M50 thread

L1011

celticbest wrote: »

Spot on omicron re charging, I can’t understand why one person is charged for the use of the road and another person isn’t just because they don’t cross the Liffey North to South or vice versa isn’t, I sure if they charged on entry it would cut a lot of the 1 / 2 junction hoppers.

Because only the Liffey bridge had to be bought out at an exorbitant rate, that's why

I'm entirely opposed to extending the charge on trumped up ideas of "fairness", ditto road pricing - and even more so even considering doing so without fixing public transport first.

The public transport system is crocked - at capacity and not serving people properly. You cannot force further people on to it. There's not been any carrot provided in the past decade, just piles of stick.

omicron

celticbest wrote: »

Spot on omicron re charging, I can’t understand why one person is charged for the use of the road and another person isn’t just because they don’t cross the Liffey North to South or vice versa isn’t, I sure if they charged on entry it would cut a lot of the 1 / 2 junction hoppers.

However I can’t see them making the road free to use at any time as the potential revenue loss would be too great.

I dont think the loss to revenue would be huge as only so many people will go at an off peak time, and extending the toll to the whole road would more than make up for it. Although it could be staggered, e.g. free before 6.15, €1 to 6.45, €2 afterwards, to maximise capacity.

I would also reckon toll money should be "ringfenced" for infrastructure development, road and public transport based, in the Dublin area as opposed to being used as general income.

celticbest

L1011 wrote: »

Because only the Liffey bridge had to be bought out at an exorbitant rate, that's why

After the buyout and upgrade it's not all about the Westlink bridges anymore, it doesn't justify why the cost of the upgrade is only be paid by those using one section.

L1011 wrote: »

I'm entirely opposed to extending the charge on trumped up ideas of "fairness", ditto road pricing - and even more so even considering doing so without fixing public transport first.

It's not about "fairness", it's about paying for what you use, the M50 upgrade cost €950.

rameire

They should place the flappy paddles on the junctions to stop people crossing the hatched areas.
I also think if they could it would be good to add a second auxilliary between jn10 and j9 northbound.

omicron

rameire wrote: »

They should place the flappy paddles on the junctions to stop people crossing the hatched areas.
I also think if they could it would be good to add a second auxilliary between jn10 and j9 northbound.

Or just close Jn10 altogether, its 500m from Jn9 and not much more from Jn11, and doesn't lead to any major national routes or extraordinary trip generators.

Tabnabs

omicron wrote: »

give people an incentive to make use of the existing infrastructure rather than building an elevated overpass across Dublin Bay.

That idea needs to be firmly and finally knocked on the head in peoples mind. Dublin Bay has been designated a UNESCO reserve.

omicron

Tabnabs wrote: »

That idea needs to be firmly and finally knocked on the head in peoples mind. Dublin Bay has been designated a UNESCO reserve.

I wasn't proposing it as an idea, I was trying to emphasise the stupidity of the idea when the existing infrastructure is practically empty 16 hours a day!

h57xiucj2z946q

Seems to be almost a daily occurrence now that there is a crash on the M50 and the traffic is simply crawling, or worst, sitting still.

BoatMad

Originally Posted by omicron View Post
give people an incentive to make use of the existing infrastructure rather than building an elevated overpass across Dublin Bay.

There does need to be some plan to complete the C ring to an O, tunnelling maybe or cut and cover

omicron

BoatMad wrote: »

There does need to be some plan to complete the C ring to an O, tunnelling maybe or cut and cover

So we get another 2 years of better traffic at enormous expense before everything grinds to a halt again as more people choose to drive places?

Probably at a similar expense as Dart Underground or metro north, both of which would provide infinitely more benefit.

First Up

BoatMad wrote: »

There does need to be some plan to complete the C ring to an O, tunnelling maybe or cut and cover

By far the cheapest effective initiative would be proper driver education and rigorous enforcement of how to drive on a motorway. That would improve traffic flow and reduce accidents. Lets see how that works before investing in yet more roads for people to drive badly on.

L1011

celticbest wrote: »

It's not about "fairness", it's about paying for what you use, the M50 upgrade cost €950.

Funded by taxation.

The toll is to repay the cost of buying the bridge - hence only the bridge should be tolled. Road pricing will do nothing to help with traffic until such point as there's an alternative to move to

CountingCrows

L1011 wrote: »

Road pricing will do nothing to help with traffic until such point as there's an alternative to move to

Don't agree. E.g I have several possible routes to and from work, currently I use the M50 as it saves me 5/10 minutes each way although distance wise it is considerably longer. If a pay by junction tolling system ever came into place, I'd simply take an alternative route avoiding the M50 altogether.

L1011

CountingCrows wrote: »

Don't agree. E.g I have several possible routes to and from work, currently I use the M50 as it saves me 5/10 minutes each way although distance wise it is considerably longer. If a pay by junction tolling system ever came into place, I'd simply take an alternative route avoiding the M50 altogether.

And then we'll have screams for that road to be priced. You're still going to be driving, meaning that the pricing has done nothing to reduce congestion.

Bray Head

In the next 10 years nothing on the public transport front is going to make a difference. We have to look at using the infrastructure we have better, rather than talking about solutions which will not exist any time soon.

The good news is that re are 168 hours in the week and the M50 is at or under capacity for a good 150 of them. In practical terms it would be would be very simple to introduce tolling along the M50. Maybe a minimum payment and then another for every junction you pass through. Many M50 users have a toll tag already. Erecting a few more gantries would cost a few million but not much more. I don't think it would lead to too much extra traffic in built-up areas. For most journeys there simply isn't an alternative to the M50.

It would really need to be marketed as a congestion charge, not just a toll. Operators would have to be mandated to vary pricing and timing with the goal of ensuring something like congestion for <20 minutes per weekday on average.

Sure there would be lots of whinging. But the people who would pay would get the benefit of a faster journey, and the people not prepared to pay would stay home or delay their journey.

Alkers

Bray Head wrote: »

Maybe a minimum payment and then another for every junction you pass through.

I would think that the logic would be to overcharge people using it to only travel a few junctions as the motorway is intended as a Dublin bypass?

Bray Head

Simona1986 wrote: »

I would think that the logic would be to overcharge people using it to only travel a few junctions as the motorway is intended as a Dublin bypass?

I'm sure a suitable charging schedule could be designed. I was making a broader point about using price to eliminate congestion.

Currently, congestion is used to reduce congestion, which is neither efficient nor effective.

L1011

Without significant improvements in public transport, there is nowhere for the people in those cars to go, though. And no, not everyone can adjust their working hours either - they already would have to avoid traffic if they could.

BoatMad

omicron wrote: »

So we get another 2 years of better traffic at enormous expense before everything grinds to a halt again as more people choose to drive places?

Probably at a similar expense as Dart Underground or metro north, both of which would provide infinitely more benefit.

Ultimately there's an upper limit on the cars. People can't drive two at the same time.

A ring would be preferable

Dart underground is only useful to a small percentage of the travelling public. Most don't use rail at all. It's another rail white elephant

Sam Russell

BoatMad wrote: »

Dart underground is only useful to a small percentage of the travelling public. Most don't use rail at all. It's another rail white elephant

It will provide reliable linking of public transport within the canals. Dart started off in 1982 with two coach sets and now run eight car sets at peak times that are filled to the roof. It provides significant options for people who live near it. Buses can only provide a limited service because they get in each others way, and they are slow and unreliable.

If there was a reliable service from Heuston and St Steven's Green, say, to the airport using the DU, it would provide a significant option for most people going to the airport. Who would drive there if there was a service every 30 mins or 20 mins and taking less than 30 mins?

BoatMad

Sam Russell wrote: »

It will provide reliable linking of public transport within the canals. Dart started off in 1982 with two coach sets and now run eight car sets at peak times that are filled to the roof. It provides significant options for people who live near it. Buses can only provide a limited service because they get in each others way, and they are slow and unreliable.

If there was a reliable service from Heuston and St Steven's Green, say, to the airport using the DU, it would provide a significant option for most people going to the airport. Who would drive there if there was a service every 30 mins or 20 mins and taking less than 30 mins?

Airport passengers, except a small minority , don't use mainline rail. Hence there is little justification in bringing them directly to Hueston. An MN interchange with the rail line from cabra-north wall , could be used for the purposes off facilitating the few that wish to use interurban rail.

Buses are not slow ( bus lanes ) or unreliable ( real time information)

Some rail expenditure is justified in the capital , like MN , outside the capital no rail investment stands up to scrutiny

Driving to the airport, outside of a very small peak time window is always faster door to door ,add the convenience factor ( personal environment , luggage handling , etc ) and it will always be favoured unless there is a massive time difference . It's why the airport has huge parking facilities -doh!

loyatemu

BoatMad wrote: »

Ultimately there's an upper limit on the cars. People can't drive two at the same time.

A ring would be preferable

Dart underground is only useful to a small percentage of the travelling public. Most don't use rail at all. It's another rail white elephant

Here you're basically saying the solution to congestion is to keep building more roads and building public transport is a waste of time. Are you Colm McCarthy?

A lot of people could work from anywhere, but are still expected to show up at their City Centre or Sandyford/Eastpoint/Citywest etc offices every day. If more incentives were created for these people to work from home more, they'd free up road space for workers who do have to be in a specific location, and deliveries etc. The best long term solution is to encourage less travelling at specific times, not constantly building more private and public transport capacity.

Sam Russell

BoatMad wrote: »

Airport passengers, except a small minority , don't use mainline rail. Hence there is little justification in bringing them directly to Hueston. An MN interchange with the rail line from cabra-north wall , could be used for the purposes off facilitating the few that wish to use interurban rail.

Buses are not slow ( bus lanes ) or unreliable ( real time information)

Some rail expenditure is justified in the capital , like MN , outside the capital no rail investment stands up to scrutiny

Driving to the airport, outside of a very small peak time window is always faster door to door ,add the convenience factor ( personal environment , luggage handling , etc ) and it will always be favoured unless there is a massive time difference . It's why the airport has huge parking facilities -doh!

MN and DU, together with the Airport link would make getting to the airport convenient for very many people. Door to door by car is always quicker, as is going by taxi. The downside with the car is having to park the car in the 'huge parking facilities' (your phrase) and then getting the bendy bus back to the terminal, and when you arrive from your trip, you have to get the bendy bus back to wherever you parked your car - if you can recall where.

That is why most large airports have train connectivity.

As for buses, they are unreliable (because of traffic - bus lanes only help so much) and they have very limited capacity. Trains come into their own when they are fast, frequent and reliable - and being cheap helps.

BoatMad

loyatemu wrote: »

Here you're basically saying the solution to congestion is to keep building more roads and building public transport is a waste of time. Are you Colm McCarthy?

A lot of people could work from anywhere, but are still expected to show up at their City Centre or Sandyford/Eastpoint/Citywest etc offices every day. If more incentives were created for these people to work from home more, they'd free up road space for workers who do have to be in a specific location, and deliveries etc. The best long term solution is to encourage less travelling at specific times, not constantly building more private and public transport capacity.

Indeed I agree with your last point , but humans are sociable animals and working on your own at home requires considerable discipline ( I know )

You cannot ignore that rail transport in particular , is a very rigid form of transport and most tends to serve city centre destinations , which was the old 19th pattern of working.

Cars are the present and future of private transportation , there no going back ,despite the desires of certain " social activists ". Hence we must plan for their use. In particular if we want to break the centralisation of Ireland into the greater Dublin region, we have to support car usage.

Nichard Dixon

BoatMad wrote: »

Dart underground is only useful to a small percentage of the travelling public. Most don't use rail at all. It's another rail white elephant

Perhaps. But if these people aren't on the roads then they roads will cope better with the rest of the people.

BoatMad wrote: »

Driving to the airport, outside of a very small peak time window is always faster door to door ,add the convenience factor ( personal environment , luggage handling , etc ) and it will always be favoured unless there is a massive time difference . It's why the airport has huge parking facilities -doh!

This view is entirely focussed on Irish people using the airport and entirely ignores people arriving from outside the country who may well wish to use trains etc. People go both ways, you know.

Sam Russell

BoatMad wrote: »

Indeed I agree with your last point , but humans are sociable animals and working on your own at home requires considerable discipline ( I know )

You cannot ignore that rail transport in particular , is a very rigid form of transport and most tends to serve city centre destinations , which was the old 19th pattern of working.

Cars are the present and future of private transportation , there no going back ,despite the desires of certain " social activists ". Hence we must plan for their use. In particular if we want to break the centralisation of Ireland into the greater Dublin region, we have to support car usage.

Rail transport in London and NY is vital to the operation of both cities, and if we still had the old tram network and the old train network, it would be vital to the workings of Dublin. Unfortunately the system was dismantled in the twenties and thirties because it was not modern enough.

With a proper network of train and tram, there is structure to the expansion of the city. Without it, all that happens is random development driven by brown envelopes and short-termism. Cars are great for going from A to B but not so great for going from home to work if you live or work in a city. Ask anyone who sits in a crawl into Dublin in the morning and then out of Dublin in the evening.

Rail can shift a lot of bodies in a short time in a reliable time frame - buses not so much and cars only up to a low level of traffic.

BoatMad

Sam Russell wrote: »

Rail transport in London and NY is vital to the operation of both cities, and if we still had the old tram network and the old train network, it would be vital to the workings of Dublin. Unfortunately the system was dismantled in the twenties and thirties because it was not modern enough.

With a proper network of train and tram, there is structure to the expansion of the city. Without it, all that happens is random development driven by brown envelopes and short-termism. Cars are great for going from A to B but not so great for going from home to work if you live or work in a city. Ask anyone who sits in a crawl into Dublin in the morning and then out of Dublin in the evening.

Rail can shift a lot of bodies in a short time in a reliable time frame - buses not so much and cars only up to a low level of traffic.

Rail transport works only for a minority of commuters , that's the facts. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any commuter rail infrastructure, but it's expansion is very difficult to justify and it must play second fiddle to those systems carrying the majority of commuters and also non commuters.

Roads in the capital need serious investment

paddyman

For the suggestions put forward for large capital projects to alleviate the traffic on the M50 such as DU, O Ring, expanded motorway, bypasses, more Luas/Rail Etc - would people mind if the next government as part of their manifesto said "right lads, we need to get this done, we are going to borrow 15 -20 billion and use it for x,y,z projects"?.

Taking on debt for projects such at these and paid back through a multi generational loan could get them started in much shorter time frames. It obviously needs to be paid back with interest but at the same time you get the future economic benefit of them and they will still be used when your kids kids are going to work.

BoatMad

paddyman wrote: »

For the suggestions put forward for large capital projects to alleviate the traffic on the M50 such as DU, O Ring, expanded motorway, bypasses, more Luas/Rail Etc - would people mind if the next government as part of their manifesto said "right lads, we need to get this done, we are going to borrow 15 -20 billion and use it for x,y,z projects"?.

Taking on debt for projects such at these and paid back through a multi generational loan could get them started in much shorter time frames. It obviously needs to be paid back with interest but at the same time you get the future economic benefit of them and they will still be used when your kids kids are going to work.

Can't do it because of troika agreement and EU fiscal rules

markpb

BoatMad wrote:

Rail transport works only for a minority of commuters , that's the facts. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any commuter rail infrastructure, but it's expansion is very difficult to justify and it must play second fiddle to those systems carrying the majority of commuters and also non commuters.

The majority of people entering the city centre are by bus. Should that be the priority?