M50 thread

marno21

An outer orbital would be an astounding waste of money.

1. Very few cars actually use the M50 end to end. The issue with the M50 is commuters, not the actual end to end traffic or long distance traffic.
2. The Outer Orbital wouldn't be able to link to the N11, meaning that end to end traffic would still have to use the M50.
3. It would only encourage development along the Outer Orbital driving more car dependent commuting.

The solutions for Dublin are mass transit systems such as Metro North and the DART Expansion. One cheap way of taking pressure off the M50 would be to continue the R136 over the River Liffey and have an alternate Liffey crossing to the Westlink.

BonnieSituation

It's not really an "outer orbital if it doesn't completely orbit the M50 and is only 2 miles from the N4/M50 junction.

Linking the N4 and N3 has merit and is well need as the two routes between Lucan/Leixlip and Blanch et al are not good enough. The toll is enforced only at that point and the Strawberry beds and Westmanstown/Luttrellstown are hardly decent enough to call em appropriate "direct" routes.

We need a proper outer orbital route that gets traffic away from Dublin and the outer suburbs so they can breathe.

Balbriggan>Ashbourne>Batterstown>Painstown/Enfield (Then some link from there via Prosperous) to Newbridge.

But before all of that we need a coherent rapid heavy rail system throughout the GDA.

CeilingFly

marno21 wrote: »

An outer orbital would be an astounding waste of money.

1. Very few cars actually use the M50 end to end. The issue with the M50 is commuters, not the actual end to end traffic or long distance traffic.
2. The Outer Orbital wouldn't be able to link to the N11, meaning that end to end traffic would still have to use the M50.
3. It would only encourage development along the Outer Orbital driving more car dependent commuting.

The solutions for Dublin are mass transit systems such as Metro North and the DART Expansion. One cheap way of taking pressure off the M50 would be to continue the R136 over the River Liffey and have an alternate Liffey crossing to the Westlink.

Would totally disagree.

If there was a route that was effectively an extension of M7 at Newbridge through to M1 at Lusk it would make massive difference to M50 traffic.

1 - vehicles especially trucks from NI and greenore / drogheda ports going to any route except Dublin and wicklow would use it.

2. Any cars going to/from airport from anywhere except Dublin, wicklow would use it.

3. Several large logistics parks are located in west & northwest Dublin. All their truck movements except to Dublin and wicklow would use it.

4. Those living west or near east of the route would use it to transverse to different motorway routes to avoid needing to use back roads or m50


The route can't be too far west - Newbridge / Kilcock / Dunsaughlin / Ashbourne / lusk would be my thoughts.

Atlantic Dawn

Was on M50 yesterday going southbound just before exit 5, there was 2 lads working for M50 Road Co on small mobile road cleaning type vehicles like these below on the hard shoulder.



There was no warning signs on the side of the road or notices on any of the overhead gantrys to inform motorists they were there leading up to where they were on the road, I hope they have good life insurance as they won't last long with cars doing 100kmh beside them.

marno21

This proposed motorway would cost around €2bn. Given this cost it would likely attract a toll. Taking this into account:

CeilingFly wrote: »

1 - vehicles especially trucks from NI and greenore / drogheda ports going to any route except Dublin and wicklow would use it.

Wouldn't be anywhere near the amount of traffic to justify the cost of this project.

2. Any cars going to/from airport from anywhere except Dublin, wicklow would use it.

These cars have no issue using the M50 except for 6-8 hours on weekdays. Again doesn't justify a motorway.

3. Several large logistics parks are located in west & northwest Dublin. All their truck movements except to Dublin and wicklow would use it.

Can you give a few examples? Just for the sake of expanding the point

4. Those living west or near east of the route would use it to transverse to different motorway routes to avoid needing to use back roads or m50

The route can't be too far west - Newbridge / Kilcock / Dunsaughlin / Ashbourne / lusk would be my thoughts.

We don't need an outer orbital for the amount of traffic that would use it.

A much better alternative would be to say x would use the Outer Orbital, then remove that much traffic off the M50 which is very doable. Lets remember that the M50 congestion issue is a peak time only one and that the 2bn would also only be spent on a road of value for 1/3 of the day.

As many others will say, it would also be a major encouragement of very much not needed sprawl.

Bray Head

CeilingFly wrote: »

Would totally disagree.

If there was a route that was effectively an extension of M7 at Newbridge through to M1 at Lusk it would make massive difference to M50 traffic.

Yes but how many vehicles passing through the Red Cow are making this full journey, or longer, at either end? I would guess no more than 15%, but am happy for anyone to prove me wrong with the evidence.

The solution to M50 congestion is time-dependent tolling. This works absolutely perfectly for the Port Tunnel, and there is no reason why it couldn't work elsewhere.

marno21

Bray Head wrote: »

Yes but how many vehicles passing through the Red Cow are making this full journey, or longer, at either end? I would guess no more than 15%, but am happy for anyone to prove me wrong with the evidence.

The solution to M50 congestion is time-dependent tolling. This works absolutely perfectly for the Port Tunnel, and there is no reason why it couldn't work elsewhere.

You are right.

Build DART Expansion, Metro North and improve capacity on public transport. Then when you have an alternative, toll the M1, M4, M7, M11 and M50 at peak times and watch the M50 congestion be solved.

hognef

Bray Head wrote: »

Yes but how many vehicles passing through the Red Cow are making this full journey, or longer, at either end? I would guess no more than 15%, but am happy for anyone to prove me wrong with the evidence.

The solution to M50 congestion is time-dependent tolling. This works absolutely perfectly for the Port Tunnel, and there is no reason why it couldn't work elsewhere.

A 15% reduction of peak-time traffic on the m50 would probably remove all congestion issues.

marno21

hognef wrote: »

A 15% reduction of peak-time traffic on the m50 would probably remove all congestion issues.

Yes, but this 15% (I think it could be less) is spread across the day. Anyone doing an end to end trip would, if possible, try to avoid the M50 between 6:30am and 9:30am and 4pm and 7pm to avoid the congestion.

It would be much more effective to get the people causing the congestion (especially commuting to places with poor PT connections such as Sandyford) off the M50 rather than spending €2bn on a tolled motorway through Co. Kildare and Meath which will be empty when the next recession hits and would likely be difficult to finance in the first place due to the likely lack of ability of a PPP concessionaire to make the money back because of lack of use.

LeinsterDub

Bray Head wrote: »

The solution to M50 congestion is time-dependent tolling. This works absolutely perfectly for the Port Tunnel, and there is no reason why it couldn't work elsewhere.

Let's assume no one is out for the auld Sunday drive during M50 rush hour. Where do you think all the people currently using the M50 will go? You'll leave people 3 options. Pay more, get up even earlier or pay more to sit in congestion.

marno21

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Let's assume no one is out for the auld Sunday drive during M50 rush hour. Where do you think all the people currently using the M50 will go? You'll leave people 3 options. Pay more, get up even earlier or pay more to sit in congestion.

Use the future high speed high frequency rail network that Dublin should have built years ago.

Peak time tolling/congestion charging on the M50, however, is not viable until (better) alternatives to the M50 are available.

If someone from Kildare can commute to Sandyford by rail in 45 minutes the car will very quickly be parked up and left at home. I don't see how anyone enjoys being parked up on the M7, N7 and M50.

LeinsterDub

marno21 wrote: »

Use the future high speed high frequency rail network that Dublin should have built years ago.

Hyperloop it is so

Bray Head

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Let's assume no one is out for the auld Sunday drive during M50 rush hour. Where do you think all the people currently using the M50 will go? You'll leave people 3 options. Pay more, get up even earlier or pay more to sit in congestion.

Actually I took a peak-time M50 trip recently because I had a lot of time to spare. A toll would have put me off believe me.

The M50 flows quite smoothly 145 hours a week or so.The key to it is to have the toll vary by time of day, just like the DPT.

Congestion is a very bad way of rationing road space.

plodder

It'd be a terrible mistake to build any more significant roads in Dublin area before doing Metro North and DART underground.

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

Actually I took a peak-time M50 trip recently because I had a lot of time to spare. A toll would have put me off believe me.

The M50 flows quite smoothly 145 hours a week or so.The key to it is to have the toll vary by time of day, just like the DPT.

Congestion is a very bad way of rationing road space.

If the toll is going to vary by time, as you suggest, maybe it should be applied to the whole of the M50, not just the West Link. It would require ANPRC at every entry and exit slipway, plus a few gantries, but it could also be used to check NCT, tax and insurance plus average speed. No toll for very low demand times, like small hours, but quite steep for very busy times, just like the DPT does - say €0 midnight to 5am, €5 or €6 8am - 10am, and 4pm to 7pm, €2 or €3 other times. (Time is when you enter). No charge for weekends.

Short journeys would be expensive relatively and would be discouraged. It would act like a congestion charge.

Not sure I would like it though, but if MN and DU and Dart extension to Maynooth was built, it would mean that PT was an alternative. Without those, it would just be another motoring tax. Just catching uninsured drivers would be a bonus though.

Bray Head

There is probably a trade-off between simplicity and fairness here.

The fairest approach would be to charge by km driven, but in practice it would make sense to split it into a northern and a southern zone, maybe with the dividing point at Greenhills/Ballymount.

yannakis

Sam Russell wrote: »

Short journeys would be expensive relatively and would be discouraged. It would act like a congestion charge.

"Congestion charge" on a road built to ease congestion?? :pac:

Sam Russell

yannakis wrote: »

"Congestion charge" on a road built to ease congestion?? :pac:

Once it exceeds capacity, it needs some form of limit - be it only during peak demand, or to prevent inappropriate use. However, if a 'congestion' charge is brought in, it is unlikely that it would only apply to peak demand.

veryangryman

I think the road should just be double stacked to allow more capacity. Most of its traffic is going within 10k of it anyway so would justify the expense

Sam Russell

veryangryman wrote: »

I think the road should just be double stacked to allow more capacity. Most of its traffic is going within 10k of it anyway so would justify the expense

Would that not cost more than DU and MN combined?

Would it also just encourage more cars onto the M50 and result in grid-lock everywhere around the M50?

Reducing all day parking in Dublin would encourage PT use. More PT use would reduce congestion which would speed PT. Faster PT would encourage more from their cars.

veryangryman

Sam Russell wrote: »

Would that not cost more than DU and MN combined?

Would it also just encourage more cars onto the M50 and result in grid-lock everywhere around the M50?

Reducing all day parking in Dublin would encourage PT use. More PT use would reduce congestion which would speed PT. Faster PT would encourage more from their cars.

Idea though would cover those who do wish to bypass Dublin (M4/N7->M1 traffic and anyone on way to airport for example). The transport is not much use when you have alot of stuff with you.

I have to say that it shouldnt be a case of do 1 or the other. Feck the fiscal rules and borrow the badly needed cash to stimulate more growth. Its as obvious as the noses on our faces that this will make more for the country than it will cost. Let the city breathe!

marno21

More growth of road capacity in Dublin is a waste of time. Double decking the M50 would require double decking the M1, N4, N7 and N11.

Heavy rail expansion and rapid transit be it rail or bus based are te solution.

The NTA could do with an injection of brain cells as well with this ridiculous Swords BRT they are progressing

Middle Man

Sam Russell wrote: »

Would that not cost more than DU and MN combined?

Would it also just encourage more cars onto the M50 and result in grid-lock everywhere around the M50?

Reducing all day parking in Dublin would encourage PT use. More PT use would reduce congestion which would speed PT. Faster PT would encourage more from their cars.

I would agree that double stacking the M50 would really solve nothing - in the process, motorists in their tens of thousands would be put through great misery and at the end of it all, I'm not so sure about having to drive under a large mass of concrete for 30km - it would be far more helpful to have improved slip configurations on some of the major radial approaches to the M50 (parallel connectors, scissor ramps etc) as an interim measure. However, they only real longterm solution to Dublin's traffic is the DART Inter-connector (in full) along with more electrification and quad tracking. We also need more Luas lines and the metro.

markpb

veryangryman wrote: »

I have to say that it shouldnt be a case of do 1 or the other.

Upgrading the M50 and buying out NTR cost €1 billion. If there's another billion to go around, spending it on rail based transport would do a lot for Dublin.

sdanseo

Noticed some signage and roadworks at the R139/M50 junction today. Didn't get to read the full cycle of the message but it looked like some work had begun on redesigning the traffic island on the R139 side.

Anyone know if this is just minor improvements or part of a bigger project?

I doubt I'm the only one to think that the full length of the R139 needs resurfacing, re-lining, and made into a restricted-access road, 2+2 with 80km/h limit from the Clonshaugh junction to the R107. And possibly re-designated N50 for that length (or am I dreaming)?

yannakis

sdanseo wrote: »

I doubt I'm the only one to think that the full length of the R139 needs resurfacing, re-lining, and made into a restricted-access road, 2+2 with 80km/h limit from the Clonshaugh junction to the R107. And possibly re-designated N50 for that length (or am I dreaming)?

Add a divider in the middle to that list.

Road marking especially, are invisible at this stage!

highdef

yannakis wrote: »

Road marking especially, are invisible at this stage!

I put in a complaint a month ago about the lack of road markings via fixmystreet but have received no reply.

Surely there must be some sort of minimum standards for road markings on this extremely busy R (ex-N) road?

Atlantic Dawn

Was on the R139 section yesterday, traffic island size reduced to give 2 lanes the entire way to the Clayton Hotel, markings nearly done, it should increase the flow nicely coming off the M50/M1.

Davy

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Was on the R139 section yesterday, traffic island size reduced to give 2 lanes the entire way to the Clayton Hotel, markings nearly done, it should increase the flow nicely coming off the M50/M1.

Hopefully the new layout will help ease it but it's amazing that it has been allowed for so long to tailback on the RH lane of the M50 stopped, while the other lanes going past at 100kph.

Do any other countries allow exits off a motorway in the so called 'fast lane'?

Davy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwhKo6dIcQU

The first 30 seconds in this video from the dashcam thread explains it for anyone who doesnt know the layout.

Also I passed the R139 yesterday and its all finshed. Much better flow eastbound now.