M50 madness , Outer Ring needed

BoatMad

Trebor176 wrote: »

Southbound, it can take up to an hour to get from near the M1 to Tallaght or a bit beyond most mornings, according to traffic reports. Northbound, it can be chronic from Ballymount to Lucan or Blanchardstown.

I go from junction 9 (Red Cow) and junction 10 (Ballymount) in the mornings and visa versa in the evenings. Some mornings, as recently as during the week just gone, it can take a half-hour to do this. A journey which takes me less than 10 minutes from home to work in little traffic.

There have been no reasons for these delays, where J9 traffic has joined from the southbound on ramp there to the J10 off ramp. Just volume really! The Ballymount southbound exit is a joke, in my opinion, as it's the only slip road that seems to be bad every morning, apart from the occasional delays around J13 or J14.

Since the economy is continuing to pick up, more jobs are being created, thus leading to more traffic. The M50 cannot cope with the traffic, in my view. But, I can't really see what can be done to sort the problem. A ring road would make sense. But, any 'improvements' will be a very long way off, I'm afraid.

A significant improvement would be to merge Taillight Firhouse and Ballymount into one exit and provide feeder roads to handle the motorway access closure, There are simply way to many junctions on top of one another in that section of roadway

monument

NiallBoo wrote: »

Yup, I agree that's the thinking behind why we get the kind of development we do.

We've never really built apartments that are suitable for families. Doing so would be considered a "risk" to developers because it's so different that they wouldn't be sure there's a market for it.

Ballymum was always going to fail - poor design, a lack of services provided in the area and generally no attempt at looking at the social aspect. Ballyfermott had the same problems, but nobody blamed the architecture.

I think it's an "if you build it they will come" situation, but I don't expect to see it any time soon.

The Ballymun towers turned out to be not so high density -- high rise does not equal high density.

All of the following three examples have just 74 units:

marno21

TheRiverman wrote: »

I live in rural Ireland twenty minutes drive from the M6 Motorway and everyday I see some bad driving,but by far the scariest place I have ever driven is on the M50.The amount of non compliance with the Rules Of the Road I have seen on the few occasions I have to drive on it each year is horrendous and is a big contributor to the hell that it is each day.

It's ok. The speed vans will sort all that out

bk

NiallBoo wrote: »

We've never really built apartments that are suitable for families. Doing so would be considered a "risk" to developers because it's so different that they wouldn't be sure there's a market for it.

Almost accidentally my apartment building is highly suited to families. As a result over half the apartments have families with kids, demand for these apartments is very high and rents and selling prices are significantly higher then other, more "traditional" apartments in the area.

Shows there is massive untapped potential for more European style family friendly apartments.

NiallBoo

monument wrote: »

The Ballymun towers turned out to be not so high density -- high rise does not equal high density.

I take your point, but it's not really what I was on about. I was saying that all of the bad rep that non semi-D developments have is because of things that have little to do with the actual building form.

Nice figure though - i certainly think there should be more of the right-hand type, but I also think that tower type buildings allow for much more room for community space, services and future development.

Both the first and third pictures have their merits in cities.

BoatMad

Originally Posted by TheRiverman View Post
I live in rural Ireland twenty minutes drive from the M6 Motorway and everyday I see some bad driving,but by far the scariest place I have ever driven is on the M50.The amount of non compliance with the Rules Of the Road I have seen on the few occasions I have to drive on it each year is horrendous and is a big contributor to the hell that it is each day.

Never been on the M50 where there was enough speed to cause any sort of serious accidents !!!. most are simply fender benders , on the rural motorways , when there is a crash , its usually at very high speeds

Driving the M50 regularly ( I also like in rural Ireland ) , I dont see too many infractions of the rules of the road, mainly illegal left lane passing, which is understandable the way Irish people use the outside lane.

The major failings on the M50 are that there are too many junctions in a very short space

NiallBoo

BoatMad wrote: »

The major failings on the M50 are that there are too many junctions in a very short space

You keep saying that, but that's just not how that works.

BoatMad

NiallBoo wrote: »

You keep saying that, but that's just not how that works.

you can see the effect at the firhouse to naas road section every day , too many exits too close together with onramps merging with off ramps and people skipping queues by using the outside lanes and then slowing and trying to merge, creates the classic accordion tailback

AT the very least the off ramps should be segregated over a greater length to prevent q-jumping

NiallBoo

BoatMad wrote: »

you can see the effect at the firhouse to naas road section every day , too many exits too close together with onramps merging with off ramps and people skipping queues by using the outside lanes and then slowing and trying to merge, creates the classic accordion tailback

AT the very least the off ramps should be segregated over a greater length to prevent q-jumping

You see, you've got all this backwards. The problems you're describing are that there's too much competition for a very limited amount of space - in particular, capacity on the roads that lead away from the m-50, which are then causing traffic back up onto the m-50.
Thus giving incentive to act like eejits.

I honestly don't see how you think getting rid of junctions will help this. By merging three junctions into one you force people into even less space and will make that 3x worse, probably more in fact as the negative effects of these things tend to accumulate.

SeanW

dfeo wrote: »

Poorly designed? I completely agree.

Not enough lanes? I disagree. There are plenty of lanes. People just need to learn to keep left unless overtaking.

We need these on gantry signs in Ireland instead of the usual "slow down, speed kills" cráp.

Yes, but we would also need road infrastructure that stopped punishing people for cruising in the left lane and rewarding them for driving in the middle lane.

I'm talking about junctions where the dual carriageway loses a lane, so the driving lane becomes an exit lane, encouraging you to be out of the driving lane as far back as possible. N4 -> M4 outbound at Lucan/Leixlip I'm looking at you :mad: ditto for some of the routes through the junction at the M1/M50: two lanes merge into one and the driving lane must yield to the overtaking lane. Fixing crap like that would actually encourage people not to be MLMs (Middle Lane Morons).

magicbastarder

what is the average length of journey cars take on the M50?

BoatMad

NiallBoo wrote: »

You see, you've got all this backwards. The problems you're describing are that there's too much competition for a very limited amount of space - in particular, capacity on the roads that lead away from the m-50, which are then causing traffic back up onto the m-50.
Thus giving incentive to act like eejits.

I honestly don't see how you think getting rid of junctions will help this. By merging three junctions into one you force people into even less space and will make that 3x worse, probably more in fact as the negative effects of these things tend to accumulate.

Th issue is not the capacity of the junctions to remove the exit traffic , the issue is that the engineering of those three accesses, being so close as to have insufficient exit and on -ramps, is causing major slow downs

combining all three and providing greatly enlarged on and off ramps , would ameliorate the problem in my opinion , the off ramps could be the size of the M4 lead in, a junction that is equally congested , but such congestion has far less effect onthe other lanes of the M50

plodder

BoatMad wrote: »

A significant improvement would be to merge Taillight Firhouse and Ballymount into one exit and provide feeder roads to handle the motorway access closure, There are simply way to many junctions on top of one another in that section of roadway

Junctions too close together causes a different problem, namely, people using the motorway for local journeys that should be taken on local roads instead.

The other big problem imo is when the M50 becomes congested the traditional advice of using the right most lanes only for overtaking, breaks down. Basically everyone entering the motorway piles into the right most lane because they want to go faster than everyone else, but they don't realise everyone else wants to do the same thing. So, they get frustrated.

The answer imo is reduced (variable) speed limits, enforced by camera, when it gets congested. If all lanes are moving at the same speed, then there's no incentive to all pile into the rightmost lanes. Consistent lower speed means you can fit more traffic into the same space, with higher throughput, and lower average journey times.

Idbatterim

has a tunnel under dublin bay ever been costed/examined for feasibility?

yes going back 40 years... has been mentioned in the papers recently enough too... I would have this over any of the other options any day, road wise, i.e instead of double decking current m50 or outer bypass...

of course MN and DU are urgently needed, sorry, they were urgently needed 10 years ago!!!

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/dublin-continues-to-wrestle-with-issue-of-an-eastern-bypass-for-the-city-1.2674399

Idbatterim

Also I dont understand why Tallaght junction isnt freeflow. Why the R108 junction is a signal controlled roundabout, simply cut down vegetation and take down barriers on it, so you have a good view...

marno21

Idbatterim wrote: »

yes going back 40 years... has been mentioned in the papers recently enough too... I would have this over any of the other options any day, road wise, i.e instead of double decking current m50 or outer bypass...

of course MN and DU are urgently needed, sorry, they were urgently needed 10 years ago!!!

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/dublin-continues-to-wrestle-with-issue-of-an-eastern-bypass-for-the-city-1.2674399

Completing the C ring is a much better idea than an outer orbital. The volume of traffic on the M50 at peak times going that would potentially use this road is negligible.

Dardania

magicbastarder wrote: »

has a tunnel under dublin bay ever been costed/examined for feasibility?

If you're getting at the idea of completing it as a proper ring, I think that's a good idea. In theory you should be able to double the capacity the road can handle (in practice not really, but would take people connecting from M1/M2 to M11 and perhaps as far as Sandyford via an alternate route

patrickbrophy18

To re-iterate a point that I made a few times. The "M50 madness" is a by-product of a largely disjointed and inefficient public transport system. To begin with, there are the massive population centers such as Blanchardstown and Tallaght to name but a few located within a 2 to 3 mile radius of the M50 not to mention an abundance of town centers, industrial estates and business parks. Essentially, this has created a paradigm shift away from the more traditional traffic flow into and out of Dublin City.

As a result, there is a huge business case for an orbital public transport system be it a DART line, light rail line or bus rapid transit system. In a time of climate change and where we are actively discouraging car use, I fear that the provision of another (outer) orbital motorway system will in time, jack up car usage to double the current levels.

Cycle lanes and cycle tracks would also need to be provided along these public transport systems as well as not everyone would be doing over 10 miles. Perhaps, a grid or mesh of cycle lanes could be provided for maximum permeability and coverage.

At least once a week I am seeing tailbacks a few miles long to Sandyford and Ballinteer alone. If this is not indicative of a paradigm shift, I don't know what is. We need to take a birds eye view of the entire Greater Dublin Area and take a holistic approach to how people plan an getting around it efficiently by public transport.

At the moment, public transport modes such as the bus and to a lesser extent, the Luas take very indirect approaches to get from A to B with the former operating into housing estates. Next, there is the disproportionate level of service on all bus routes from skeleton routes (less than 4 journeys per direction) to high frequency ones (10 minutely or greater). Some of the orbital bus routes I've seen such as the 114 and 17 are nowhere near frequent or direct enough to encourage current or would-be drivers from using them. Understandably, many of these would end up choosing the car where they would likely end up on the M50 to some degree.

Bottom line, any money invested in an "Outer Ring" could be better spent on an orbital public transport system with a similar purpose. It would be better for the environment and more important, it would be sustainable.

Idbatterim

How about multi point tolling? To keep local traffic off it and abolish the current west link toll. Say a euro or 1.5 between first junction, fifty cent for the next, twenty five cent every consecutive one? Maybe only do that at peak hours though. I am still advocating an eastern bypass...

GreenFolder2

Well when you scatter an "urban" population as thinly as possible and then try to push them all into the city every day on a few lanes of tarmac this kind of thing happens.

If Dublin had more, properly designed higher density housing options and proper public transport it would actually function.

The road network will always be a problem if we keep failing to do anything about planning housing.

This is a political issue and clearly people support the status quo as any suggestion of high-rise or high density causes minor outrage. So clearly unsustainable is popular.

Roadhawk

This link was posts on another thread that is very relevant to this one. Some great ideas on urbanisation...

http://nigeldugdale.ie/2016/10/10/no-one-shouted-stop-growth-cars-suburbia/

Carawaystick

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Well when you scatter an "urban" population as thinly as possible and then try to push them all into the city every day on a few lanes of tarmac this kind of thing happens.

If Dublin had more, properly designed higher density housing options and proper public transport it would actually function.

The road network will always be a problem if we keep failing to do anything about planning housing.

This is a political issue and clearly people support the status quo as any suggestion of high-rise or high density causes minor outrage. So clearly unsustainable is popular.

Monument has figures calculated that Dublin city has a higher population density than Amsterdam.
It just doesn't have proper public transport

NiallBoo

Carawaystick wrote: »

Monument has figures calculated that Dublin city has a higher population density than Amsterdam.
It just doesn't have proper public transport

While it's shown in the figures that they are the same on average (and that this proves that rail-based PT is viable) - it is worth mentioning that they're still very different.

Their development style leaves a lot more public space, wider streets and generally room for people to use the city (and indeed, more room to build public transit).

Although the buildings in Amsterdam or Copenhagen are taller, the whole place feels a lot less closed-in.

Dardania

Roadhawk wrote: »

This link was posts on another thread that is very relevant to this one. Some great ideas on urbanisation...

http://nigeldugdale.ie/2016/10/10/no-one-shouted-stop-growth-cars-suburbia/

Great article - I'd say the talk and discussion after was great.

BoatMad

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Well when you scatter an "urban" population as thinly as possible and then try to push them all into the city every day on a few lanes of tarmac this kind of thing happens.

If Dublin had more, properly designed higher density housing options and proper public transport it would actually function.

The road network will always be a problem if we keep failing to do anything about planning housing.

This is a political issue and clearly people support the status quo as any suggestion of high-rise or high density causes minor outrage. So clearly unsustainable is popular.

Irelands rural areas are incredibly sparsely populated by European standards, hence there is no reason to house everyone cheek by jowl, like many european cities where rural densities are orders of magnitude higher. Therefore people , in a basically free and capitalistic economy will use their money to seek better housing in the rural l hinterlands.


Thats why it happens here and not in Amsterdam, where the only place to go as an alternative is to live in the sea

its all about what people want , not what "you" want them to do

monument

NiallBoo wrote: »

While it's shown in the figures that they are the same on average (and that this proves that rail-based PT is viable) - it is worth mentioning that they're still very different.

Their development style leaves a lot more public space, wider streets and generally room for people to use the city (and indeed, more room to build public transit).

Although the buildings in Amsterdam or Copenhagen are taller, the whole place feels a lot less closed-in.

You'll fit the basic footpath - cycle path - car lane - tram lanes - car lane - cycle path - footpath layout in Amsterdam into as many arterial roads as you can in Dublin. Where there isn't space one is the issues in Dublin is that we retain excessive car acces and/or car parking on routes which would cut that out in Dutch cities.

The centre of Amsterdam is very "closed in" and has very narrow streets -- possibly overall more narrow than Dublin's central streets overall! And most of the suburbs in Dublin and Amsterdam are comperable in height.

Copenhagen Has significantly high density than both Dublin and Amsterdam in the centre, but that does not continue too far out.

BoatMad wrote: »

Irelands rural areas are incredibly sparsely populated by European standards, hence there is no reason to house everyone cheek by jowl, like many european cities where rural densities are orders of magnitude higher. Therefore people , in a basically free and capitalistic economy will use their money to seek better housing in the rural l hinterlands.


Thats why it happens here and not in Amsterdam, where the only place to go as an alternative is to live in the sea

its all about what people want , not what "you" want them to do

That's quite frankly nonsense. Rural areas were continued to be developed for housing on a large scale until the Dutch implemented the bans or part bans on such housing and implemented proper planning. Nothing to do with them running out of space in rural area. We're already following the same policy as they did, although too late for many areas.

It's about planning and enforcement, not letting thing run away until there's a bubble and burst. We know from planning mistakes

Anyway, getting back to Dublin -- Dublin can support metro lines and more tram lines under the current population and current density.

Why isn't elevated monorail ever mentioned as a solution to Dublin transport rather that DART / Luas / DU

These take up far less road space compared to Luas and car traffic can still drive beneath and around the support structures.

They could be built on existing roads and have outbound and inbound tracks run in separate routes if side by side takes up too much space

magicbastarder

An elevated metro was originally considered on the ballymun road afaik but abandoned for cost reasons. And the locals were none too enthused with the idea.

Muahahaha

I feel a song coming on :pac:

jd

magicbastarder wrote:

An elevated metro was originally considered on the ballymun road afaik but abandoned for cost reasons. And the locals were none too enthused with the idea.

It was not abandoned for cost reasons, it was because of local objections. Tunnelling is a lot more expensive. It's possible that if they had decided on the elevated route it would be under construction/completed now.

magicbastarder

Metro north would be nearly completed now were it not for the Ballymun road objectors?

NLC1072

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Ok, so we build this at a cost of probably a billion euro, then as with every road in the history of roads, it becomes congested too, what do we do then? Another ring road outside that?
Sure let's just concrete over the whole country.

That is progress.

jd

magicbastarder wrote: »

Metro north would be nearly completed now were it not for the Ballymun road objectors?

Possibly, as it is not as expensive as tunneling, and maybe it would have started with the reduced cost. Might have meant the N11 and M17/18 schemes would not have gone ahead.

The main point is that tunneling is more expensive than an elevated track.

coolbeans

NLC1072 wrote: »

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Ok, so we build this at a cost of probably a billion euro, then as with every road in the history of roads, it becomes congested too, what do we do then? Another ring road outside that?
Sure let's just concrete over the whole country.

That is progress.

No it's not. It's reimplementing the mistakes of the past. That's stupidity. Progress!

Andrewf20

There already a bit of a ring road that links the n4 to the n81. Its 2 lanes in both direction for roughly 50% of it. Also the n2 has a bit of a link towards the n3 that wasn't there a few years ago.

I think a full outer ring road would help a little but I believe there's simply to many people trying to cram into the city. The m50 is a victim of its own success.

monument

salonfire wrote: »

Why isn't elevated monorail ever mentioned as a solution to Dublin transport rather that DART / Luas / DU

These take up far less road space compared to Luas and car traffic can still drive beneath and around the support structures.

They could be built on existing roads and have outbound and inbound tracks run in separate routes if side by side takes up too much space

If you play with the sound on you'll hear a point where residents say that they are surprised the intrist interest from tourists because, among locals, "everybody hates the monorail".

Becauses issues like the ugliness of it, how do you think a two-station monorail would be notablly helpful to Dublin's transport issues?

monument

monument wrote: »

If you play with the sound on you'll hear a point where residents say that they are surprised the intrist interest from tourists because, among locals, "everybody hates the monorail".

Becauses issues like the ugliness of it, how do you think a two-station monorail would be notablly helpful to Dublin's transport issues?

Are you suggesting Dublin as a whole would rather people sit on a congested M50 rather than have an alternative because it is 'ugly' ? I would doubt that myself tbh. Of course, there would be local objections - there always is NIMBYism with any new development.

Why would it need to be two stations? There could be multiple stops along its course

dixiefly

It's really difficult to envisage any expansion of the M50 that could be any way feasible ref cost and efficiency to do. So we have to look at other ways to deal with the problem.

If we were to provide better park and ride facilities at, say, Santry, Red Cow, Blanchardstown, Finglas and Tallaght and provide subsidised, regular high quality bus transport to major bus hubs, luas stops, industrial parks. Buses to provide good quality wifi etc.

Is there any way that a Luas connection between say the Red Cow and Dundrum could be considered?

Improvement of on and off links from the M50, try and prevent these arteries from clogging up.

How about point tolling going on and off the M50 and make it prohibitively expensive to go for just one section where there are other alternatives using other roads?

monument

salonfire wrote: »

Are you suggesting Dublin as a whole would rather people sit on a congested M50 rather than have an alternative because it is 'ugly' ? I would doubt that myself tbh. Of course, there would be local objections - there always is NIMBYism with any new development.

Why would it need to be two stations? There could be multiple stops along its course

The example you are giving in that video just has two stations -- it's not a central bit of Seattle's transport system and as others have suggested, monorail systems are a joke -- not just ugly bus costly, ineffective, unattractive and have serious safety issues.

Even beyond monorails, expect for limited exceptions, overhead urban railways just aren't being build by cities any more and were never enthusiasticly adopted by cities of Dublin's size and scale.

A mix of underground and surface light and heavy rail and a high-quality cycle network is very much so posable in Dublin -- it's only a lack of political will and vision holding these things back.

monument

monument wrote: »

The example you are giving in that video just has two stations -- it's not a central bit of Seattle's transport system and as others have suggested, monorail systems are a joke -- not just ugly bus costly, ineffective, unattractive and have serious safety issues.

Even beyond monorails, expect for limited exceptions, overhead urban railways just aren't being build by cities any more and were never enthusiasticly adopted by cities of Dublin's size and scale.

A mix of underground and surface light and heavy rail and a high-quality cycle network is very much so posable in Dublin -- it's only a lack of political will and vision holding these things back.

OK fair enough. I just used Seattle for an example of how the rail can be elevated from the road.

I agree all those things you mentioned are required as well. My thinking is that an elevated rail could also be used to connect the nearby suburbs of the City Centre at least - without removing too much of the existing road infrastructure.

BoatMad

How about point tolling going on and off the M50 and make it prohibitively expensive to go for just one section where there are other alternatives using other roads?

people would just rat run into housing estates and side roads

andekwarhola

Better public transport in Dublin would definitely be a big factor in alleviating congestion.

I moved jobs and had to start driving as it took 35 minutes to drive as opposed to around 1 hour 45 minutes by public transport.

Roadhawk

On days like today an alternative to the M50 is desperately needed to deal with the motoring capacity...either throw another tier on the current M50 and have one go northbound and the other southbound or have an outer ring road to the M50.

Seth Brundle

Roadhawk wrote: »

...either throw another tier on the current M50 and have one go northbound and the other southbound or have an outer ring road to the M50.

At what cost?
And as we would be making the M50 more attractive to use, what do we do when it gets full again?

Roadhawk

kbannon wrote: »

At what cost?
And as we would be making the M50 more attractive to use, what do we do when it gets full again?

Em...keep building...thats how cities grow.

Check out the ring roads of Beijing - https://www.google.ie/maps/@39.9515074,116.4265503,9.82z

maninasia

Plenty of cities in Asia have elevated rail and subway lines and continue to build them at an incredible rate , they work very well and are far cheaper and faster to build than underground lines.

Note: these are proper rail lines and light rail lines, not monorails.

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/region/asia/

90% of new investment should go into rail based transportation , more roads just encourages more cars and then you'll get bottlenecks at crunch points which will defeat the purpose of efficient transportation. Buses cannot handle the anything like the same number of commuters as trains and it's obvious that they don't serve the population well in Dublin.

P_1

Would a new bridge (or 2) over the Liffey between Chappo and Lucan do much to calm things down? Seems to me a lot of the congestion is caused by people trying to get from the western suburbs to the business parks in the south west.

LeinsterDub

magicbastarder wrote: »

Metro north would be nearly completed now were it not for the Ballymun road objectors?

Nope nothing to do with objectors . Government pulled the plug (aka never intended to build it)

magicbastarder

yeah, i happen to know one of the people used to do the research for the objections. hence the question - his attitude was 'thankfully the plans were dropped' rather than 'we made them change their plans'.

NiallBoo

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Nope nothing to do with objectors . Government pulled the plug (aka never intended to build it)

So...same reason Ballymum struggled in the first place? Government say they'll build everything needed for a community but bugger off when the houses are built? great.