M50 Congestion

LeinsterDub

Thargor wrote: »

I genuinely think ebikes are going to solve a big chunk of the problem, they're the absolute ideal solution and the technology improves every couple of months nevermind years. The only thing holding back mass adoption is people don't know how good they are, anyone who tries one is addicted straight away. The government should be incentivising the crap out of them.

I still commute on my roadbike because it keeps me thin and fit and Bray is just one big traffic disaster at peak times that I can cruise past but I'll be straight onto an ebike in a couple of decades when I start getting too old for manual.

The thing that holds them back is the same thing holding back regular bike and other PEV. Lack of infrastructure. The roads can be a horrible place to cycle

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

The thing that holds them back is the same thing holding back regular bike and other PEV. Lack of infrastructure. The roads can be a horrible place to cycle

The other thing holding them back is they are illegal on motorways

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

The other thing holding them back is they are illegal on motorways

I'm sure very few people want to cycle on a motorway

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

I'm sure very few people want to cycle on a motorway

So the suggestion that e bikes are the solution to M50 congestion might be flawed?

Thargor

M50 congestion is just a symptom of the ridiculous amount of single occupancy cars on our roads in Dublin, if we had cycling adoption even a fraction of our EU neighbors in the city centre it would solve the M50 problem at the same time, its the congestion at the exits and the destinations that backs up onto the motorway.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

So the suggestion that e bikes are the solution to M50 congestion might be flawed?

That majority of cars on the M50 are single occupancy transporting just themselves. Each person who takes up an e bike instead of driving is part of the solution

First Up

Thargor wrote:

M50 congestion is just a symptom of the ridiculous amount of single occupancy cars on our roads in Dublin, if we had cycling adoption even a fraction of our EU neighbors in the city centre it would solve the M50 problem at the same time, its the congestion at the exits and the destinations that backs up onto the motorway.

I'm all in favour of anything that reduces single occupancy car traffic in the city centre. I'd need a more detailed explanation as to how that helps reduce congestion at junctions on an orbital motorway like the M50.

ELM327

First Up wrote: »

The other thing holding them back is they are illegal on motorways

Some are illegal anyway.
Similar to the ridiculous e scooters


Illegal without tax, insurance, NCT, license

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

I'm all in favour of anything that reduces single occupancy car traffic in the city centre. I'd need a more detailed explanation as to how that helps reduce congestion at junctions on an orbital motorway like the M50.

OK make sure you're sitting down because this is very complicated and involves lots of higher order maths.

More people cycling means less people driving . Less people driving means less congestion.

Wow what do you know it's actually not complicated at all and there was no maths.

LeinsterDub

LeinsterDub wrote: »

OK may sure you're sitting down because this is very complicated and involves lots of higher order maths.

More people cycling means less people driving . Less people driving means less congestion. Less congestion means that driving becomes more attractive, which means more people driving.

Wow what do you know it's actually not complicated at all and there was no maths.

Fixed.

Lets not kid ourselves here, the vast majority of those who drive in/out of work are all for reducing congestion so that they can continue driving without there being as much traffic in their way.

MJohnston

First Up wrote: »

I'm all in favour of anything that reduces single occupancy car traffic in the city centre. I'd need a more detailed explanation as to how that helps reduce congestion at junctions on an orbital motorway like the M50.

It's pretty simple - a vast amount of cars on the M50 are not making orbital-only journeys.

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

More people cycling means less people driving . Less people driving means less congestion.

Thanks. Now can you apply that equation to the M50, where cycling is not allowed?

First Up

MJohnston wrote:

It's pretty simple - a vast amount of cars on the M50 are not making orbital-only journeys.

Probably, but they still need alternatives to using it, even if for only one or two junctions. Moving cars and trucks off the M50 ( a road designed to cater for them) onto suburban roads (which are not) is not solving the problem.

The M50 exists and is used for valid reasons and nobody need apologise for doing so. I'm just asking them to use it properly.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

Thanks. Now can you apply that equation to the M50, where cycling is not allowed?

Because if someone is on their bike they aren't on the m50 in their car now are they?

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

Probably, but they still need alternatives to using it, even if for only one or two junctions. Moving cars and trucks off the M50 ( a road designed to cater for them) onto suburban roads (which are not) is not solving the problem.

The M50 exists and is used for valid reasons and nobody need apologise for doing so. I'm just asking them to use it properly.

Perhaps moving these one or two junction users on to some form on 2 wheeled transport?

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

Because if someone is on their bike they aren't on the m50 in their car now are they?

They could avoid the M50 by staying in bed too but that has its drawbacks.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

They could avoid the M50 by staying in bed too but that has its drawbacks.

So does using the M50 , everything has benefits and drawbacks.

What exactly is you're objection, no one is saying you'll have to cycle. What we are saying is if you make cycling safer more people will cycle which will help congestion with a near 0 impact on you.

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

Perhaps moving these one or two junction users on to some form on 2 wheeled transport?

Fine, if those two junctions are a big part of the overall journey. Not so fine if it isn't.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

Fine, if those two junctions are a big part of the overall journey. Not so fine if it isn't.

When people talk about driving imagine how moronic it would be to say "well you can't drive to Australia can you! Ha ha."

We are talking about horses for courses, no one is saying cycling is for everyone , no one is saying you have to cycle everywhere .

What they are saying is that people are avoiding cycling because they don't feel safe and this is adding to congestion

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

What exactly is you're objection, no one is saying you'll have to cycle. What we are saying is if you make cycling safer more people will cycle which will help congestion with a near 0 impact on you.

I'm all in favour of people cycling but I'm not convinced it is the solution to congestion on a road where cycling is not allowed. Nor am I convinced cycling is a realistic alternative for many people using an orbital motorway.

MJohnston

First Up wrote: »

Probably, but they still need alternatives to using it, even if for only one or two junctions. Moving cars and trucks off the M50 ( a road designed to cater for them) onto suburban roads (which are not) is not solving the problem.

The M50 exists and is used for valid reasons and nobody need apologise for doing so. I'm just asking them to use it properly.

The main problem with trying to "solve" M50 congestion is that induced demand means that every car you remove from the road will just be replaced with another one. So there is no solution to that congestion.

What you can solve instead is the root problem - people are trying to make orbital journeys.

So we can start by adding lots of orbital bus routes that try to provide viable alternative options to driving in cars. Something BusConnects will start to do. Once those routes are in place, then you need to start removing road space from cars, and giving it to more sustainable and efficient modes.

In the meantime, encouraging people to adopt alternative means of transport like e-Bikes is a very valid approach. I saw today that a company called Moby Move is launching a stationless e-Bike rental scheme in the city. The councils of Dublin should be encouraging and stimulating more and more of those, to distances much further out from the city than schemes like Dublin Bikes currently provide. And they should be providing more cycling infrastructure to enable these schemes to become more useful to all.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

I'm all in favour of people cycling but I'm not convinced it is the solution to congestion on a road where cycling is not allowed. Nor am I convinced cycling is a realistic alternative for many people using an orbital motorway.

It's a realistic alternative for some people as such it would reduce congestion .
It's a realistic alternative for some people using the roads the M50 feeds into it and as such it would reduce congestion.
It's a realistic alternative for some people's children to get to school so they could take a bus as such it would reduce congestion .
It's a realistic alternative for some people currently taking a packed bus, this would allow people in cars to take the bus.

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

It's a realistic alternative for some people as such it would reduce congestion . It's a realistic alternative for some people using the roads the M50 feeds into it and as such it would reduce congestion. It's a realistic alternative for some people's children to get to school so they could take a bus as such it would reduce congestion . It's a realistic alternative for some people currently taking a packed bus, this would allow people in cars to take the bus.

All probably true but by enough to make much difference? The M50 traverses (and serves) outer suburbs, industrial estates and shopping centres as well as linking the main routes in/out of the city. None of those are areas designed or attractive for cycling.

The benefits of cycling are obvious but offering it as an M50 solution is hobby horsing.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

All probably true but by enough to make much difference? The M50 traverses (and serves) outer suburbs, industrial estates and shopping centres as well as linking the main routes in/out of the city. None of those are areas designed or attractive for cycling.

The benefits of cycling are obvious but offering it as an M50 solution is hobby horsing.

It's part of the solution , I didn't say it was the whole solution. To be honest the M50 is a case study in induced demand. It's congestion may never be solved , it might just get less congested.

MJohnston

So what are your alternatives?

Rubberchikken

maybe planners will need/be able to design roads with a lane only for vehicles with more than 1 occupant.

the number if single occupant cars is a symptom of of dire public transport/unwillingness of many to engage with the one we already have/and a desire to seal ourselves away from the world behind our car doors.

Elmer Blooker

Seve OB wrote: »

we are at the stage now where we need a new motorway, not in 10 years time, but now!
It needs to link M7 from Naas, through M4 @ Maynooth, M3 @ Dunboyne, M2 @ Ashbourne & M1 @ Balbriggan.

In theory a good idea if only those junctions were on this 'new M50' but in no time a local TD would be lobbying for an exit/entry in their constituency and the town centres with their gigantic car parks and multiplex cinemas would follow .... you know the rest!
This happened before when the Lissenhall junction at Swords wasn't in the original M1 plans but after lobbying Irish style the single occupant commuters got their way. Also the Irish are particularly good at trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

LeinsterDub

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

In theory a good idea if only those junctions were on this 'new M50' but in no time a local TD would be lobbying for an exit/entry in their constituency and the town centres with their gigantic car parks and multiplex cinemas would follow .... you know the rest!
This happened before when the Lissenhall junction at Swords wasn't in the original M1 plans but after lobbying Irish style the single occupant commuters got their way. Also the Irish are particularly good at trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Expecting more roads to solve congestion won't work

LeinsterDub

Rubberchikken wrote: »

maybe planners will need/be able to design roads with a lane only for vehicles with more than 1 occupant.

the number if single occupant cars is a symptom of of dire public transport/unwillingness of many to engage with the one we already have/and a desire to seal ourselves away from the world behind our car doors.

What if we took this idea one step further and they designed roads for large cars with many occupants we could call it a bus lane

ELM327

First Up wrote: »

They could avoid the M50 by staying in bed too but that has its drawbacks.

They could, but I don't think their employers would be too happy

magicbastarder

First Up wrote: »

Thanks. Now can you apply that equation to the M50, where cycling is not allowed?

i always said that the biggest trick they missed when widening the M50 is not putting a cycle lane at the top of the embankment (this is without quite having a plan for how they would deal with the interchanges).
i've known two people living in dublin 15 and working out near parkwest in the last few years. main street blanch to the fox and geese is a simple spin down the M50 (incurring a toll despite only passing one junction). but cycling there is another matter entirely, and only experienced cyclists would consider it.

if you want to get from say carpenterstown to liffey valley retail park (less than 2km as the crow flies), it's 10km walking or on the bike - and that would involve cycling on roads that many experienced cyclists would not enjoy cycling, let alone enticing non-cyclists to try it.

First Up

Highways in the US close to cities usually have "Diamond Lanes" that can only be used by cars with 3+ occupants. It encourages car pooling.

The M50 is a busy road because it serves an important purpose. That isn't going to change. When it works, it works reasonably well. Orbital motorways are needed and used all over the world.

Improved driving and less accidents would speed the M50 up considerably. No big spend needed on new roads, extra buses or abandoning cars for bikes. Just proper bloody driving (encouraged by drastic punishment for those who don't.)

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

Highways in the US close to cities usually have "Diamond Lanes" that can only be used by cars with 3+ occupants. It encourages car pooling.

The M50 is a busy road because it serves an important purpose. That isn't going to change. When it works, it works reasonably well. Orbital motorways are needed and used all over the world.

Improved driving and less accidents would speed the M50 up considerably. No big spend needed on new roads, extra buses or abandoning cars for bikes. Just proper bloody driving (encouraged by drastic punishment for those who don't.)

This is a pie in the sky solution. Motorist break the law at an alarming rate, even with anpr covering the entire M50 law breaking will still occur. Accidents will still occur.

The fact of the matter the cause of congestion is too many cars. Any 'solutions' that propose to solve it without decreasing the number of cars is a nonsense

MJohnston

First Up wrote: »

Highways in the US close to cities usually have "Diamond Lanes" that can only be used by cars with 3+ occupants. It encourages car pooling.

The M50 is a busy road because it serves an important purpose. That isn't going to change. When it works, it works reasonably well. Orbital motorways are needed and used all over the world.

Improved driving and less accidents would speed the M50 up considerably. No big spend needed on new roads, extra buses or abandoning cars for bikes. Just proper bloody driving (encouraged by drastic punishment for those who don't.)

Yeah, none of that will actually solve anything here though.

Carpooling might have some advantages, but it works in the US because there are bigger distances between exits. Most HOV/diamond lanes prevent you from exiting at every exit, for example, as they're generally intended as an express route from end to end. Those that don't generally have built extensive HOV exit bridges that would never happen in Ireland.

The majority of the congestion causing driving on the M50 is merely 'bad' driving, it is not illegal driving.

Hogging the middle lane? Basically not illegal, certainly not to any enforceable level.
Driving too close and having to brake for the cars in front, causing accordion effect congestion? Mostly not illegal, unless of course you're tailgating.
Not using the full length of the auxiliary lane to accelerate to motorway speeds before merging in and causing slowdowns? Not illegal.
etc. etc.

Accidents are also always going to happen - it's a country with frequent bad weather.

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

The fact of the matter the cause of congestion is too many cars. Any 'solutions' that propose to solve it without decreasing the number of cars is a nonsense

Decreasing the number of cars would help but not by nearly as much as cutting out the delays caused by bad driving.

Some peak time congestion is inevitable; its an important road doing an important job. Accidents and breakdowns are entirely avoidable and eliminating most of them is quicker, cheaper and more realistic than anything else that has been suggested.

First Up

MJohnston wrote:

The majority of the congestion causing driving on the M50 is merely 'bad' driving, it is not illegal driving.

Some of it is illegal but I agree; many Irish drivers don't understand how motorways work.

MJohnston wrote:

Hogging the middle lane? Basically not illegal, certainly not to any enforceable level. Driving too close and having to brake for the cars in front, causing accordion effect congestion? Mostly not illegal, unless of course you're tailgating. Not using the full length of the auxiliary lane to accelerate to motorway speeds before merging in and causing slowdowns? Not illegal. etc. etc.

Yes, all big contributors and I'd like to see a lot more effort go into education and enforcement.

MJohnston wrote:

Accidents are also always going to happen - it's a country with frequent bad weather.

Weather causes a tiny fraction of our accidents compared to bad/stupid driving.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

. Accidents and breakdowns are entirely avoidable and eliminating most of them is quicker, cheaper and more realistic than anything else that has been suggested.

You should sell this magical solution the government and help save hundreds of people are year. I'm eager to hear your solution to breakdowns. I'm wagering your solution involves some manner of crystal ball

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

You should sell this magical solution the government and help save hundreds of people are year. I'm eager to hear your solution to breakdowns. I'm wagering your solution involves some manner of crystal ball

Education, enforcement and drastic punishment.

It works.

ELM327

First Up wrote: »

Education, enforcement and drastic punishment.

It works.

This I agree with
The amount of awful driving i witness on the M3 and M50 is incredible

MJohnston

First Up wrote: »

Education, enforcement and drastic punishment.

Of what?

ELM327

MJohnston wrote: »

Of what?

Driving laws as mentioned above..

MJohnston

ELM327 wrote: »

Driving laws as mentioned above..

There were no driving laws mentioned above

LeinsterDub

MJohnston wrote: »

There were no driving laws mentioned above

I think we have to be reasonable here. A prescient police state is the simplest, best, most cost effective solution.

First Up

MJohnston wrote:

There were no driving laws mentioned above

Education on how motorways work, specifically on lane usage, braking distance and how to enter and exit

Enforcement of the above through cameras and patrols.

Punishment for bad driving causing accidents - and break downs caused by poor maintenance and running out of fuel. Towing charges, fines and penalty points

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

Education on how motorways work, specifically on lane usage, braking distance and how to enter and exit

Enforcement of the above through cameras and patrols.

Punishment for bad driving causing accidents - and break downs caused by poor maintenance and running out of fuel. Towing charges, fines and penalty points

This sounds like punishment after the fact. You told us we could avoid them altogether!

Enforced by who? An before you say AGS remember they don't care about all the rest of road user law breaking so why would they magical decide to care about your commute?

Stark

First Up wrote: »

Weather causes a tiny fraction of our accidents compared to bad/stupid driving.

Have to agree here. Though it sure gets used as an excuse a lot.

https://twitter.com/DubFireBrigade/status/1198024397480697858

Poor guy, guess it couldn't have been avoided, the roads were wet after all.

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

This sounds like punishment after the fact. You told us we could avoid them altogether!


Enforced by who? An before you say AGS remember they don't care about all the rest of road user law breaking so why would they magical decide to care about your commute?

Cameras would take care of most of it.

The threat of detection and drastic punishment changed drink driving habits a fair bit. It would on the M50 too.

Borgo

Maybe you should have to drive on the motorway as part of your test or as part of your lessons with your instructor. We drive around as a learner permit, pass the test, and thats it off you go, without any knowledge of the motorway. A couple of questions about the motorway in the RSA centre is not enough.

First Up

Borgo wrote:

Maybe you should have to drive on the motorway as part of your test or as part of your lessons with your instructor. We drive around as a learner permit, pass the test, and thats it off you go, without any knowledge of the motorway. A couple of questions about the motorway in the RSA centre is not enough.

Agree; the consequences of bad motorway driving are a lot worse than on the suburban roads where tests are usually conducted!

Borgo

Borgo wrote: »

Maybe you should have to drive on the motorway as part of your test or as part of your lessons with your instructor. We drive around as a learner permit, pass the test, and thats it off you go, without any knowledge of the motorway. A couple of questions about the motorway in the RSA centre is not enough.

It is not education, really, when it comes down to it. Almost everyone knows what they should be doing and how they should behave when they're on the M50 or whatever. There is practically zero enforcement, however. They just get into the habit of driving like pricks because it is almost consequence free 99.9% of the time.

Do something bad like stay in lane 3 and skip all the slowcoaches,
Nothing happens as a consequence,
In fact you seem to get there quicker,
Incorporate it into your regular driving habits,
Do something else bad like break the speed limit,
Rinse & repeat