M50 traffic tops boom

The first reason the M50 is so busy is simply the fact that far too many people are working a long distance away from there they live and the recent housing market issues have made it harder to move nearer to work.

The second is the fact that most of the jobs are in and around Dublin, forcing far too many to do long distance commuting.

Sometimes it's better to take a step back and see why there is an issue, it appears that the currently congested M50 is a symptom of a wider problem and not an issue with the road itself.

Having said that, whatever happened to the variable speed limits that were proposed and gantries installed for during the rebuilding?
Variable speed limits would (if enforced) have a major effect on the bunching of traffic now.

patrickbrophy18

To better demonstrate what I was talking about in my previous post, I have attached a map of a potential orbital Luas line from Dun Laoghaire to Citywest. It would take in the future mass population center where the Golf Club used to be, Mackintosh Park, Cornels Court and Cabinteely. Here after, it would briefly join the Green Luas Line between Carrickmines and Ballyogan. From here, it would take a branch due west via Belarmine, Marlay Park, Kilmashogue, Knocklyon, Firhouse, Woodstown and Tallaght. After Tallaght, a new set of tracks would be laid bearing left towards Citywest instead of Belgard. Nevertheless, Belgard would be an additional journey permutation. See the following map for details:

//c3.staticflickr.com/3/2950/15517429075_26320f4552_c.jpg

Other orbital branches could include the following:

//c2.staticflickr.com/4/3932/15517026982_714a1c2fda.jpg

Aard

High capacity orbital services only make sense when they're fed by high capacity radial services. Furthermore, orbital routes work best when they're close so the centre - that route skirts the foothills of the Dublin Mountains and few people would use it.

Aard

Aard wrote: »

High capacity orbital services only make sense when they're fed by high capacity radial services. Furthermore, orbital routes work best when they're close so the centre - that route skirts the foothills of the Dublin Mountains and few people would use it.

True, the circle line in London being a classic example, it's one of the busiest routes on the underground.

Carawaystick

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The first reason the M50 is so busy is simply the fact that far too many people are working a long distance away from there they live

That kind of thinking was grand in the auld job for life days. If you expected a family to uproot every time someone had a forced job change, sher the estate agents would have a field day
But you would have a generation of poorly educated pupils who attended a scattering of schools

patrickbrophy18

Aard wrote: »

High capacity orbital services only make sense when they're fed by high capacity radial services.

Given that large portions of the routes which I've suggested intercept with high capacity bus services and two heavy rail lines, they should be a perfect fit.

Aard wrote: »

Furthermore, orbital routes work best when they're close so the centre

If by centre, you mean City Center, this leads to the unattractive option of v-shaped commutes as it focuses transport interchange dependency back into the city center. As I have said before, from experience, traveling to Citywest from Dun Laoghaire takes the guts of 2 hours each way because you have to go into the city only to go back out again. By car, this journey takes 30-40 minutes which gives me back the best part of 3 hours to my day and thus, a better work-life balance. While the type and duration of the journey mentioned would be difficult to compete with from a public transport perspective, I do believe a journey of this nature could be cut back to 50 minutes to an hour.

Aard wrote: »

That route skirts the foothills of the Dublin Mountains and few people would use it.

Very well, I have marked a deviation from the foothills of the Dublin Mountains in blue where there are higher population centers and far greater potential for use in the following link:

//c4.staticflickr.com/4/3927/15518269485_6b43a77a70_b.jpg

One criticism I might make towards the Luas system in its current state is the large number of stops that it makes. For example, Brides Glen and Cherrywood Stations on the Green Line are a stones throw from one another and should be consolidated. Similarly, on the Red Line, Stations such as Drimnagh, Golden Bridge and Suir Road are a quarter of a mile or less from each other which is ridiculously excessive. In one of my previous comments, I mentioned that speed is an important factor in making public transport an attractive alternative to the car. I can't see much speed being gained when stops are being placed this close together. The DART system is something that the Luas should be trying to emulate as much as possible. There should be a minimum of half a mile between successive Luas stops. Stations along the DART line can be up to 2 miles apart.

Chris_5339762

To be honest thats a major problem with Dublin Bus too. There are far, far too many stops and coupled with DBs horrendous dwell times it just makes the whole process agonisingly slow.

NedNew2

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

One criticism I might make towards the Luas system in its current state is the large number of stops that it makes. For example, Brides Glen and Cherrywood Stations on the Green Line are a stones throw from one another and should be consolidated. Similarly, on the Red Line, Stations such as Drimnagh, Golden Bridge and Suir Road are a quarter of a mile or less from each other which is ridiculously excessive. In one of my previous comments, I mentioned that speed is an important factor in making public transport an attractive alternative to the car. I can't see much speed being gained when stops are being placed this close together. The DART system is something that the Luas should be trying to emulate as much as possible. There should be a minimum of half a mile between successive Luas stops. Stations along the DART line can be up to 2 miles apart.

I always lose interest once someone starts talking in miles. Trying to talk about the future using terms from the past just doesn't fit quite right.

Aard

I don't want to get too focussed on one route. For a transport network to work, it needs to account for the thousands of origin points and thousands of destination points.

Given finite resourses, not all of those trips will map neatly onto a public transport network. Some trips will need to use the car to get from a to b. Again I'm not commenting on the DL-Tallaght route per se here.

For many if not most orbital routes, busses should provide ample capacity. There's no reason why a bus route cannot have dedicated lanes and priority at junctions, much like light rail. For example, even most large cities do not have orbital rail in the fringe suburbs (though there's the odd exception).

Orbital just isn't as important as radial, especially in a relatively mono-centric city like Dublin.

Irish Steve

The M50 suffers from the major issue that it's the feeder road to most of the large industrial estates at places like Sandyford, Citywest, Parkwest, The Northern industrial parks between Blanchardstown and Finglas, and the whole N7 area, and others, and the public transport to these estates is dire, and not likely to improve any time soon, as the planners seem to be obsessed with hub and spoke, with the primary focus being central Dublin, so the result is that huge numbers of people have no choice other than a car as there isn't a viable public transport option to get to these large complexes.

The transit time from Ashbourne to places like Sandyford, or Citywest is not viable, as the main public transport route out of Ashbourne goes to the centre of Dublin, so getting back out again doubles the time, cost and aggravation of making the journey, as there's no way to pick up a ring road service in Finglas, it doesn't exist, so it's Beresford Place or O'Connell St, which doesn't necessarily then work easily for a link out of the city to the large estates, and having to go so far into the centre when you don't really want to is a pain. and a long journey, from Ashbourne to Saggart is over 2 hours, assuming no delays, no one in their right mind is going to spend 4 hours a day on that sort of commute. Sandyford is worse, as there's no easy way to get to the Luas from Beresford Place, and it's still close on 2 hours, I can be almost in Rosslare in 2 hours from Ashbourne by road, even at peak periods. as long as it's not too bad at Bray.

Some of the junctions on the M50 are dire, they are badly laid out, and make it hard to join with any degree of sense, which slows things down, and traffic light controls on some of them mean long tailbacks.

An extra junction between Red Cow and Blanchardstown to get into Parkwest would help things considerably, and changing the Liffey Valley area to make the flow work without the stupidity of some of the bus lanes would help as well, as would a overpass bridge between Valleymount and the Red Cow to make it possible to join the M50 without having to get through the traffic exiting to the N7,

I've suggested before that American style lane blockers to prevent people jumping from Lane 3 to the exit slip at the last moment, or jumping from the entry slip to Lane 3 at 60 Kph would help as well.

The M25 in the UK has variable speed limits, enforced by cameras on the gantries, and we need the same concept here, and it does work, with much higher volumes.

Some driver education won't come amiss, the M50 could take more traffic if the lanes were correctly used, there are more than a few occasions when the clearest lane is Lane 1, and Lane 3 is almost at a standstill.

Schadenfreudia

Irish Steve wrote: »

Some driver education won't come amiss, the M50 could take more traffic if the lanes were correctly used, there are more than a few occasions when the clearest lane is Lane 1, and Lane 3 is almost at a standstill.

Indeed. I do much of my driving and "undertaking" in the inside lane!

SeanW

Schadenfreudia wrote: »

Indeed. I do much of my driving and "undertaking" in the inside lane!

Yeah, coming home on the on the M4 (J5) where it becomes the N4, I noticed (M4) lanes 1 & 2, continuing on as (N4)lanes 2 and 3 were chok-o-block. Speed, 60kph max, probably less. Lane 1 on the N4 totally empty.

No points for guessing what happened next :pac:

Still think its stupid to create lanes that way :mad: The main driving lane should ALWAYS be Lane 1 as far as I am concerned.

SeanW

SeanW wrote: »

Yeah, coming home on the on the M4 (J5) where it becomes the N4, I noticed (M4) lanes 1 & 2, continuing on as (N4)lanes 2 and 3 were chok-o-block. Speed, 60kph max, probably less. Lane 1 on the N4 totally empty.

No points for guessing what happened next :pac:

Still think its stupid to create lanes that way :mad: The main driving lane should ALWAYS be Lane 1 as far as I am concerned.

Yes, there really should be a merge into the two lane motorway and then a third lane start.

Or erect signs that order drivers to use the "new lane 1".

L1011

Lane additions stop merging related backups on the joining road, that's the logic for using them.

Considering how bad the mainline gets at other merges it may be needed for both

SeanW

I think that could be solved we used the UK approach of requiring main line traffic to try to accommodate merging traffic. I try to do that, if I see someone who looks like they might have trouble merging in, I will often move temporarily into the overtaking lane, or failing that slow down to match their movement. On rare occasions I am on the other side of that equation and am likewise shown the same consideration. It's just basic co-operation and manners really should be in the Rules of the Road.

Also on J5 on the M4/N4 there is another bug bear of mine, that appears to be all to common throughout the network (I see it a lot on access roads to the M1/M50 as well) where the driving lane ends and you have to merge out of it to continue. VS. if you stay in the overtaking lane, you approach the junction in a much better position. WTF?

Driver education may be part of the problem, but I think our road layouts are as big a part of the problem. They seem to be designed to induce middle-lane-hogging.

AugustusMinimus

SeanW wrote: »

I think that could be solved we used the UK approach of requiring main line traffic to try to accommodate merging traffic. I try to do that, if I see someone who looks like they might have trouble merging in, I will often move temporarily into the overtaking lane, or failing that slow down to match their movement. On rare occasions I am on the other side of that equation and am likewise shown the same consideration. It's just basic co-operation and manners really should be in the Rules of the Road.

Also on J5 on the M4/N4 there is another bug bear of mine, that appears to be all to common throughout the network (I see it a lot on access roads to the M1/M50 as well) where the driving lane ends and you have to merge out of it to continue. VS. if you stay in the overtaking lane, you approach the junction in a much better position. WTF?

Driver education may be part of the problem, but I think our road layouts are as big a part of the problem. They seem to be designed to induce middle-lane-hogging.

I can think of instances in the past where climbing lanes were lined out, so that the normal lane continued into the overtaking lane on the climbing section. People wouldn't move left foolishly thinking the overtaking lane was the driving lane.

Thankfully most of these have been long relined.

Tea drinker

veryangryman wrote: »

3 words. "Enforced Lane Disclipline"

Even 2 garda cars running up and down M50 and pulling motorists who take the p1ss over would sort this out.

It would at least take longer for us to get to peak and we would get off peak sooner. It's basically throwing away money when some lad decides the middle/outside lane is his to crawl along in. Treasonous behaviour ;-)
Raising the speed limit would also help delay the onset of congestion as the traffic is getting off the mway quicker.

I'm a bit worried over the amount of construction planned for cherrywood, huge amount of houses and offices planned. I don't know how the current infra will handle it...

paulbok

SeanW wrote: »

I think that could be solved we used the UK approach of requiring main line traffic to try to accommodate merging traffic. I try to do that, if I see someone who looks like they might have trouble merging in, I will often move temporarily into the overtaking lane, or failing that slow down to match their movement. On rare occasions I am on the other side of that equation and am likewise shown the same consideration. It's just basic co-operation and manners really should be in the Rules of the Road.
.

I always thought that was 'the done thing'.
It's not like letting someone trying to change lane on the mainline, if you don't accommodate them (the rights and wrongs of doing so not the point in this situation), they can still stay in their own lane. Merging traffic has nowhere else to go, if you don't let merging traffic in on the 1st mainline lane, then they have to stop causing a tailback.
I've always been baffled by driver not doing this or merging in turn on a road where two lanes become one.

Carawaystick

When the M50 was widened, the nra said there were auxilliary lanes to "reduce weaving" so traffic joining could merge over a much longer distance.

Then then built the road and built onramps that were shorter than before, preventing joining traffic from using these new auxilliary lanes...

Carawaystick

Carawaystick wrote: »

When the M50 was widened, the nra said there were auxilliary lanes to "reduce weaving" so traffic joining could merge over a much longer distance.

Then then built the road and built onramps that were shorter than before, preventing joining traffic from using these new auxilliary lanes...

Joining traffic usually has a choice short merge or aux lane merge.
The real problems occur when drivers in the aux lane try to merge the same way as they do in the short merge lane, totally pointless and dangerous!

Carawaystick

Deleted User wrote: »

Joining traffic usually has a choice short merge or aux lane merge.
The real problems occur when drivers in the aux lane try to merge the same way as they do in the short merge lane, totally pointless and dangerous!

There's no choice from R110 -> M50 N
or from R148 -> M50N
or from the R147 -> M50N
or from the R135 -> M50N ...

For other movements, there should be no short merge, traffic should use the aux lane. It's traffic using the short merge, not yielding to traffic on the mainline causing a lot of the mainline delays.

ardmacha

Carawaystick wrote: »

For other movements, there should be no short merge, traffic should use the aux lane. It's traffic using the short merge, not yielding to traffic on the mainline causing a lot of the mainline delays.

These short merges might have metering, ensuring that vehicles arriving from the slip road are well spaced out. The slips leading on to the auxiliary lanes shouldn't need it.

hardCopy

paulbok wrote: »

I always thought that was 'the done thing'.
It's not like letting someone trying to change lane on the mainline, if you don't accommodate them (the rights and wrongs of doing so not the point in this situation), they can still stay in their own lane. Merging traffic has nowhere else to go, if you don't let merging traffic in on the 1st mainline lane, then they have to stop causing a tailback.
I've always been baffled by driver not doing this or merging in turn on a road where two lanes become one.

In Australia it's a rule and it's signposted at the merge



People here do tend to be fairly good once traffic is near stationary but if there's any bit of clear road people will just speed up and let "somebody else" let you in.

Carawaystick

ardmacha wrote: »

These short merges might have metering, ensuring that vehicles arriving from the slip road are well spaced out. The slips leading on to the auxiliary lanes shouldn't need it.

Then you have all of the other on-ramps with 2 lanes, one leading to the aux lane and the other leading to another short on-merge....

hardCopy

The Australians seem to be quite good at placing reinforcing information signs, we could learn a thing or two from them.

hardCopy wrote: »

In Australia it's a rule and it's signposted at the merge



People here do tend to be fairly good once traffic is near stationary but if there's any bit of clear road people will just speed up and let "somebody else" let you in.

highdef

On a number of occasions on short merges, I've had a drivers that either won't pull into a free lane 2 or else if there is nowhere for them to pull into lane 2, they still do not give me an opportunity to merge. In these cases, rather than come to a halt at the end of the slip, I will continue in the hard shoulder until such time that I can safely merge.
The reason I do this is that I consider this safer than coming to a stop at the end of the slip (and therefore forcing other cars on the slip behind me to stop and be in the same predicament as me) and then having to start moving from 0 kmph into moving traffic, quite often very fast moving relative to little old stationary me.
It may be illegal but in those cases, I am putting my safety ahead as the highest priority.

Middle Man

highdef wrote: »

On a number of occasions on short merges, I've had a drivers that either won't pull into a free lane 2 or else if there is nowhere for them to pull into lane 2, they still do not give me an opportunity to merge. In these cases, rather than come to a halt at the end of the slip, I will continue in the hard shoulder until such time that I can safely merge.
The reason I do this is that I consider this safer than coming to a stop at the end of the slip (and therefore forcing other cars on the slip behind me to stop and be in the same predicament as me) and then having to start moving from 0 kmph into moving traffic, quite often very fast moving relative to little old stationary me.
It may be illegal but in those cases, I am putting my safety ahead as the highest priority.

I totally get what you're saying - zip style merging should be legally compulsory - especially on the busy roads.