M50 to be made even more unbearable

mikhail

60 km/h speed limit proposed.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/plan-to-lower-m50-speed-limits-to-cut-congestion-1.2105928

Timberrrrrrrr

mikhail wrote: »

60 km/h speed limit proposed.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/plan-to-lower-m50-speed-limits-to-cut-congestion-1.2105928

Only time i ever went over 60 kmh on the M50.was at 4 in the morning

Kermit.de.frog

An Taisce also criticised a decision to add two lanes to a 13km section of the M7 between the Newbridge and Naas interchanges.

Of course they did.

Shannon757

mikhail wrote: »

60 km/h speed limit proposed.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/plan-to-lower-m50-speed-limits-to-cut-congestion-1.2105928

Would you ever get over 60 on the m50?

Stheno

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Only time i ever went over 60 kmh on the M50.was at 4 in the morning

Was thinking the same, it's fairly rare at rush hour to get over 50 kph full stop

Connavar

Shannon757 wrote: »

Would you ever get over 60 on the m50?

Just drive on the left lane and its easy, all the space in the world

TheChizler

Stheno wrote: »

Was thinking the same, it's fairly rare at rush hour to get over 50 kph full stop

Why do they call it a motorway at all in those sections? I suppose it's an easy way to keep certain users off it, but surely the main advantages of a motorway are meant to be speed and convenience?

Stheno

TheChizler wrote: »

Why do they call it a motorway at all in those sections? I suppose it's an easy way to keep certain users off it, but surely the main advantages of a motorway are meant to be speed and convenience?

There's a pattern to the chaos on the M50. In the morning southbound the pain points are from J6 - J9 and you've got localised jams at the exits for Ballymun and Finglas.

Generally once you get past J9 it clears up.

In the evening northbound it's the same junctions from J9 to J7 is the worst and can tailback as far as J11.

Once past J7 it clears.

That's my experience anyway from driving Swords to Dundrum the past year.

mikhail

Shannon757 wrote: »

Would you ever get over 60 on the m50?

Not everyone uses that road at rush hour. Most of the day, the average speed on it is ~110 km/h in the middle lane, and 80-120 km/h in the middle lane.

TheChizler

Stheno wrote: »

There's a pattern to the chaos on the M50. In the morning southbound the pain points are from J6 - J9 and you've got localised jams at the exits for Ballymun and Finglas.

Generally once you get past J9 it clears up.

In the evening northbound it's the same junctions from J9 to J7 is the worst and can tailback as far as J11.

Once past J7 it clears.

That's my experience anyway from driving Swords to Dundrum the past year.

Cheers, wouldn't be too familiar with it as I've only had to drive on it on one occasion, thankfully! I do remember driving on the left with a slightly bemused face looking at the queues of traffic I was passing on the two right hand lanes.

Stheno

mikhail wrote: »

Not everyone uses that road at rush hour. Most of the day, the average speed on it is ~110 km/h in the middle lane, and 80-120 km/h in the middle lane.

You can't have two different speeds in the same lane And the speed limit is 100 km/h for the most of the M50

mikhail

Stheno wrote: »

You can't have two different speeds in the same lane

Not for long, no.

And the speed limit is 100 km/h for the most of the M50

I know that. I wasn't sure anyone else did until I read your post.

Danjamin1

The M50's a joke at rush hour, as has been said before the clearest lane is the left lane because this country is full of incompetent drivers that don't understand how motorways work. In fact it's generally just full of incompetent road users that don't understand how roads work

Hilly Bill

So to help you go from A to B quicker they want you to go slower???? Whats 60kmph? around 40 mph? The NRA havent a clue.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

markpb

TheChizler wrote: »

Why do they call it a motorway at all in those sections? I suppose it's an easy way to keep certain users off it, but surely the main advantages of a motorway are meant to be speed and convenience?

Calling it a motorway doesn't magically make congestion disappear. In fact, the name of the road has no bearing on it at all.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Of course they did.

Maybe they have a point? No-one else in the world has managed to build enough roads to solve rush hour congestion but we've spent billions over the last few years trying anyway.

Motorways between cities are a good idea, they solve a problem. Building motorways or adding lanes to motorways that are only congested at working/peak hours is a ridiculous waste of time and money because it only encourages more commuting which causes more congestion.

Hilly Bill wrote: »

So to help you go from A to B quicker they want you to go slower???? Whats 60kmph? around 40 mph? The NRA havent a clue.

I heard a great story recently about how football stands are full of professional players and referees who are lost to the game by their unrecognised greatness....

pclive

Judging by people's replies they haven't read the article and don't know the reasoning behind a variable speed limit

Stheno

Hilly Bill wrote: »

So to help you go from A to B quicker they want you to go slower???? Whats 60kmph? around 40 mph? The NRA havent a clue.

I can see an element of logic to it. From my experience the past year, the problem is at the junctions. So everyone pisses along (in as much as you can) between the junctions, then you come to a complete halt at the offramp and crawl along until you get past the onramp, speed up again, rinse and repeat.

If the speed limit was at 60 you'd have less of the chaos around the juntions as people try to merge, and the flow of traffic might be more constant. That's my take on it anyway?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

TheChizler

markpb wrote: »

Calling it a motorway doesn't magically make congestion disappear. In fact, the name of the road has no bearing on it at all.

I'm not sure we're on the same page here. Why call it a motorway if you take away the primary advantage of a motorway, the increased speed limit? Why call it a motorway if it has 50 km/h sections? And soon to (possibly) be 60 km/h?

pclive

You don't have to register to read it

Stheno

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Eh no you don't I've just read the full article?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

_Kaiser_

markpb wrote: »

Maybe they have a point? No-one else in the world has managed to build enough roads to solve rush hour congestion but we've spent billions over the last few years trying anyway.

Motorways between cities are a good idea, they solve a problem. Building motorways or adding lanes to motorways that are only congested at working/peak hours is a ridiculous waste of time and money because it only encourages more commuting which causes more congestion.

The problem is though that the government through its inaction are busy forcing people out into the countryside again as a result of stupidly high rents and now new mortgage restrictions. Plus of course most jobs are still in Dublin.

Most of those people commuting from Kildare, Meath and beyond aren't doing so because they like spending a few hours in traffic. They're doing it because their job hasn't moved and that's all they could afford to rent/buy.

Public transport remains woefully inadequate outside Dublin - and even in it if you're not doing a simple A-B - which doesn't help matters either.

Chris_5339762

Blanket lowering of speed limits is daft, they should just install the variable speed limit system that they provided the gantries for but never put in. That would help a little.

ardmacha

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Blanket lowering of speed limits is daft, they should just install the variable speed limit system that they provided the gantries for but never put in. That would help a little.

Exactly, variable speed limits are the way forward, nothwithstanding some of the nonsense posted above. I don't think the NRA guy implied otherwise, whatever the IT article said. There is a case for a higher toll at peak with a correspondingly lower toll off peak.

mikhail

ardmacha wrote: »

Exactly, variable speed limits are the way forward, nothwithstanding some of the nonsense posted above. I don't think the NRA guy implied otherwise, whatever the IT article said. There is a case for a higher toll at peak with a correspondingly lower toll off peak.

Actually, the opening sentence in the article is:
"Lower rush hour speed limits on Dublin’s M50 have been proposed by the National Roads Authority as a way to reduce traffic congestion on the route. "
(My emphasis).

Banjoxed

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Of course they did.

*rolleyes*

Red Alert

Can the existing VMS not be used to provide variable limit signage? (Is that what the Red LEDs on them that they never use except for the Pay Toll By 8PM Tomorrow notice were intended for?)

It would be completely idiotic in any case to lower the limit on a blanket basis to 60 km/h. I travelled northbound nearly the whole way at almost 100 km/h last night.

selous

I use M7/N7/M50 done a little experiment a few times, came on to M7 at Monsterevin stuck car in cruise control at 90kmh going to Cherrywood exit 16 M50, stayed in left lane the whole way, I braked rarely (Newlands Cross), never had to accelerate, everything flew by me, and I didn't catch up on anything, but did pass some vehicles which should have been in left (driving) lane, lorries, suv's pulling horsebox's, a small van pulling a big boat.. and smoke bellowing from it, cars towing other cars, all in middle and third lane. If rules of road were enforced I think congestion would come down a good percentage.
L plates, trucks/hgv's in third lane (or constant driving in middle one) cars in middle lane when is nothing next or near around them, flying from third lane across all of them to take the off ramp. But alas, there isn't that much traffic corp around, (yes it would affect me too as im usually on that road at 4.30- 5am with not much traffic and a heavy right foot)

Tenzor07

I find that the existing speed limit on the M50 is almost entirely notional, and not enforced by the Gardai in any way..

So as it is with atrocious lane discipline, insufficient space between vehicles, the M50 needs a lot to happen in order to reduce congestion through incidents etc...the M50 is pretty unbearable already.

Bongalongherb

Get rid of the tolls, sure it's been paid for already, that might keep traffic moving fluidly.

anncoates

Connavar wrote: »

Just drive on the left lane and its easy, all the space in the world

I drive it every day. It's a sacred immutable law of the M50 that you have to stay in the overtaking lane until about 500 metres before your exit and then jam on and try and get across two lanes to make it.

L1011

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Get rid of the tolls, sure it's been paid for already, that might keep traffic moving fluidly.

There is only one barriered toll on the M50, at the Port entrance, which does not ever have major traffic delays.

The mainline toll is barrier free and has no impact on delays as a result.

Properly variable, rather than blunt time-based limits may have some impact on peak time traffic demand but its far more important they find out why traffic is worse than when the economy was better - clearly something has significantly degraded public transport provision, be it Network Direct on Dublin Bus or business relocations or feck knows what.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

ardmacha

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Get rid of the tolls, sure it's been paid for already, that might keep traffic moving fluidly.

Getting rid of the toll could only lead to more traffic which would hardly help. Was this the fluid you had in mind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v72PQOrc_zw

Bongalongherb

ardmacha wrote: »

Getting rid of the toll could only lead to more traffic which would hardly help. Was this the fluid you had in mind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v72PQOrc_zw

I was just thinking that by moving an obstruction would help the traffic-flow. I never use the m50 myself as I always use the back-roads. OK, it seems that idea goes out the window so.

Victor

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Get rid of the tolls, sure it's been paid for already, that might keep traffic moving fluidly.

Trolling not welcome.

Moderator

---

L1011 wrote: »

Properly variable, rather than blunt time-based limits may have some impact on peak time traffic demand but its far more important they find out why traffic is worse than when the economy was better - clearly something has significantly degraded public transport provision, be it Network Direct on Dublin Bus or business relocations or feck knows what.

It's quite simple, it has long been known that traffic expands to fill available space. If you build more road space and people are allowed use it freely, then of course your motorway is going to fill up.

Bongalongherb

Victor wrote: »

Trolling not welcome.

Moderator

Victor, I'm not trolling. I don't understand why you get the feeling that I am. I thought it was a valid question, but seeing that I never use the M50 I'm not fully knowledgeable of the amount of tolls that were in place.

bs2014

It should be referred to as Dublins only free carpark.... I wish more was done to clamp down on dangerous undertaking/tailgating and general dangerous driving. Don't know how there hasnt been people killed on the m50 lately and something like what happened the other day in england with a 40 car collision. Only a matter of time. It has to be the most dangerous road in Ireland

Dog of Tears

markpb wrote: »

Maybe they have a point? No-one else in the world has managed to build enough roads to solve rush hour congestion but we've spent billions over the last few years trying anyway.

Motorways between cities are a good idea, they solve a problem. Building motorways or adding lanes to motorways that are only congested at working/peak hours is a ridiculous waste of time and money because it only encourages more commuting which causes more congestion.

An Taisce object to these ones too.

jaffa20

The left lane is normally the quickest on the m50 because of middle lane hoggers and "fast" lane overtakers!! :rolleyes: Problem is you cannot move into middle lane to allow for merging traffic because of the hoggers but it's fine because the merging traffic will soon move over to join the hoggers!

quadrifoglio verde

jaffa20 wrote: »

The left lane is normally the quickest on the m50 because of middle lane hoggers and "fast" lane overtakers!! :rolleyes: Problem is you cannot move into middle lane to allow for merging traffic because of the hoggers but it's fine because the merging traffic will soon move over to join the hoggers!

The only problem with that is it's illegal to pass on the left, unless in slow moving traffic.
As I've been warned by the gardai, 60km/h isn't slow moving traffic

jaffa20

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

The only problem with that is it's illegal to pass on the left, unless in slow moving traffic.
As I've been warned by the gardai, 60km/h isn't slow moving traffic

It's always slowish moving at peak times though so i can't see the harm unless breaking the speed limit. The Gardai should really concentrate their efforts on teaching those not using lanes correctly.

Banjoxed

Dog of Tears wrote: »

An Taisce object to these ones too.

Source please.

Aard

A blanket 60kmph limit strikes me as a little reactionary. Perhaps it might work as an initial stop-gap but long term something more ronust is needed. A combination of variable-price tolling on all segments plus ramp metering would work best to maximise demand management.

SeanW

Shannon757 wrote: »

Would you ever get over 60 on the m50?

Every time I use the M50 I can go pretty much as fast as I please.

I use it in the off-peak usually as part of a long distance journey

:cool:

Suffice it to say that to me the idea of 60kph speed limit on the M50, well, my frank opinion of that would be unprintable.

L1011

Victor wrote: »

It's quite simple, it has long been known that traffic expands to fill available space. If you build more road space and people are allowed use it freely, then of course your motorway is going to fill up.

That is both massively oversimplifying things and ignoring the actual issues.

Has the M8, M9 or M18 even begun to "fill up" in a situation of reduced overall traffic compared to some years ago?

munchkin_utd

This isn't news.

It was always the idea behind putting up the gantries on the m50 for the variable speed limits, just like what you have on busy roads in the uk, just like you have on busy roads in Germany and other congested places on the continent.

It'll be 100 for most of the Day and reduced to 80 or 60 when the road is at it's most busy.
And it'll be localised to where the problems are rather than a blanket reduction.

Effects

Shannon757 wrote: »

Would you ever get over 60 on the m50?

Yeah. Every time I drive on it.

Dog of Tears

Banjoxed wrote: »

Source please.

Source?

Go to An Bord Pleanala's website, download the Inspector's Report on any Oral Hearing in the last 15 years on a motorway project and An Taisce are objectors.

I know this to be true.

But I'll tell you what, you go find me one where they didn't object.




I'll wait.