Make Drogheda Toll Free

Lord TSC

Two points I've been comteplating over the last few days....

1. Some people suggest, and I can see why, that the existance of the tolls means a higher rate of congestion in the towns. However, this seems to be presuming that prior to the tolls being implemented, there was no heavy traffic going through Drogheda on trips from north to south; that the road existed in a form that bypassed the town but did not have a charge on them. Surely that's not true (maybe some of the older posters can help me there). The implication that the tolls cause heavy traffic implies that before them there was no heavy traffic.

If anything, the road built there could only have eased traffic through the town. Yes, not as much as if the road was free. But some people seem to blame the heavy traffic on the toll when that's, logically, not the case. The traffic would, in fact, have been heavier through town had the toll road never have been built (which it never would have been had the agreement for the tolls to be charged not been put in place).

2. If I got a mortage and then, after having agreed to pay if off over a large number of years, decided I no longer wanted to pay it but still wanted to avail of the house, would it be fair to simply stop paying? Is it fair to simply refuse to pay for the service I agreed to yet still continue to avail of the service? This is something thats obviously a tad topical given whats happening in Ireland, but the toll was the method through which we were going to pay for the road. If the toll wasn't there, the road would never have been built. What right, exactly, do we have to use the road for free when the agreement was that we'd get the road segment built provided we then paid for it via tolls?

That links back to point one; people are acting as if we have some god-given right to use that road for free, when the truth is we entered into a contract to have the road built and now some people want out, not because it's blocking a service which existed prior to the intro of the tolls, but because we want the service the tolls pay for free of charge. Again I say, it would be convient if the road was free, but I challange what right we have to use the road for free when it was obviously agreed that it would be built for the price of the tolls over a period of time.

Which is why I go back to a point I made a few weeks back; the tolls have been chosen as a nice little PR campaign, with the people leading it knowing full well there's no legal footing to stand on at all but it makes them look good fighting an unwinnable fight. Meanwhile, town center parking is a fight they could win easily and would also net good PR, but would cost those involved money. It's easier to target the unwinnable free target than one which would cost the leaders themselves...

positron

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

However, this seems to be presuming that prior to the tolls being implemented, there was no heavy traffic going through Drogheda on trips from north to south; that the road existed in a form that bypassed the town but did not have a charge on them. Surely that's not true (maybe some of the older posters can help me there). The implication that the tolls cause heavy traffic implies that before them there was no heavy traffic.

I am no expert but I think the situation on old N1 was pretty bad. Julainstown, Ballbriggan and Drogheda itself were huge traffic blackspots. And the plan was that M1 would make getting to North quicker, and hopefully make towns and villages less congested. But I remember reading somewhere that Julianstown traffic is back to or above the pre-M1 levels now. This is not because of the toll - but because population of Drogheda exploded between 2000 and 2008, and Julainstown is now back to the pre-M1 levels (or more) as traffic from Drogheda goes thru Julianstown to get to M1 (rather than paying toll). I suppose if nothing, this is at least a good reason for a 'Julianstown bypass'.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

2. If I got a mortage and then...

I don't think this is a comparable example. One is privately owned mortgage with the individual signing up to a contract, where as the other one is a national infrastructure / service type thing. Imagine someone else, dad or a rich cousin stepping into pay off your mortgage so that you can move and take up a vastly superior job and in the end everyone wins - I suppose we are hoping for something like that. It's probably another bad example though..! Settling the loss for the company that runs M1 might be cheaper than building a new Julianstown bypass.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

the tolls have been chosen as a nice little PR campaign, with the people leading it knowing full well there's no legal footing to stand on at all but it makes them look good fighting an unwinnable fight. Meanwhile, town center parking is a fight they could win easily and would also net good PR, but would cost those involved money. It's easier to target the unwinnable free target than one which would cost the leaders themselves...

I don't see why the town center situation shouldn't be acted on when this campaign is going on. They are not mutually exclusive in anyway.

Just thinking out loud.

bryangiggsy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

1. I believe strongly in keeping local traffic off motorways. It's an important safety issue.

So you believe that my earlier suggestion of barrier free tolling at all exits on the M1 on a sliding pay scale according to distance travelled to be the most amicable solution.

borderlinemeath

positron wrote: »

I am no expert but I think the situation on old N1 was pretty bad. Julainstown, Ballbriggan and Drogheda itself were huge traffic blackspots. And the plan was that M1 would make getting to North quicker, and hopefully make towns and villages less congested. But I remember reading somewhere that Julianstown traffic is back to or above the pre-M1 levels now. This is not because of the toll - but because population of Drogheda exploded between 2000 and 2008, and Julainstown is now back to the pre-M1 levels (or more) as traffic from Drogheda goes thru Julianstown to get to M1 (rather than paying toll). I suppose if nothing, this is at least a good reason for a 'Julianstown bypass'.

Between 1996 -2002 there was a 15.7 increase in the population of Drogheda, between 2002-2006 this increased by a further 22.5%. That's a hell of a lot more traffic on the roads.

I don't think this is a comparable example. One is privately owned mortgage with the individual signing up to a contract, where as the other one is a national infrastructure / service type thing. Imagine someone else, dad or a rich cousin stepping into pay off your mortgage so that you can move and take up a vastly superior job and in the end everyone wins - I suppose we are hoping for something like that. It's probably another bad example though..! Settling the loss for the company that runs M1 might be cheaper than building a new Julianstown bypass.

+1. Each mortgage applicant willingly enters a contract. PPP contracts are governmental/council decisions. While the public elect the officials, there hasn't been an overall majority in how many years? I can't remember, but the point is there is always a decent percentage against elected representative decisions so not a good comparison to a mortgage.

I don't see why the town center situation shouldn't be acted on when this campaign is going on. They are not mutually exclusive in anyway.

Just thinking out loud.

I would like to see a figure on the percentage of traffic that uses the toll ramps rather than the main toll bridge if it was made available. I have a feeling it's quite a small percentage of the total remuneration of the M1 toll.

veryangryman

bryangiggsy wrote: »

So you believe that my earlier suggestion of barrier free tolling at all exits on the M1 on a sliding pay scale according to distance travelled to be the most amicable solution.

Which you cant do because there is not enough traffic flow (a la m50) to justify the cost of automating it. Same reason no other motorway has barrier-free tolling.

Councillor, do you think its equally fair that Waterford, Limerick and indeed, Dublin residents have to pay a toll? Like i said, parish pump. You dont seem to worry about these. Look after your own and feck everyone else. You guys make me sick. If i was to pick a toll to remove, it would be the portion of my tax money that pays your salaries.

P. Breathnach

bryangiggsy wrote: »

So you believe that my earlier suggestion of barrier free tolling at all exits on the M1 on a sliding pay scale according to distance travelled to be the most amicable solution.

I didn't say "barrier-free"; I said that I saw merit in tolling along the length of the road. I also said that I don't believe that it can be implemented.

Once a situation has been created involving the state entering into commercial relationships, it can be very difficult to undo.

positron

veryangryman wrote: »

Which you cant do because there is not enough traffic flow (a la m50) to justify the cost of automating it. Same reason no other motorway has barrier-free tolling.

This is an intereing point. Do you have any sources to back this up, I mean is this fact, or opinion? Thanks in advance!

veryangryman wrote: »

Councillor, do you think its equally fair that Waterford, Limerick and indeed, Dublin residents have to pay a toll? Like i said, parish pump. You dont seem to worry about these. Look after your own and feck everyone else. You guys make me sick. If i was to pick a toll to remove, it would be the portion of my tax money that pays your salaries.

You are a very angry man indeed - and not very nice either. Care to explain how this proposal would harm anything for you? I don't understand the whole 'parish pump' argument. If one doesn't stand up for himself/herself, who else would? And what is the point of talking about Dublin toll, or Waterford toll - it has got nothing to do with this, and none of that is related or relevant to this particular situation. Everything should be looked at case by case - muddling it all together only serves to slow down everything.

hucklebuck

southlouth type wrote: »

So by your argument if the people in clonsilla have to put up with it then so should the people in Drogheda You obviously dont have to use the toll here so why bother with a stupid comment , and what has the enterprise got to do with anything ?

Stupid? Rich coming from someone who doesnt understand basic English!

I was using my area as an example, its probably the same distance from a to b and there is a toll. The idea of a motorway is to bypass towns to get people on long journeys there quicker not for locals to avoid local routes, if you want to use a motorway for a short trip why should you be exempt.

You DONT have to use the toll, you CHOOSE to. I do use that road a lot as I have close relatives in North Louth.

If his issue is paying a toll for driving between Dublin and Drogheda and congestion is an issue then why doesnt he get the train. Because he CHOOSEs to take his car but he DOESNT have to.

hucklebuck

positron wrote: »

hucklebuck wrote: »

This is a fair point. I wonder if there's a way to thwart this?

Cant think of how, plus as far as I remember FF sold the toll rights and FF never inserted a buy back clause.

I am not even sure if a change to the constitution enforcing a buy back would even stand up to legal scrutiny. Yolls would be a serious money spinner for government and probably save us from property and pension taxes!!

positron

hucklebuck wrote: »

If his issue is paying a toll for driving between Dublin and Drogheda and congestion is an issue then why doesnt he get the train. Because he CHOOSEs to take his car but he DOESNT have to.

I would love to take the train from Drogheda to Swords, to Airport, to Blanchardstown etc.

Joking aside, Enterprise is a great service indeed, but it's not always a direct replacement for the car, not to mention not everyone does 9:30-6:30 which is what the Enterprise dictates. Point-to-point ticket isn't cheap either, and not to mention the faceless feckless goons who run the parking lot at the train station.

PS: I am bit of a (self proclaimed) expert on the topic of train commuting - I recently switched to road after spending 5 years of rail commute between Drogheda-Dublin. Just saying...

Lord TSC

positron wrote: »

I don't think this is a comparable example. One is privately owned mortgage with the individual signing up to a contract, where as the other one is a national infrastructure / service type thing. Imagine someone else, dad or a rich cousin stepping into pay off your mortgage so that you can move and take up a vastly superior job and in the end everyone wins - I suppose we are hoping for something like that. It's probably another bad example though..! Settling the loss for the company that runs M1 might be cheaper than building a new Julianstown bypass.

It's a smaller scale example. The point was that no one is forcing people to use the service being made available, but to use it, it's expected you pay. The deal was put in place so that if people wanted to use the service, they can pay and use it. If they don't want to pay, then there's no change in their lives. That was the price of the new road being built where it was. That was the legal deal made. We can't then expect, on a larger scale, to think it's fair to back out of that legal deal but still want the service provided.

I don't see why the town center situation shouldn't be acted on when this campaign is going on. They are not mutually exclusive in anyway.

Just thinking out loud.

The Counciller has already said the idea was shot down pretty quickly when it was brought up at the meetings. I'm not saying they are mutually exclusive; I'm saying that the tolls have been chosen to focus on despite the parking charge being a potentially easier fight to market and fight. They don't want to achknowledge the parking situation could be "fixed".

hucklebuck

positron wrote: »

hucklebuck wrote: »

If his issue is paying a toll for driving between Dublin and Drogheda and congestion is an issue then why doesnt he get the train. Because he CHOOSEs to take his car but he DOESNT have to.

I would love to take the train from Drogheda to Swords, to Airport, to Blanchardstown etc.

Joking aside, Enterprise is a great service indeed, but it's not always a direct replacement for the car, not to mention not everyone does 9:30-6:30 which is what the Enterprise dictates. Point-to-point ticket isn't cheap either, and not to mention the faceless feckless goons who run the parking lot at the train station.

PS: I am bit a (self proclaimed) expert on the topic of train commutering - I recently switched to road after spending 5 years of rail commute between Drogheda-Dublin. Just saying...

I find the enterprise great when i have to make my own way to Louth.

I take your point on final destination but I know plenty of people that commute to Dublin from Louth and they all take the train. My sister in law drives from Ardee to Drogheda and jumps on the train, she says its the only way to go for her.

positron

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

It's a smaller scale example. The point was that no one is forcing people to use the service being made available, but to use it, it's expected you pay. The deal was put in place so that if people wanted to use the service, they can pay and use it. If they don't want to pay, then there's no change in their lives. That was the price of the new road being built where it was. That was the legal deal made. We can't then expect, on a larger scale, to think it's fair to back out of that legal deal but still want the service provided.

Sure, but situations change, and that would require reviewing of many deals. I doubt if anyone is suggesting 'backing out from a deal', or breaking the contract. I am sure the option in here would be mutually agreeable change to the existing contract, which would somehow compensate for the lost income which we should look at as money spend to reduce traffic thru Julianstown (or money saved from not having to do a Julianstown bypass). Again, nothing illegal - just renegotiating the contract to suit the changing realities on ground, making best use of the existing infrastructure and facilities etc.

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

The Counciller has already said the idea was shot down pretty quickly when it was brought up at the meetings. I'm not saying they are mutually exclusive; I'm saying that the tolls have been chosen to focus on despite the parking charge being a potentially easier fight to market and fight. They don't want to achknowledge the parking situation could be "fixed".

That's an interesting point, and that does sound bad. Can someone throw some light what the original suggestion was, and who shot it down and why? This is probably slightly out of context for this thread though. May be this is one for the 'A town fights back' campaigners (if they are not already on top of this, they probably are...)?

positron

hucklebuck wrote: »

I find the enterprise great when i have to make my own way to Louth.

I take your point on final destination but I know plenty of people that commute to Dublin from Louth and they all take the train. My sister in law drives from Ardee to Drogheda and jumps on the train, she says its the only way to go for her.

A few years ago, I would have sat up all night to wax lyrical about the fantastic train service from Drogheda. It's very good service indeed (especially the Enterprise) if your work location and schedule suits the service (it did for me). But when situations change, and you need some flexibility, you would soon realize how awful it is, and how wonderful the road is (provided you have parking etc - I am biking now, so I can park anywhere , however biking is not an option for the majority).

Long commutes, by train or road, is hardly by choice, but mostly due to necessity. It eventually gets to you - to anyone who says it doesn't, it's only a matter of time - imho!

veryangryman

positron wrote: »

This is an intereing point. Do you have any sources to back this up, I mean is this fact, or opinion? Thanks in advance!

The economic benefits of removing M50 barriers were apparent when you seen the queues on the slip roads prior to removal. There is nothing like those queues on any other toll booth in the country, not even if you add the queues together. Without a solid figure, i can safely say that the thousands who could get to work quicker is an excellent indicator of benefit.

Removing toll booths on quieter motorways means the costs of dismantling, redundancy payments plus the extension of BETEIRE who (AFAIK) are already extremely busy with the M50. In either case your still paying staff. You also have to install barriers or cameras at each entry/exit point. Very few Motorways worldwise are busy enough to justify this (New Jersey Turnpike possibly my best example).

positron wrote: »

You are a very angry man indeed - and not very nice either.

I dont like to see my hard-earned wasted on pointless things. That bridge over the Boyne did not come cheap. Since i dont use it, im not interested in paying for it. I also wish that councillors would do some external research on the feasibility of their arguments for the salaries that i and you pay them. Sorry if that come across as not nice, its feedback from a citzen and my honest opinion.

positron wrote: »

Care to explain how this proposal would harm anything for you? I don't understand the whole 'parish pump' argument. If one doesn't stand up for himself/herself, who else would? And what is the point of talking about Dublin toll, or Waterford toll - it has got nothing to do with this, and none of that is related or relevant to this particular situation. Everything should be looked at case by case - muddling it all together only serves to slow down everything.

It harms me because i dont use it, yet you propose that some of my taxes go to pay for it. I have no problem paying the M6,M4 or M50 tolls, because i use those roads.

Its a very similar situation to the other cities in that you get what you pay for (a significantly costly bridge/tunnel).

Limerick - Shannon Tunnel
Waterford - New Bridge
Dublin - New Bridge

These all IMPROVE the existing routes and are avoidable if you are in a stingy mood (i have been known to be myself when not in a hurry sometimes), so yes, i do think that they should be paid for by the users.

They werent built for free. Your parish pump argument has all the merits of Homer Simpson's "Can't someone else do it" policy.

borderlinemeath

positron wrote: »

A few years ago, I would have sat up all night to wax lyrical about the fantastic train service from Drogheda. It's very good service indeed (especially the Enterprise) if your work location and schedule suits the service (it did for me). But when situations change, and you need some flexibility, you would soon realize how awful it is, and how wonderful the road is (provided you have parking etc - I am biking now, so I can park anywhere , however biking is not an option for the majority).

Long commutes, by train or road, is hardly by choice, but mostly due to necessity. It eventually gets to you - to anyone who says it doesn't, it's only a matter of time - imho!

I did the commute to Dublin for nearly 3 years. I had to drive (I had a parking space) because of the nature of my hours, I regularly had to do overtime and work late nights so the train was out of the question for me.

It does put years on you.:(

positron

veryangryman wrote: »

The economic benefits of removing M50 barriers were apparent when you seen the queues on the slip roads prior to removal. There is nothing like those queues on any other toll booth in the country, not even if you add the queues together. Without a solid figure, i can safely say that the thousands who could get to work quicker is an excellent indicator of benefit.

Okay, so it's deduction. I respect that. However I am of the opinion that automated solutions, generally, while costly to setup, will eventually workout cheaper than manual alternatives. Now imagine the increase in revenue if M1 tolls were to spread out every few miles (as suggested for M50) - imagine how fairer it would be, and how many more people would come under the net as compared to solely depending on the coins from those who cross over from South side of Drogheda to North Side of Drogheda. Rest of the M1 is being used for free? (PS: I don't know why I am even bringing this up - this is entirely against me as I am using free M1 now from J7 to Dublin - not very 'parish pump'... hmm... )

veryangryman wrote: »

I dont like to see my hard-earned wasted on pointless things. That bridge over the Boyne did not come cheap. Since i dont use it, im not interested in paying for it. I also wish that councillors would do some external research on the feasibility of their arguments for the salaries that i and you pay them. Sorry if that come across as not nice, its feedback from a citzen and my honest opinion. It harms me because i dont use it, yet you propose that some of my taxes go to pay for it. I have no problem paying the M6,M4 or M50 tolls, because i use those roads.

This is fair. This is how democracy is supposed to work, isn't it? You discuss, you support or oppose based on your interests. And our country is the way it is because the vast majority couldn't care enough to do what you are doing, so fair play. If your opinion gathers enough support, then rest of us can't have what we want. So we have to argue against you - to get what we want. Is this "parish pump"? I don't know. Or is it you who has a massive inverse "parish pump" (no to everything else that doesn't benefit you) going on? Anyway, let the debate continue!

bryangiggsy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I didn't say "barrier-free"; I said that I saw merit in tolling along the length of the road. I also said that I don't believe that it can be implemented.

Once a situation has been created involving the state entering into commercial relationships, it can be very difficult to undo.

Difficult but not impossible.

veryangryman wrote: »

Councillor, do you think its equally fair that Waterford, Limerick and indeed, Dublin residents have to pay a toll? Like i said, parish pump. You dont seem to worry about these. Look after your own and feck everyone else. You guys make me sick. If i was to pick a toll to remove, it would be the portion of my tax money that pays your salaries.

Totally uncalled for and should be reprimanded by the moderators. Dont say something on a faceless forum you would not be willing to say to someone in person.Have some manners and respect.You dont even know the man.Councillors do local work thats their job.They look after local needs and local issues. They are not td's.

hucklebuck

"Long commutes, by train or road, is hardly by choice, but mostly due to necessity. It eventually gets to you - to anyone who says it doesn't, it's only a matter of time - imho! "

Sad but true, when out of work I was contemplating commuting from Coolmine to Dundalk on the train with a 30 minute walk from Dundalk station., luckily I landed a job in Dublin later the same week.

Lord TSC

positron wrote: »

Sure, but situations change, and that would require reviewing of many deals. I doubt if anyone is suggesting 'backing out from a deal', or breaking the contract. I am sure the option in here would be mutually agreeable change to the existing contract, which would somehow compensate for the lost income which we should look at as money spend to reduce traffic thru Julianstown (or money saved from not having to do a Julianstown bypass). Again, nothing illegal - just renegotiating the contract to suit the changing realities on ground, making best use of the existing infrastructure and facilities etc.

If that is the case, then I'd be quite happy to back down. If that's the type of deal that the Counciller is looking for, fair enough. But I don't think it is. I get the feeling the Counciller is not looking for a reneogitian of terms and a financial settlement, but rather looking for a complete abolishment. Tbh, I don't think the Counciller has looked beyond the basic premise of removing the tolls and the ins-and-outs of such a venture; by his own admission, he's apparently not even seen the contract which was signed when the tolls were agreed upon.

This isn't a campaign where a plan is being offered which would let the company controlling the tolls to continue to recieve the moneys they were promised (For example, it's not being proposed the toll be halfed but the time frame doubled. I can't imagine anyone will step forward and pay off a chunk of what they'd be owed in compensation). That's why I stand by what I said; this is a PR campaign for the Counciller.

That's an interesting point, and that does sound bad. Can someone throw some light what the original suggestion was, and who shot it down and why? This is probably slightly out of context for this thread though. May be this is one for the 'A town fights back' campaigners (if they are not already on top of this, they probably are...)?

From the "Questions for Ken o Heiligh" topic, it was asked if he had proposed the cuts to parking fees. He said he had but it hadn't been seconded in the meetings. When i asked why, he replied...

I had no explanation offered to me that would clarify the lack of support from my fellow Councillors on such a reasonable proposal.
But there is what is called a 'Pact' system in place and as the only Independent Councillor on the Council I remain free to support either side depending on the issue. This sometime can see good ideas shot down only to resurface as a pact proposal at a later date.

The parking restrictions I proposed to remove would have reduced the intake for the Councils revenue draft budget so the Council officials required a computation detailing where the funding for such a proposal would be reallocated from the budget figures put forward.

Going back to which would be easier, it strikes me that this is the type of thing an online petition could actually help. With regards the tolls, I don't think a petition would do much, since it's an agreement with a company and there's contracts involved between multiple parties. With the parking charges, a petition could work since it would be appealing to representatives of the town; "you represent us, and this is what we'd like you to do." Thats why I suggest that the parking charges would be an easier fight, at least in the way the Counciller is trying to fight...

positron

Thanks Teamshadowclan, lets hope Councillor can throw some light on his position on your first point.

Second one (local town parking), like you said is a good proposal and sounds more local and focused indeed (all parties involved are close by etc). I would support an petition or any other action on (once the details are known of course), but I would at the same time wouldn't put the tolls issue aside to look at the town parking issue. I think both requires attention, and one shouldn't derail the other. Just IMHO.

Lord TSC

positron wrote: »

Thanks Teamshadowclan, lets hope Councillor can throw some light on his position on your first point.

Second one (local town parking), like you said is a good proposal and sounds more local and focused indeed (all parties involved are close by etc). I would support an petition or any other action on (once the details are known of course), but I would at the same time wouldn't put the tolls issue aside to look at the town parking issue. I think both requires attention, and one shouldn't derail the other. Just IMHO.

No, that's perfectly fair. Again, I'm not saying one or the other and not both at the same time. If there was a petition started by the counciller to abolish paid parking in the town, I'd be his biggest supporter.

Mr_Hat

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

If there was a petition started by the counciller to abolish paid parking in the town, I'd be his biggest supporter.

Agreed, I'd really love to see this done. Come on Ken, prove me wrong.:)

borderlinemeath

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

No, that's perfectly fair. Again, I'm not saying one or the other and not both at the same time. If there was a petition started by the counciller to abolish paid parking in the town, I'd be his biggest supporter.

I would love free parking, I really would.

But.. the town is congested enough already without people parking and leaving their cars for the day. If it was operational it would have to be an hours free and then pay or get ticketed, otherwise everybody who worked in the town would be in at 8.30/9am parking for free for the day and leaving nothing for the people who came into Drogheda to shop/use banking/services etc.

And the Drogheda Port parking needs to be sorted. It beggars belief that if you park on one part of the Quays you can put 20c in for a few minutes if you have to run into one of the shops but park down past the old Sound Shop and you have to pay €1.30 minimum for on street parking to do the same. (with no leeway from the Nazi parking official) I just don't understand how the Port have the parking rights for the public street that approaches the port.

Lord TSC

Again, those are fair points.

Obviously it's not as simple as "Make Drogheda parking free", no more than it's as simple as "Make Drogheda toll free".

A balance would have to be struck whereby shoppers could get free parking to an extent while workers wouldn't; say "5 hours free" which covers most shoppers while stopping workers from spamming carparks.

P. Breathnach

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

...
A balance would have to be struck whereby shoppers could get free parking to an extent while workers wouldn't; say "5 hours free" which covers most shoppers while stopping workers from spamming carparks.

So workers who move their cars at lunchtime can have a morning five hours and an afternoon five hours.

And how many people spend five hours shopping? I rarely spend more than an hour.

locum-motion

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So workers who move their cars at lunchtime can have a morning five hours and an afternoon five hours.

And how many people spend five hours shopping? I rarely spend more than an hour.

Agreed.
An hour free is the most that should be permitted.

There should also be a some parking provided for people who work in the shops. It should be: Close to but not in the town centre, and reasonably priced for those who want to park from 9-6, but prohibitively expensive for the 1st hour (to keep shoppers out of that particular carpark)

Cllr. Ken O Heiligh

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It is something of an accident that the Drogheda bypass is tolled and other sections of the M1 are not. It arose because that section of the road was financed by a PPP. I think it fair that I pay a toll for the convenience of avoiding the bottleneck that existed in Drogheda. I would think it unfair if a specified group of people got off scot-free.

The TOLL on Drogheda is no accident but very clever engineering.
Can you please explain why local traffic and through traffic have free use of the PPP. M1 when bypassing Dundalk and Dunleer yet when you arrive at Drogheda the main artery road into the town has a ramp TOLL.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I believe strongly in keeping local traffic off motorways. It's an important safety issue.

On Commencing a journey a vehicle will enter the M1from a filter or ramp lane this traffic maybe travelling a distance or a short journey. The method and speed of this entry or exit is no different. It occurs on every junction along the PPP M1. If a problem arises it is more likely to do with the competency of that particular driver.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Drogheda needs a traffic management plan that makes it less appealing as an alternative route between the north and Dublin. That might include restrictions on HGVs in the town.

The Donore Road Ramp TOLL is on the main artery road into the Town. The IDA industrial estate and Platin Cement are located adjacent to the ramp Tolls, so if we place a HGV restrictions on the Bridge of Peace how are trucks expected to get to their destination?
The problems we are facing due to TOLLING would only multiply with such a proposal.
To have your PPP M1 Toll in place you must have an alternative bypass. Unfortunately Drogheda is the designated bypass for the TOLLS.

P. Breathnach

Cllr. Ken O Heiligh wrote: »

The TOLL on Drogheda is no accident but very clever engineering.

That's total bollocks. There is no conspiracy to victimise the people of Drogheda.

Can you please explain why local traffic and through traffic have free use of the PPP. M1 when bypassing Dundalk and Dunleer yet when you arrive at Drogheda the main artery road into the town has a ramp TOLL.

Yes, I could explain it. But I won't, because you should already know why if you are campaigning to bring about change, and if you don't know why, then you should not be campaigning.

On Commencing a journey a vehicle will enter the M1from a filter or ramp lane this traffic maybe travelling a distance or a short journey. The method and speed of this entry or exit is no different. It occurs on every junction along the PPP M1. If a problem arises it is more likely to do with the competency of that particular driver.

I simply do not believe that you know so little about driving styles.

The Donore Road Ramp TOLL is on the main artery road into the Town.

From the M1!

The IDA industrial estate and Platin Cement are located adjacent to the ramp Tolls, so if we place a HGV restrictions on the Bridge of Peace how are trucks expected to get to their destination?

From the M1, having paid the toll.

The problems we are facing due to TOLLING would only multiply with such a proposal. To have your PPP M1 Toll in place you must have an alternative bypass. Unfortunately Drogheda is the designated bypass for the TOLLS.

You must have an alternative route. Ingenious traffic management could disincentivise people from using it.

Lord TSC

locum-motion wrote: »

Agreed.
An hour free is the most that should be permitted.

There should also be a some parking provided for people who work in the shops. It should be: Close to but not in the town centre, and reasonably priced for those who want to park from 9-6, but prohibitively expensive for the 1st hour (to keep shoppers out of that particular carpark)

Personally, I think an hour is too short. I understand five hours may be too much though.

The problem lies in the fact that if Drogheda had a proper shopping area, people would want to spend multiple hours in shopping. As it is, people go in to West Street or wherever with the intentions of getting out as quickly as possible. If the main street was as a main street should be, people should be quite happy to spend two or three hours there spending their money, and the parking could relfect that.

I do see the problem with five hours and people blocking up spaces. I live in Grange Rath and it strikes me the same cars are always in the same places on the exterior carpark, forcing people to use the underground one. At the same time, I don't mind since it's still free parking underground.

Anyway, I noticed the Counciller held another protest at the toll road last week, according to the DI website here. He's linked to it on the site in post one as well. Curious to know how much support turned up to help him on this protest; he's implied several times that he has much support in surrounding areas, and I presume a lot of people showed up. Oddly, there's only a picture of him and none of the supporting crowd but we shouldn't read into that too much, right?

I also notice you've got articles linked on your website showing how this campaign has been going on since at least Jan 07. Wow, it must be tough seeing absolutly no results in five years...