N3 - Clonee to M50

donvito99

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The consultation is now closed. From a quick look at some of the submissions, most seem to be opposed to the project on environmental grounds and/or for similar reasons to that which I stated above.

My favour comment in a submission is definately; "Adding more lanes to ease traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity".

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Those kids and their funny memes.

Of course, the response to that could include "tightening your belt doesn't cure obesity, it just hurts you and ruins the belt" or "if a person at the age of 25 can't fit into the same clothes they wore when they were 5, that doesn't mean they're obese."

Growing cities need growing infrastructure. Hopefully there will be an objective, non-ideological review of this project, which will ultimately lead to a combination of improved PT and improved road capacity.

Well, they're not wrong. Much like the M50, there will be little observable improvement at off peak times and at peak the place will still be an expensive car park, only wider.

buffalo

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Those kids and their funny memes.

Of course, the response to that could include "tightening your belt doesn't cure obesity, it just hurts you and ruins the belt" or "if a person at the age of 25 can't fit into the same clothes they wore when they were 5, that doesn't mean they're obese."

Growing cities need growing infrastructure. Hopefully there will be an objective, non-ideological review of this project, which will ultimately lead to a combination of improved PT and improved road capacity.

You could improve PT now by making one of the existing lanes exclusively for PT, which would also improve capacity as it would carry far more passengers than single occupancy cars which dominate motor traffic. Cheap too!

Aontachtoir

buffalo wrote: »

You could improve PT now by making one of the existing lanes exclusively for PT, which would also improve capacity as it would carry far more passengers than single occupancy cars which dominate motor traffic. Cheap too!

I'm not sure reducing capacity is the best way to increase capacity, but maybe I've missed a memo. Is the theory that the only reason people aren't getting the bus now is because there isn't a fully continuous bus lane on this road, and that taking a lane away from everyone else would lead to such a major increase in bus use that traffic would actually go down?

IngazZagni

I don’t think an extra city bound lane would help but an additional outbound lane would be a great help. There’s quite a big pinch point with 4 lanes reducing to 2 lanes with cars merging, exiting and local castleknock to blanch traffic all using this small stretch. This pinch also causes traffic on the M50 southbound towards junction 6 with slow exiting traffic due to said buildups.
This would have been a priority to me over building an additional bridge at the N3 Snugbouough junction which is currently under construction.

buffalo

Aontachtoir wrote: »

I'm not sure reducing capacity is the best way to increase capacity, but maybe I've missed a memo. Is the theory that the only reason people aren't getting the bus now is because there isn't a fully continuous bus lane on this road, and that taking a lane away from everyone else would lead to such a major increase in bus use that traffic would actually go down?

Perhaps you need to specify what capacity you'd like to increase - people or vehicles?

Aontachtoir

buffalo wrote: »

Perhaps you need to specify what capacity you'd like to increase - people or vehicles?

I'm not sure what the meaningful difference is. We don't have self-driving buses/cars/taxis etc in this country. People are moved by vehicles, and vehicles move people. The more of one you move, the more of the other you must make room for.

buffalo

Aontachtoir wrote: »

I'm not sure what the meaningful difference is. We don't have self-driving buses/cars/taxis etc in this country. People are moved by vehicles, and vehicles move people. The more of one you move, the more of the other you must make room for.

The meaningful difference is the efficiency with which certain vehicles move people. Taking a lane for private cars and giving it to busses would increase capacity would reduce capacity for vehicles but increase the capacity for people significantly. These are figures from the US, but I imagine much the same for here:



Or here's a visual aid:

Aontachtoir

buffalo wrote: »

The meaningful difference is the efficiency with which certain vehicles move people. Taking a lane for private cars and giving it to busses would increase capacity would reduce capacity for vehicles but increase the capacity for people significantly. These are figures from the US, but I imagine much the same for here:

Or here's a visual aid

While I'm sure the Cycling Promotion Foundation is utterly objective and has no agenda of its own when it comes to directing transport investment, I'm not sure comparing a fully-loaded bus to uniformly single-occupant cars is an accurate reflection of Irish road use. It gets a great picture though.

Are the figures you quote for transport modalities based on real-world usage? Or are they what would happen in an ideal world? Transferring road capacity from private transport to PT only reduces traffic if everyone using that lost capacity moves to PT. How likely is that to happen?

buffalo

Aontachtoir wrote: »

While I'm sure the Cycling Promotion Foundation is utterly objective and has no agenda of its own when it comes to directing transport investment, I'm not sure comparing a fully-loaded bus to uniformly single-occupant cars is an accurate reflection of Irish road use. It gets a great picture though.

From my experience living in different parts of Dublin, it's a very accurate reflection of Irish road use for pre-Covid commutes. Packed busses, single occupancy cars for the vast majority.

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Transferring road capacity from private transport to PT only reduces traffic if everyone using that lost capacity moves to PT. How likely is that to happen?

Very unlikely if we keep expanding space for private traffic and don't provide continuous and prioritised bus lanes. We definitely won't be reach the "ideal world" that way.

riddlinrussell

Aontachtoir wrote: »

While I'm sure the Cycling Promotion Foundation is utterly objective and has no agenda of its own when it comes to directing transport investment, I'm not sure comparing a fully-loaded bus to uniformly single-occupant cars is an accurate reflection of Irish road use. It gets a great picture though.

Are the figures you quote for transport modalities based on real-world usage? Or are they what would happen in an ideal world? Transferring road capacity from private transport to PT only reduces traffic if everyone using that lost capacity moves to PT. How likely is that to happen?

If you have a continuous, dedicated, enforced bus lane all the way into a town, then the journey by bus becomes reliable, predictable and efficient.

The key factor in getting people to switch modes is a combination of reliability and frequency, if you know you will show up ad a bus stop and the bus will arrive when it says it will, and if you miss one then another will be there in 5/10/15 minutes then you are more likely to take the bus.

If you can then make fare structures easier (say like a 90 minute fare across transport modes) and dedicated routes mean every bus always takes 10/20/30 minutes to get you to town, then a large proportion of people will chose the bus over fluctuating car travel times.

You might not get everyone to shift, but nobody is trying to get every car off the road, just the ones that don't absolutely 'need' to be there.

KrisW1001

“Uniformly single-occupant cars” is precisely the problem. The typically-loaded bus is over six times more efficient in terms of road usage than a typically loaded private car*.

Occupancy is a big factor. Private cars have a fairly constant occupancy rate: You have 1.1 persons per car at rush-hour, and the same 1.1 persons per vehicle average for off peak and in the evenings. What happens in peak periods is you get more cars, which requires more road-space.

Buses and other public transport are different: they hit higher loading factors at peak times, so that each 60-passegner bus could be carrying 50+ people in the peak period, in the same space that would be taken by just three cars carrying 3.5 persons on average.

Basically, private car is the least efficient way of satisfying high demand for personal transport.

Turning one lane of three into a dedicated bus lane doesn’t actually reduce total throughput because you’re replacing the least efficient type of traffic with one that is six times as efficient in its worst case.

__
* here's the calculation for that:

A typical private car is 4.8 m long on average, and on average carries 1.1 persons. 0.23 persons per lane-metre. Fill all the seats, and you can reach 1 person per lane-metre. Make it a 7-seater, and you'll hit 1.2 per lane-metre (I’ve allowed for the longer vehicle length).

One standard 12 m bus can hold 60 people (40 seated, 20 standing) when full, but normal loading is around 30-40%. Using the lower end of that range, you get 18 people in 12 metres of road lane: 1.5 persons per lane-metre. Take 40% loading, and it’s 2.0 persons per lane-metre. At peak times, when 90% loading is common, you’re up to 4.5 persons per lane-metre, while private cars are carrying just 0.23 persons per lane-metre.

Aontachtoir

KrisW1001 wrote: »

“

Occupancy is a big factor. Private cars have a fairly constant occupancy rate: You have 1.1 persons per car at rush-hour, and the same 1.1 persons per vehicle average for off peak and in the evenings. What happens in peak periods is you get more cars, which requires more road-space.

I do understand the benefits of PT. While private cars are less efficient at moving mass populations than buses, they remain by far the most convenient and comfortable way of moving people, which is the main reason people use them so heavily. As long as any solution bears that in mind (to a greater extent than simply "punish the sinners until they repent and take the bus") I don't really mind what they do. Build bus lanes all across the city, rip up as many gardens and cut down as many trees as they feel they need to, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. But don't deliberately make it harder for people to get themselves from A to B just because buses can't compete with the convenience and comfort of the private car.

riddlinrussell wrote: »

If you have a continuous, dedicated, enforced bus lane all the way into a town, then the journey by bus becomes reliable, predictable and efficient.

The key factor in getting people to switch modes is a combination of reliability and frequency, if you know you will show up ad a bus stop and the bus will arrive when it says it will, and if you miss one then another will be there in 5/10/15 minutes then you are more likely to take the bus.

If you can then make fare structures easier (say like a 90 minute fare across transport modes) and dedicated routes mean every bus always takes 10/20/30 minutes to get you to town, then a large proportion of people will chose the bus over fluctuating car travel times.

You might not get everyone to shift, but nobody is trying to get every car off the road, just the ones that don't absolutely 'need' to be there.

All in favour of more reliable public transport. At the end of the day, all that is important to me is that it is done with respect for other road users. As long as people whose needs are not well served by the bus aren't forced to sit in needlessly worsened traffic after traffic lanes are taken away, and as long as infrastructure is appropriately expanded with the city's population, I don't really mind what the city planners do.

Seth Brundle

Aontachtoir wrote: »

I do understand the benefits of PT. While private cars are less efficient at moving mass populations than buses, they remain by far the most convenient and comfortable way of moving people, which is the main reason people use them so heavily. As long as any solution bears that in mind (to a greater extent than simply "punish the sinners until they repent and take the bus") I don't really mind what they do. Build bus lanes all across the city, rip up as many gardens and cut down as many trees as they feel they need to, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. But don't deliberately make it harder for people to get themselves from A to B just because buses can't compete with the convenience and comfort of the private car.

The private car is not an efficient mode of transport within a city. There are no ifs or buts about this.
For this reason, cities across the world are re-prioritising the available space away from cars and towards public transport and active travel.
In Dublin, less people commute by car yet they are given the majority of road space. They frequently cause delays to public transport by blocking bus lanes, etc.

Aontachtoir wrote: »

All in favour of more reliable public transport. At the end of the day, all that is important to me is that it is done with respect for other road users. As long as people whose needs are not well served by the bus aren't forced to sit in needlessly worsened traffic after traffic lanes are taken away, and as long as infrastructure is appropriately expanded with the city's population, I don't really mind what the city planners do.

Any "needlessly worsened traffic" would be as a direct result of those who make a conscious choice to take a car, not those who are availing of an efficient public transport system.
What you describe as "traffic lanes" are lanes for all road users, not just cars. If some of that space is "taken away" as you phrase it, then it is not actually taken away but repurposed in favour of a more efficient way to move people.

donvito99

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Build bus lanes all across the city, rip up as many gardens and cut down as many trees as they feel they need to, that doesn't bother me in the slightest.

This is the issue with the free reign to private cars point of view however. There is an enormous cost (congestion, actual infrastructure, pollution, aesthetic) associated with being able to drive on every single road, or to have more than one general traffic lane in each direction on every single road.

All in favour of more reliable public transport. At the end of the day, all that is important to me is that it is done with respect for other road users. As long as people whose needs are not well served by the bus aren't forced to sit in needlessly worsened traffic after traffic lanes are taken away, and as long as infrastructure is appropriately expanded with the city's population, I don't really mind what the city planners do.

But that's not fair though, fairness would be preserving access to all, within reason.

It's not fair to say "we'll only do proper public transport if it means I can drive everywhere I currently drive, park everywhere I currently park" as that undermines the bus service, which carries half of all people into the city, whereas private cars carry less than one third.

It comes down to cost. The cost to giving cars free reign, and having excellent public transport, is enormous. The cost to giving over road space on critical routes to the efficient (and to some, less convenient) modes is nothing by comparison. We are always strapped for cash, so the latter must prevail.

KrisW1001

Park and Ride is the answer for “people whose needs are not well served by bus”. Drive to the nearest bus-park, and complete your journey by bus.

The idea that you should be able to get in your car and drive thirty miles from your house to your car parking space in the city is a fantasy that ignores the tens of thousands of other people who would also want to do just that.

Seth Brundle

KrisW1001 wrote: »

Park and Ride is the answer for “people whose needs are not well served by bus”. Drive to the nearest bus-park, and complete your journey by bus.

You'll never have a good public transit system when people in cars are prioritised.
This is why BusConnects has been watered down so much. NIMBY politicians listening to the loud but minority of residents against any inconvenience imposed on them.

Aontachtoir

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Any "needlessly worsened traffic" would be as a direct result of those who make a conscious choice to take a car, not those who are availing of an efficient public transport system.
What you describe as "traffic lanes" are lanes for all road users, not just cars. If some of that space is "taken away" as you phrase it, then it is not actually taken away but repurposed in favour of a more efficient way to move people.

Ah now. If I took away half the buses on a busy bus route and put it a few bike stations, would it be fair to say that the fact that the buses are now extra-overloaded is the direct result of bus riders making a conscious choice not to cycle?

I phrase it as "taking away" because that's what it is. If I have two lanes that I can use today, and only one tomorrow, a lane has been taken away from me and other non-bus road users. If the bus doesn't come from where I am coming from and doesn't go where I want it go, then it's not moving me.

KrisW1001 wrote: »

Park and Ride is the answer for “people whose needs are not well served by bus”. Drive to the nearest bus-park, and complete your journey by bus.

The idea that you should be able to get in your car and drive thirty miles from your house to your car parking space in the city is a fantasy that ignores the tens of thousands of other people who would also want to do just that.

Park and Rides only help people whose destinations are on the bus route. They don't do much for the rest of us.

The "fantasy" you describe is what takes place every day in cities and towns across the country (and the developed world as a whole) as it has for decades. A functioning modern transport system should be geared towards making that process easier, not harder. Turning back the clock to a time before personal mobility is neither realistic nor desirable. Private cars will always be part of the transport landscape, because they offer so much more convenience and comfort than public transport ever can.

donvito99

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Park and Rides only help people whose destinations are on the bus route. They don't do much for the rest of us.

The "rest of us" are in the minority in Dublin when it comes to the journeys park and rides are designed to serve - outskirts to city centre.

The "fantasy" you describe is what takes place every day in cities and towns across the country (and the developed world as a whole) as it has for decades. A functioning modern transport system should be geared towards making that process easier, not harder. Turning back the clock to a time before personal mobility is neither realistic nor desirable. Private cars will always be part of the transport landscape, because they offer so much more convenience and comfort than public transport ever can.

You're exactly right, and space should still be made for it. Just less space to deliver the public transport system you desire.

KrisW1001

Park and Rides only help people whose destinations are on the bus route. They don't do much for the rest of us.

The "fantasy" you describe is what takes place every day in cities and towns across the country (and the developed world as a whole) as it has for decades. A functioning modern transport system should be geared towards making that process easier, not harder. Turning back the clock to a time before personal mobility is neither realistic nor desirable. Private cars will always be part of the transport landscape, because they offer so much more convenience and comfort than public transport ever can.

We are talking about the N3 Clonee to M50 here. The majority of journeys using this stretch of road will terminate in Dublin city at locations already served by buses.

But it's pretty clear you don't agree, so speak up: what would you do to improve the current situation here?

cgcsb

Aontachtoir wrote: »

While I'm sure the Cycling Promotion Foundation is utterly objective and has no agenda of its own when it comes to directing transport investment, I'm not sure comparing a fully-loaded bus to uniformly single-occupant cars is an accurate reflection of Irish road use. It gets a great picture though.

Average car occupancy is 1.2 people. And the peak hour capacity of 90 people per Double decker bus was frequently exceeded in peak hours in 2019. Passengers being left at bus stops was/is common

cgcsb

Aontachtoir wrote: »

I do understand the benefits of PT. While private cars are less efficient at moving mass populations than buses, they remain by far the most convenient and comfortable way of moving people, which is the main reason people use them so heavily. As long as any solution bears that in mind (to a greater extent than simply "punish the sinners until they repent and take the bus") I don't really mind what they do. Build bus lanes all across the city, rip up as many gardens and cut down as many trees as they feel they need to, that doesn't bother me in the slightest. But don't deliberately make it harder for people to get themselves from A to B just because buses can't compete with the convenience and comfort of the private car.

People in Dublin have generally responded negatively to tree cutting and positively re-allocating road space to bus and cycleways. There is often little choice in Dublin. Most roads can't be widened so the space has to come from the least efficient road user.

Aontachtoir

cgcsb wrote: »

People in Dublin have generally responded negatively to tree cutting and positively re-allocating road space to bus and cycleways. There is often little choice in Dublin. Most roads can't be widened so the space has to come from the least efficient road user.

If the people of Dublin oppose both tree cutting and taking away road space, why does this mean that we must take away road space? Cut down trees and dig up gardens as needed, like Bus Connects originally called for before being watered down.

KrisW1001 wrote: »

We are talking about the N3 Clonee to M50 here. The majority of journeys using this stretch of road will terminate in Dublin city at locations already served by buses.

But it's pretty clear you don't agree, so speak up: what would you do to improve the current situation here?

Well, if we are now restricting discussion to this section of the N3, I am fine with the Emerging Preferred Option laid out by Fingal County Council in the thread above.

If we are talking about general aligned investments, I am in favour of implementing Bus Connects as it was initially proposed. I would also suggest looking into allowing non-single user cars (at least 2 or 3 occupants) to use bus lanes. We already allow taxis to use bus lanes, so if the problem with private cars is low capacity (and I accept that as a valid criticism), then incentivise increased passenger density in private cars.

cgcsb

Aontachtoir wrote: »

If the people of Dublin oppose both tree cutting and taking away road space, why does this mean that we must take away road space? Cut down trees and dig up gardens as needed, like Bus Connects originally called for before being watered down.

Like I said, people are against tree cutting and in favor of removing road space for cars. so that's what's happening. See Inchicore as an example where residents campaigned for, and got, less parking and a one way system for cars in order to prevent tree cutting.

riddlinrussell

Aontachtoir wrote: »

II would also suggest looking into allowing non-single user cars (at least 2 or 3 occupants) to use bus lanes. We already allow taxis to use bus lanes, so if the problem with private cars is low capacity (and I accept that as a valid criticism), then incentivise increased passenger density in private cars.

More cars in bus lanes is going the wrong way, ban taxis from bus lanes if they aren't disability accessible, like how it works in the UK

spacetweek

Aontachtoir wrote: »

I would also suggest looking into allowing non-single user cars (at least 2 or 3 occupants) to use bus lanes. We already allow taxis to use bus lanes, so if the problem with private cars is low capacity (and I accept that as a valid criticism), then incentivise increased passenger density in private cars.

Too hard to enforce and people would take the piss. In fact allowing taxis in there should never have been done and should be reversed once BusConnects/DART+/Metrolink are done.

The Dark Knight

spacetweek wrote: »

Too hard to enforce and people would take the piss.....

There are stories for people using blow up dolls in carpool lanes in the US.

But.....€500 fines for breaking the rules may help with enforcement here.
I think it's a great idea and we should have done this years ago. 4 people = use bus lane at peak times.

markpb

The Dark Knight wrote: »

There are stories for people using blow up dolls in carpool lanes in the US.

But.....€500 fines for breaking the rules may help with enforcement here.
I think it's a great idea and we should have done this years ago. 4 people = use bus lane at peak times.

It’s a demonstrably terrible idea. Three cars with four people takes up more road space than a bus with over one hundred people. It wouldn’t take many cars in the bus lane to cause congestion holding up the bus or buses behind. That’s before you factor in the piss-takers abusing it and the waste of AGS time enforcing it. Then the delay and danger to cyclists who are also trying to use the bus lane and the additional lane changes at junctions when non-HOV cars are trying to merge in to turn left.

CatInABox

markpb wrote: »

It’s a demonstrably terrible idea. Three cars with four people takes up more road space than a bus with over one hundred people. It wouldn’t take many cars in the bus lane to cause congestion holding up the bus or buses behind. That’s before you factor in the piss-takers abusing it and the waste of AGS time enforcing it. Then the delay and danger to cyclists who are also trying to use the bus lane and the additional lane changes at junctions when non-HOV cars are trying to merge in to turn left.

It won't be a waste of AGS time enforcing it, because AGS won't waste their time enforcing it. It'd just be another rule that AGS ignore, or use their famous "discretion" on, just like they use on parking at the moment.

Cars in the bus lanes is a terrible idea, one which reduces the capacity of a bus lane severely without any significant benefit.

Pete_Cavan

Surely the logical thing for the N3 between Clonee and M50 would be to have a dedicated bus lane, a HOV lane and a general traffic lane. It could operate at peak times only. Suggesting that cars, regardless of occupancy, should be allowed to use a bus lane when they already have two lanes available to them is beyond stupid.

Aontachtoir

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Surely the logical thing for the N3 between Clonee and M50 would be to have a dedicated bus lane, a HOV lane and a general traffic lane. It could operate at peak times only. Suggesting that cars, regardless of occupancy, should be allowed to use a bus lane when they already have two lanes available to them is beyond stupid.

I don't think anyone is saying that cars should be able to use bus lanes regardless of occupancy, only cars with a certain number of passengers. Two lanes is not enough for a major artery that carries thousands of commuters. That's why we're discussing widening the road.

Besides, isn't a bus lane sitting relatively unused a waste of road space? There will be a bus or two passing every few minutes, sure, but the rest of the time the lane will sit empty even if the other lanes are immobile. That doesn't seem like the most efficient use of space. Giving some benefits to HOVs would help to increase passenger density in private cars. If enforcement is a problem, then invest in enforcement. A couple of highly visible cameras and high fines will help nicely.

Seth Brundle

Aontachtoir wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying that cars should be able to use bus lanes regardless of occupancy, only cars with a certain number of passengers. Two lanes is not enough for a major artery that carries thousands of commuters. That's why we're discussing widening the road.

Making a road wider will only create induced demand. It is unlikely to actually relieve congestion unless the bottlenecks ahead are all removed.

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Besides, isn't a bus lane sitting relatively unused a waste of road space? There will be a bus or two passing every few minutes, sure, but the rest of the time the lane will sit empty even if the other lanes are immobile. That doesn't seem like the most efficient use of space. Giving some benefits to HOVs would help to increase passenger density in private cars. If enforcement is a problem, then invest in enforcement. A couple of highly visible cameras and high fines will help nicely.

1. bus lanes appear empty simply because the permitted vehicles can move freely. It is not "relatively unused" or "a waste of space" - it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
2. As for HOV vehicles - these should not be permitted in bus lanes nor (should anyone mention it) should electric vehicles. There is no plausible reason why a car carrying a family should be allowed take up space reserved for a large PSV such as a bus.
The demands on enforcing this make it pointless - it would need to be a manual check - and like current bus lanes rules, it would be routinely ignored by some drivers.
3. Get taxis out of all bus lanes now. Absolutely no reason why a driver should be allowed in a bus lane in order to find a passenger and then drive said passenger to their destination. They are worse than a standard car given that much of their time is looking for fares.

markpb

Aontachtoir wrote: »

Besides, isn't a bus lane sitting relatively unused a waste of road space? There will be a bus or two passing every few minutes, sure, but the rest of the time the lane will sit empty even if the other lanes are immobile

Those two buses could be carrying over 200 people.

Plus: queueing theory, it’s not as intuitive as it seems. Do you believe that a slow-but-moving M50 is an efficient use of road space?

KrisW1001

Allowing taxis to use bus lanes reduces demand for private-car parking in cities, where land is expensive and could be put to more productive use. Taxis are an important part of a public transport system, as they fill the short, point-to-point journeys that scheduled bus services can’t.

HOV lanes are not a viable solution for roads in Ireland. A HOV policy would have no effect on the “school drop” traffic that increases load during mornings, as all of this is, by definition, a 2+ occupancy, and may increase traffic by incentivising school-run drivers to use the roads with HOV lanes. There’s also the problem of road space: in places where there are HOV lanes on the roads, those roads tend to be very wide already (4+ lanes per carriageway).

HOV enforcement is not really the problem it’s made out to be, but you have to take a “carrot” rather than “stick” approach, so rather than fining single-occupant vehicle drivers, you instead provide discounts on road charges for high-occupancy drivers. (This approach is used in several US states)

Speaking of charging, the place where you could see occupancy bonuses work in Ireland is in congestion charging. I would not rule out congestion pricing in Dublin in the next 10 years or so, with the money raised being re-invested into mass transportation. Road user pricing (effectively multiple smaller tolls on roads like M50) is also something that could happen. That might actually fix some of the problems on roads around the M50 J7 and J6, where drivers divert to avoid the tolling point.

Seth Brundle

KrisW1001 wrote: »

Allowing taxis to use bus lanes reduces demand for private-car parking in cities, where land is expensive and could be put to more productive use. Taxis are an important part of a public transport system, as they fill the short, point-to-point journeys that scheduled bus services can’t.

Is there any actual evidence that they are important and reduce private car parking or is this your opinion?

Aontachtoir

markpb wrote: »

Those two buses could be carrying over 200 people.

Plus: queueing theory, it’s not as intuitive as it seems. Do you believe that a slow-but-moving M50 is an efficient use of road space?

To be honest, I don't know the details. I would have to rely on experts to tell me if a slow-but-moving M50 moves people faster overall than a stop-start one. Same with whether or not allowing HOVs into the bus lane would have an overall positive or negative affect in terms of journey times for the average road user.

KrisW1001

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Is there any actual evidence that they are important and reduce private car parking or is this your opinion?

Is there evidence that they’re important? If you’re in doubt that taxis are an essential part of a city’s public transport infrastructure, you should talk to people who live in cities and don’t own a car.

It’s my opinion that the availability of taxis reduces demand for private parking in city centres, but it shouldn’t be hard to see why. Take fast taxi journeys out of the picture, and city dwellers will find themselves pushed into buying a car for those occasional trips that are difficult to make on scheduled public transport. That car will then spend most of its time parked somewhere.

markpb

KrisW1001 wrote: »

It’s my opinion that the availability of taxis reduces demand for private parking in city centres, but it shouldn’t be hard to see why. Take fast taxi journeys out of the picture, and city dwellers will find themselves pushed into buying a car for those occasional trips that are difficult to make on scheduled public transport. That car will then spend most of its time parked somewhere.

People without cars can still take taxis that drive in normal lanes. I understand that taxis being able to use the bus lanes is an appealing thing but people are also happy to use car sharing businesses in lieu of car ownership and those cars aren't allowed drive in bus lanes.

Sam Russell

markpb wrote: »

People without cars can still take taxis that drive in normal lanes. I understand that taxis being able to use the bus lanes is an appealing thing but people are also happy to use car sharing businesses in lieu of car ownership and those cars aren't allowed drive in bus lanes.

But those car sharing cars (GoCar) can park legally in Dublin for free, so quite an incentive. If their numbers of cars and subscribers were to increase to the level where they operate like Dublin Bikes, they become more user friendly. It then becomes used for going from A to B instead of A to B and back to A before the driver can sign off.

I think they could transform city traffic, along with the e-scooter. All that is needed then is Metro, and congestion charging.

Seth Brundle

KrisW1001 wrote: »

It’s my opinion that the availability of taxis reduces demand for private parking in city centres, but it shouldn’t be hard to see why. Take fast taxi journeys out of the picture, and city dwellers will find themselves pushed into buying a car for those occasional trips that are difficult to make on scheduled public transport. That car will then spend most of its time parked somewhere.

A taxi replacing someone needing to own a car is not the same as creating a false entitlement for that taxi to use a bus lane.

Aontachtoir

Seth Brundle wrote: »

A taxi replacing someone needing to own a car is not the same as creating a false entitlement for that taxi to use a bus lane.

That's an odd way to put it. A taxi's entitlement to use a bus lane comes from the same place as a bus - traffic regulations. If one entitlement is false, so is the other.

Sam Russell wrote: »

But those car sharing cars (GoCar) can park legally in Dublin for free, so quite an incentive. If their numbers of cars and subscribers were to increase to the level where they operate like Dublin Bikes, they become more user friendly. It then becomes used for going from A to B instead of A to B and back to A before the driver can sign off.

I think they could transform city traffic, along with the e-scooter. All that is needed then is Metro, and congestion charging.

The number of cars needed to achieve that amount of convenience (drop it and leave it wherever you want) would need rather a lot of parking spaces, no? I know you're keen on the e-scooters, and I've been to places where there are swarms of them on the streets (Austin, Texas was like a hive when I was there, to the extent that e-scooters were a menace). Even there where e-scooters are incredibly accessible, they were used mostly by college students or the more athletic people who would probably have otherwise cycled, and the roads were still busy. I just don't know how much of a margin there is for e-scooters. Some people will use them, definitely. But how many of them do you think would be people who would otherwise have driven?

Pete_Cavan

So the Option Selection Report for N3 M50 to Clonee has now been published. This is the justification for adding another traffic lane in the hope of solving congestion, this is one report which is well suited to its future role as a dust collector on a shelf, unfortunately it will be joining other reports which should be actioned.

https://consult.fingal.ie/en/consultation/n3-m50-clonee-option-selection-report-june-2022

About the only positive thing I can see there (and I haven't looked too closely) is the proposed closure of private entrances along the N3.

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119271525#Comment_119271525

The extra lanes here are critical and fully justified. It doesn't go far enough but we'll take it for now.

No motorway, which presumably this will be redesignated to, should have two lanes in the GDA. 3 minimum.

spacetweek

I'm really not bothered if the 3-laning happens or not. I'm more interested in the junction upgrades and closure of bad access arrangements. If that was all they ended up building I'd be happy.

However I'm not happy they are keeping the left-in-left-out at Parslickstown. This was never a good enough arrangement and the roads here should have fed into the nearby grade-separated junction. Here's a quote from the Existing Junction Analysis Appendix:

https://consult.fingal.ie/en/system/files/materials/30515/App%20C%20-%20Existing%20Junction%20Analysis.pdf

"It is proposed to retain Parslickstown Junction with only minor alignment changes to the traffic island to facilitate three lanes on the main carriageway. The closure of private entrances along the N3 corridor is to be carried out by providing alternative access arrangements to the rear of the properties and land holdings (See Figure 4.2). The closure of these entrances is necessary so as to not prejudice the re-classification of the N3 to motorway.

However, other departures from standard resulting from the proximity of Junction 4a will be required to retain the junction layout in general if the N3 is to be designated as a motorway eastward beyond the existing end of motorway at Junction 4a."

This is interesting as I'd been hoping they would reclassify Clonee-M50 as motorway but didn't know they were still considering it.

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119273061#Comment_119273061

Closing the gaps around Dublin in the radial motorways is a logical step. It's protects the routes from unwise adjacent development with access and enhances safety.

veryangryman

🙄We need 12 lane highways like the utopia in the US, right?

SeanW

Not for me, but a contiguous motorway network would be a good start.

markpb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119292955#Comment_119292955

The idea that adding lanes to “fix” congestion is how you end up with 12 lane roads. You add more lanes, you get more congestion so you add more lanes. Each time you think this is the one that will fix it.

The M50 is already 8 lanes wide in parts and 12 if you consider the motorway and it’s ancillary roads around Sandyford. That €1bn that we spent a few years ago did very little to fix congestion.

markpb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119293540#Comment_119293540

I don’t believe that adding additional lanes will do anything positive. But there are plenty of other options once we remember that moving people is important, moving cars is not.

marno21

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119293478#Comment_119293478

The M50 is 4 lanes wide there, 6 to the west where there’s lane drops. You can’t count slip roads as capacity increases because they’re ultimately constrained by the capacity of the mainline.

markpb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119294546#Comment_119294546

That’s a bit obtuse. Longer exit slip lanes absolutely add capacity by preventing queues at the exit from affecting the mainline. The construction of a 2x2 lane DC between Dundrum and Sandyford along with the segregated on/off ramps also increases capacity on the motorway. Do you think they were built for the craic?

In either case, adding more lanes to urban roads does not help in the long run. It’s been proven time and time again.