormless Gormley stays in government after the next election he'll be implementing system to charge motorists by the mile so toll's may become extinct however when travelling through more congested areas (e.g. anywhere in dublin) then the rate per mile will increase.

They're currently looking at a Congestion Charge for the City Centre but that type of scheme is approaching almost pre-historic status. The Uk is already piloting 'charge by the mile' technology and rest assured it won't be long before it travels across the irish sea.

Of course it will be passed off as a desperately needed 'green tax' to save the eco system rather than just another tax.

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote: »

M50 Ballinteer: 76566
M50 Tallaght: 75822
M50 Tymon: 84412
M50 Red Cow: 71158
M50 Toll: 87073
M50 Blanchardstown: 90500
M50 Finglas: 92004
M50 Santry: 74169

Have they changed the Ballymun interchange to Santry?

On the topic in hand, the toll should be removed from the bridge and applied to the whole motorway if a toll is still needed

murphaph

RichMc70 wrote: »

If Gormless Gormley stays in government after the next election he'll be implementing system to charge motorists by the mile so toll's may become extinct however when travelling through more congested areas (e.g. anywhere in dublin) then the rate per mile will increase.

They're currently looking at a Congestion Charge for the City Centre but that type of scheme is approaching almost pre-historic status. The Uk is already piloting 'charge by the mile' technology and rest assured it won't be long before it travels across the irish sea.

Of course it will be passed off as a desperately needed 'green tax' to save the eco system rather than just another tax.

There's a much simpler way of taxing people per mile which increases in heavy congestion: increase the tax on fuel. No extra waste in admin (such as we're seeing at westlink).

Tolls and congestion charges should not exist-just higher taxes on fuel! Kepp the admin costs down and there's more money in the pot-that's something the public sector needs to learn badly.

serfboard

murphaph wrote: »

There's a much simpler way of taxing people per mile which increases in heavy congestion: increase the tax on fuel. No extra waste in admin (such as we're seeing at westlink).

Tolls and congestion charges should not exist-just higher taxes on fuel! Kepp the admin costs down and there's more money in the pot-that's something the public sector needs to learn badly.

While I agree, remember that this idea is politically very sensitive, as it penalises people who have been forced to commute in cars due to bad planning and lack of public transport. I can't see it happening, TBH.

Ham'nd'egger

serfboard wrote: »

While I agree, remember that this idea is politically very sensitive, as it penalises people who have been forced to commute in cars due to bad planning and lack of public transport. I can't see it happening, TBH.

It also hits those who are transport dependent for work; while it is allowable off tax it had to be paid for ahead of the time.

DWCommuter

serfboard wrote: »

I can't imagine anyone who is not immune to such a recession, saying something as silly as this.

Ive put my viewpoint across quite clearly. Would you care to explain why you think that particular point is silly?

ardmacha

There's a much simpler way of taxing people per mile which increases in heavy congestion

Congestion is both geographically and temporally localised. The very high fuel price that you would need to free up the centre of cities at 08:30 would have a huge effect on journeys at times and places that are not at all congested.

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Have they changed the Ballymun interchange to Santry?

No, the 'Santry' interchange is my own name for what is officially the Turnapin Interchange but I changed some of the names (all highly localised names) to the nearest widely known location so people from outside Dublin could have a chance of knowing what I was on about.

Yoda

A "fair" system would be a €1 or €2 toll (an even number, not to change) taken at each point where a vehicle enters the M50. It wouldn't matter if you drove just to the next exit or the whole length of the thing. People who happen to need to travel across the bridge wouldn't be penalized whilst people driving a similar distance but just not using the bridge wouldn't get away with using the motorway without helping to bear the costs. (I know, the taxpayer already paid...)

And definitely €1 or €2 even. And the same for the Eastlink. What is it now, €1.65? What a ridiculous figure. The whole New York public transit system works just great: get on for $2, get off wherever the system of transfers takes you. (I know, it's a public transport system, not a toll road system.)

johnnyrotten

NO!!:mad:

NO

get rid of the toll. I pay my motor tax.

serfboard

DWCommuter wrote: »

Ive put my viewpoint across quite clearly. Would you care to explain why you think that particular point is silly?

OK - let me reproduce here your original statement.

DWCommuter wrote: »

In my opinion a recession that delivers high unemployment might just bring us back to a reasonably blank canvas, so we can start again. Lets be honest, we need to as the current trend is unsustainable.

My point is that only those who are immune to a recession, and who will not face the prospects of losing their livelihoods, would say something as silly as we need a recession that delivers high unemployment.

Everyone else would dread that prospect.

trellheim

As far as I recall Motor Tax is ringfenced for local council stuff and not for National and Motorways.

Therefore your Motorways don't come out of the Motor Tax.