M50 thread

L1011

Bray Head wrote: »

Road tolls are not a tax, they are user charges. There is a subtle but important difference. Tax is confiscation of your income or wealth, not based on use.

What, precisely, are VAT and excise then? They're taxes on use...

Bray Head

L1011 wrote: »

Meaning that its not a "1-3 year" solution like you claimed it was...

The only short term solution is to get more buses on more suitable routes and get train capacity back up to and above its 2007/8 level, coupled with properly resourced (spaces, security) park and ride that is either free of charge, or negligibly charged and allowable under Taxsaver.

My point was that road pricing and congestion charges would be in operation far sooner than Metro North would, given the political will. The cost and technical challenges are a lot less. I think this was quite clear.

For the rest, I totally agree.

Most of these are organisational problems (CIE, licensing on routes) rather than engineering ones though.

BoatMad

Bray Head wrote: »

Road tolls are not a tax, they are user charges. There is a subtle but important difference. Tax is confiscation of your income or wealth, not based on use.

By analagy, 99% of people need a passport and have to pay the government for one. It is not a tax however.

If you have no effective alternative it's simply a tax. A charge is a cost for providing a service , road charging is a tax, unless the user can use an alternative

A passport charge is not a tax , because the user has a simple option. Don't get one. A worker has little option but to go to work

L1011

Bray Head wrote: »

My point was that road pricing and congestion charges would be in operation far sooner than Metro North would, given the political will. The cost and technical challenges are a lot less. I think this was quite clear.

Having something that's completely ineffectual in place quickly doesn't solve the problem.

BoatMad

Bray Head wrote: »

My point was that road pricing and congestion charges would be in operation far sooner than Metro North would, given the political will. The cost and technical challenges are a lot less. I think this was quite clear.

For the rest, I totally agree.

Most of these are organisational problems (CIE, licensing on routes) rather than engineering ones though.

Planners ( gov ) have developed the current strategy where most sub-urban people live

Planners ( gov) have decided where most industrial developments go

Planners , NRA, rpa etc ( gov ) have decided and constructed public transport facilities.

Now you then want to penalise people simply because they live where the planners put them and have to get to a workplace situated where planners placed them, along transport infrastructure decided by planners

More green-ie social engineering usually from people hurling on the ditch , how'd that work out politically for them , huh

Bray Head

L1011 wrote: »

What, precisely, are VAT and excise then? They're taxes on use...

Since you asked.......

A user charge is a price you pay for (voluntary) use of a publically-owned monopoly good or service where the charge is fully or partially used for the provision of the good or service.

Excise and VAT are simply taxes on consumption of (generally) privately-provided goods or services where the revenue raised is not used for the provision of the good or service and is usually pooled with other revenues.

Examples of user charges:
A&E fee
Passport fee
Road toll
Registering a birth
Driving test

Apologies to all for this wandering off topic.

L1011

Bray Head wrote: »

Since you asked.......
.

You are, in your lengthy back-tracking there, making a grand assumption that road pricing, congestion charging etc would be used for a specific purpose.

In a country where pretty much the only ring-fenced collection of money is the plastic bag levy, and motor tax / fuel excise duty has been used to fund general expenditure for many years.

The chances of any road pricing being used to fund public transport initiatives alone is zero.

BoatMad

Bray Head wrote: »

Since you asked.......

A user charge is a price you pay for (voluntary) use of a publically-owned monopoly good or service where the charge is fully or partially used for the provision of the good or service.

Excise and VAT are simply taxes on consumption of (generally) privately-provided goods or services where the revenue raised is not used for the provision of the good or service and is usually pooled with other revenues.

Examples of user charges:
A&E fee
Passport fee
Road toll
Registering a birth
Driving test

Apologies to all for this wandering off topic.

In reality any payment made to a public body essentially funded by the taxpayer in a tax , ie a charge is merely a shortfall in tax to make up for a shortfall in public provision.

In Ireland we have this " cute " notion that public bodies are somehow competitive commercial entities that " charge " for their services. This is an illusion, all these charges are simply a form of supplementary taxes that go to fund these so called " public service bodies "

Road pricing , is a tax designed to encourage that beloved of green-ie thinking " social engineering " it entirely based on the logic that " we " our green-ie betters know what's better for you , and as we can't win the hearts and mind argument
, well just tax you till you change , dictatorial approach instead

Bray Head

Thanks for the feedback. I don't think we'll agree.

Over and out from me on this topic from now.

sillysmiles

Bray Head wrote: »

My point was that road pricing and congestion charges would be in operation far sooner than Metro North would, given the political will. The cost and technical challenges are a lot less. I think this was quite clear.

So it is easier to implement, but would do nothing to actually help people get to work or improve peoples lives.

sillysmiles

Bray Head wrote: »

In the short term there would be a lot of losers, I agree. In the long run people change jobs and move houses and the patterns of commuting would adjust.

Because moving jobs and house is so easy for people!

I would love to live somewhere commutable by public transport, but that house stock is both limited and expensive, so we had to buy somewhere that was more rural.

The reality as it stands today is that people need to commute and saying you should just move house is ridiculous.

mahoganygas

In recent weeks they have laid plastic bollards at the M1/M50 interchange, at the Malahide/Clarehall exit.

This is where the M50 northbound right lane changes into an offroad for the R139. This exit has always been such a mess with dangerous lane skippers but the bollards seem to have made it worse.

So many people stick in the right lane even though they intend to continue to the airport/M1. They then quickly try to pull into the middle lane.

Or even worse you see people in the left lane trying to dart across the white box to make the exit. This worked for them previously but now the bollards prevent them from crossing the box. I've seen two cars come to halt in the middle lane as they weren't expecting the bollards to stop their quick dash for the exit.

The new bollards are poorly lit too. Blink and you're suddenly on top of them.

What can be done about this mess?

I think they are an improvement, i was sick of cars crossing in over the hatch markings at the last minute. Once you have your wits about you, let them make a mess of it and hit a bollard, they won't be so quick to do it next time.

Once they are there a while people will get used to them and get in early.

dubred

cisk wrote: »

I think they are an improvement, i was sick of cars crossing in over the hatch markings at the last minute. Once you have your wits about you, let them make a mess of it and hit a bollard, they won't be so quick to do it next time.

Once they are there a while people will get used to them and get in early.

While I haven't seen these ones in place, I have seen them at Rathcoole (J4) eastbound on the N7 and they seem to be effective. Hopefully, this is the start of a full implementation on the M50. On my route, Junctions 9 & 10 southbound in the mornings and 12, 11 and 10 northbound in the evenings suffer from people crossing the hatch markings, I don't go as far as J7, but I hear it is a problem there as well.

Irish Steve

Blocking the lane skippers would make a huge difference to the free flow at some junctions. especially where there's already an "exit" lane for some distance. In the same way, the American system is to have a solid blocker between Lane 1 and 2 for some distance before and after high volume junctions, so if you are not in Lane 1 or the exit lane before the blockers, you are NOT coming off at the next junction, and in the same way, you don't get to Lane 2 or 3 for some while after joining, and I know from experience that the blocker system works well at peak periods, even in places like Orlando, where a significant number of people are not commuters or local to the area.

Variable speed limits would also be a big help, as would enforcement to deal with the queue jumpers that stop in Lane 1 until someone who joined the queue at the right place lets them in to the exit lane. There's no excuse for such behaviour, and it should be an automatic points offence.

I'd even go as far as to suggest that there should be a lane 1/2 blockers between the Valleymount and Liffey Valley junctions (in both directions) so 2 and 3 are only available for "through" traffic, and if you want to do a "short hop", then you use the exit/entry lane or Lane 1, and have to get into Lane 1 before the blockers. Part of the problem is the bus lane mess at Liffey Valley, which backs the M50 north exit very significantly, given that the outbound flow there is now improved, it would make a lot of sense to change the lane layout to make the flow work more smoothly, though bad design can't be completely taken out of that scenario, the exit for Liffey Valley centre is just too close to the M50 junction, and with the bus lanes in the mix, there are too many merges happening in too short a distance for the volumes at peak periods.

celticbest

Irish Steve wrote: »

Blocking the lane skippers would make a huge difference to the free flow at some junctions.

Couldn't agree more if its stops stuff like this which is a regular occurrence on the M50,

celticbest wrote: »

The M50 this morning (date is wrong on Video), car pulls into fast moving traffic then decides to pull back out again crossing hatch markings, might not look close but I had to hit the anchors HARD!

marno21

The line markings for the merges at the N3/M50 interchange for the N3/M50 north/southbound and the Airport interchange on the M1 southbound are being amended on a trial basis from:


to

mackerski

marno21 wrote: »

The line markings for the merges at the N3/M50 interchange for the N3/M50 north/southbound and the Airport interchange on the M1 southbound are being amended on a trial basis from:


to

That should be a big improvement. Short merges are part of the reason people shun the left lane.

mackerski

mackerski wrote: »

That should be a big improvement. Short merges are part of the reason people shun the left lane.

Yes, it will stop the middle laners using the excuse that too many drivers jump in to lane one so they stay out of it.

Should have been this way from day one!

Middle Man

celticbest wrote: »

Couldn't agree more if its stops stuff like this which is a regular occurrence on the M50,

If that guy (as per the video) caused an accident, I'd have him in the Joy - no ifs or buts!

_Kaiser_

Middle Man wrote: »

If that guy (as per the video) caused an accident, I'd have him in the Joy - no ifs or buts!

Agree but unfortunately the default verdict in such a case is that the person behind is responsible for leaving enough distance to stop - even if some idiot pulls out on top of them like that.

And as the insurance companies are only interested in settling claims for as little as possible rather than representing the client who is paying them a fortune, the poster above would have a fight on their hands.

Good ole Ireland

sgarvan

marno21 wrote: »

The line markings for the merges at the N3/M50 interchange for the N3/M50 north/southbound and the Airport interchange on the M1 southbound are being amended on a trial basis from:


to

Any more info on this? Like when is it happening? Should improve massively that area.

celticbest

From the Garda Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/angardasiochana/

Works started yesterday ?

Works to begin Monday 9th November

Following a Transport Infrastructure Ireland of the M50, it is proposed to amend the road markings at merge layouts at the merges of the N3 on to the M50 northbound, the N3 on to the M50 southbound, and Airport interchange on to the M1 southbound,

This is in an attempt to reduce the delays being caused by weaving vehicles at merge points.

These works are being undertaken on a trial basis, and our intention is to undertake similar works to all M50 merge points in future.

These works are due to commence at the M3/M50 interchange on Monday night 11th November, followed by the Airport/M1 interchange, and in total will take 2 weeks to complete.

Traffic Management will be in place, and VMS signage advising road users of the new layouts will be erected and left in place for 21 days after the new merges are completed.

celticbest

Schedule of Line marking works this week,

lovelyhurler

This all looks great.
Still wont stop idiots from coming from the free-flow lanes all the way out to lane 3 in one fowl swoop.

MayoSalmon

Carnage this morning!!!

Middle Man

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Carnage this morning!!!

A m50 dedicated traffic corp needed now - would make complete economic sense given the current social and economic costs of accidents caused by bad driving. This nonsense has got to stop - the M50 is not a badly designed motorway - if one was to see the Periphery in Paris, the idiot drivers here would have that shut down every hour given the very short slips...

Sam Russell

I think we should be careful not to assign blame for the occurrence this morning - remember that the driver of the car is seriously ill in hospital - hopefully making a complete recovery.

Middle Man

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think we should be careful not to assign blame for the occurrence this morning - remember that the driver of the car is seriously ill in hospital - hopefully making a complete recovery.

I saw an image of an accident on the N4 to M50 S Loop this morning involving a truck that appeared to take the curve too fast. However, I saw the news at 6oc this evening and I don't think it was the same accident at all - the site of the one on the news was well into the mainline beyond the loop. Very hard to know what exactly happened from the pictures - bad weather was said to be a factor. The first accident I mentioned mustn't have been the one that happened today...

Nichard Dixon

lovelyhurler wrote: »

This all looks great.
Still wont stop idiots from coming from the free-flow lanes all the way out to lane 3 in one fowl swoop.

In France they have solid lines in the vicinity of exits, these would give a clear basis for prosecution. if you are in lane 2 near the exit then you have to stay there.

The road marking change seems a wise one, especially if there is small amount of tarmac added on the left.