Meeting tonight Jan. 26th re: M50 tolls (Shane Ross)

DubTony

Shane Ross has organised a meeting tonight in the Red Cow Hotel regarding his campaign to remove M50 tolls.

http://www.shane-ross.ie/m50.htm

To me, some of Ross's arguments are confusing. On one hand he wants the tolls removed completely. Prior to that happening he wants the toll put back to €1.50 (like that will make a difference to traffic).

His argument that the M50 was originally desigend to alleviate traffic in the city is correct. However, irrespective of why the M50 was built, it exists today as a way to go from one point to another by people who would have used local roads along it's route and has little to do with alleviating Dublin city traffic.

Should it be tolled? Absolutely. Otherwise it will be permanent car park. The real issue is HOW it is tolled. Problem is that a faster system of tolling could not possibly be introduced until the junctions are upgraded to freeflow, and the connecting roads are upgraded to allow traffic to leave the M50 safely and quickly.

Tonight's meeting should be interesting. I hope to attend.

Tony

chewy

are there many people against (or for ) tolls on the m50 or elsewhere, I noticed alot fo reports from BBC about campaigns against toll in Wales

antoinolachtnai

What happened at this meeting? Did the whole thing become clearer?

It strikes me that if EUR 400m were to be invested in the M50, it would make more sense to either put in a public transport system out there (you could put 400 buses on the road for eight years for that!) or else rebuild some of the junctions (or both).

It doesn't make much sense to buy something that has already been built.

Antoin.

ishmael whale

One way or the other the public will have to go on paying for the bridge, although it has been well paid for at this stage. So the €400 million is already gone. It stings that we've to pay so much over the odds for the Westlink, but the damage is done. The only question is whether there is also a need to erect a roadblock on the M50.

Paying it off in a lump sum at least removes the congestion at this point, and saves whatever marginal amount it costs to collect the toll. Lost Government revenue can be made up by simply increasing motor tax, or some other method which raises money without requiring people to waste time queuing.

antoinolachtnai

But if you removed the toll, you'd just move the bottleneck up to the motorway exits, surely? This is what the NTR people say would happen. Listening to the evidence, i would say they are probably right.

Do you not think even more people would drive via the M50 if there wasn't a big toll on it?

Zaph0d

What is the €400m? Is this the cost of buying out NTR's right to toll the M50?

Nuttzz

antoinolachtnai wrote:

But if you removed the toll, you'd just move the bottleneck up to the motorway exits, surely? This is what the NTR people say would happen. Listening to the evidence, i would say they are probably right.

Do you not think even more people would drive via the M50 if there wasn't a big toll on it?

what evidence? One of the things that was raised by the AA was an idea to lift the barriers at peak times and see the effect, all thats happening at the moment is that each side is comparing consultants reports. After a week of the barriers been lifted we would see who was right and who was wrong

ishmael whale

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Do you not think even more people would drive via the M50 if there wasn't a big toll on it?

They probably would, and if the toll gates were gone it the M50 's capacity would be improved.

I wouldn't put too much store on NTR's claims that they're contributing to traffic management. They're not exactly impartial observers. When you consider the length of the queue at the toll gates I think its clear they are blocking up a piece of key infrastructure rather than contributing to better traffic flows.

antoinolachtnai

Well, are there actually any studies which show that the capacity would really be improved? Has anybody really done the sums on this?

How much do you think the traffic volumes would increase if the road was untolled? I reckon that it would probably increase by 60 or 70 percent within a year.

I doubt if the rest of the road could take the extra volume. But I would be interested to see the sums.

jesus_thats_gre

Its blatantly obvious that the existing toll gates cause the problems on the M50.. The existing method of collecting toles is simply too slow to cope with the amount of traffic that join the end of the toll gate queue during peak periods.. Once you are past the toll gates, the traffic is pretty much always free flowing, moving at least!

ishmael whale

I utterly agree with the need for hard facts in any debate, but as pointed out above by jesus_thats_gre it really is intuitively clear that the collection of the toll is the problem. If there’s really any doubt about this it could be laid to rest by lifting the barriers for even a day.

http://www.shane-ross.ie/m50.htm

There’s an interview from Newstalk at this link where Shane Ross gives his account of the meeting. He says about 200 people turned up including commuters, hauliers, ISME and they intend to establish a committee in the next ten days to plan action from here on. He mentioned that Councillor Catherine Murphy, independent Kildare bye-election candidate, attended and expressed support for the campaign.

murphaph

ishmael whale wrote:

He mentioned that Councillor Catherine Murphy, independent Kildare bye-election candidate, attended and expressed support for the campaign.

As politicians always do when they're seeking election. I actually disagree that the toll collection is responsible for all the chaos on the M50. When travelling southbound most workday morning the congestion is chronic between N4 and N7 (think it's junctions 7 and 9). Having said that, the bridge is a common or garden bridge that does not merit a damn toll. Did the Lynch tunnel cost more than the bridge? I bet it did. The best solution to traffic congestion is Rail transport.

LFCFan

the fact that NTR refuse to lift the barriers for a while to see the effect shows that they are worried that it will lead to an improvement and then prove the theory right that removing the toll will help traffic congestion. Is there an investigation into the original contract? Surely questions have to be raised when we see who was involved in the contract negotiations.

Dominik

Check this site out for news and information on the M50 tolling saga, you can even join in the fun

www.m50roadblock.com

Dominik

Nuttzz

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Well, are there actually any studies which show that the capacity would really be improved? Has anybody really done the sums on this?

How much do you think the traffic volumes would increase if the road was untolled? I reckon that it would probably increase by 60 or 70 percent within a year.

I doubt if the rest of the road could take the extra volume. But I would be interested to see the sums.

studies me arse, lift the tolls for a 2 week period and see what happens, its all the "study" you need :rolleyes:

antoinolachtnai

LFCFan wrote:

the fact that NTR refuse to lift the barriers for a while to see the effect shows that they are worried that it will lead to an improvement and then prove the theory right that removing the toll will help traffic congestion. Is there an investigation into the original contract? Surely questions have to be raised when we see who was involved in the contract negotiations.

Well, NTR has to be paid one way or the other, so I wouldn't think they will care much whether the toll is collected using a barrier or not.

In fact, if they could get more vehicles through there, it would be better for them, because they'd make even more money.

ishmael whale

I’m sure NTR are reasonably neutral as to whether they get a paid a lump sum to buy them out or whether they just go on charging a toll until bought out. It’s the people impacted by the delays that gain from lifting the toll gates.

An alternative interpretation of the present situation is that NTR have a roadblock on a key route and users have no simple alternative other than to use it. NTR therefore have no particular incentive to increase the efficiency of the tolling as they have a captive audience.

The bottom line all the time is that the toll collection creates the congestion on the bridge. Removing it relieves that congestion.

Metrobest

What is Shane Ross up to? Removing the tolls on the M50 is the most non-sensical thing I have ever heard. Shane Ross may know a thing or two about politics, but he knows absolutely nothing about traffic management, not to mention market economics.

The toll bridge is the only thing saving the M50 from utter gridlock. There are huge amounts of people who, every day, take alternative routes to avoid the toll. Removing the toll would stimulate extra demand, pushing the M50 traffic levels into overdrive. It would make more sense to ADD tolls, not remove them.

Motorways tolls are a fact of life: you pay for what you get. The vast majority of drivers have no problem paying them. It is only the tragic few for whom the toll raises ire. That tollbridge was built at a time when Ireland lay in the economic doldrums; and NTR put its money where its mouth was. It is perfectly fair that motorists should pay to drive over the bridge. You get what you pay for. If a miniscule group of whingy motorists have an ideological objection to road tolling (in the same way the polluters object to bin charges), let them protest to their hearts' content: but learn the lessons from the bin charge protests. When the issue is a non-issue to the vast majority, such protests are doomed to failure.

What'll Shane Ross think of next? Checkout queues in Superquinn to be removed so that customers can flow freely out the door?!

sliabh

ishmael whale wrote:

The bottom line all the time is that the toll collection creates the congestion on the bridge. Removing it relieves that congestion.

It wouldn't be quite that simple. At the moment there are delays on the bridge due to people stopping to pay the tolls. However the toll also is a disincentive to some people to use the M50 (either for cost reasons or as they don't want to queue).
Removing the tolls (and the associated booths, as until they are gone you will not have free flow) will certainly lead to increased use of the M50. And that may lead to greater congestion anyway.
It's similar to the paradox that building new roads doesn't improve congestion in the long term as road usage increases to consume the extra capacity.

ishmael whale

With respect, I think all of your points have been more or less addressed already.

“The toll bridge is the only thing saving the M50 from utter gridlock.”

This does not acknowledge that the toll bridge creates gridlock.

“There are huge amounts of people who, every day, take alternative routes to avoid the toll.”

This point is not substantiated, but surely if the removal of the toll had no impact on congestion those people would continue to use their existing routes. More likely, the removal of the toll will maximise the M50’s value by removing an artificial constraint.

“Motorways tolls are a fact of life: you pay for what you get.”

The point is that the toll has well covered a multiple of the cost of the bridge. People are getting considerably less than they’re paying for.

“That tollbridge was built at a time when Ireland lay in the economic doldrums; and NTR put its money where its mouth was.”

It was built in the same era as Knock Airport, when nutty decision making was the order of the day. The idea that NTR were running some massive risk by building this bridge is nonsense. As has been pointed out, the philosophy behind PPP was the reverse – that only projects with a fairly certain return would attract private capital.

“A miniscule group of whingy motorists have an ideological objection to road tolling”

Some involved in the debate may have an ideological objection. Most probably simply see that the fact of the M50 toll – gross overcharging, largely for the benefit of a private company, is not really related to the theoretical model of motorway charging that underlies your ideology.

Maybe the protest will fail. Right does not always triumph. But the toll is nutty. It should go.

murphaph

Things are never so straightforward in this country. While I agree with some of Metrobest's/Sliabh's points it should not be forgotten how exactly the West-link bridge came to pass; the dodgiest of the dodgy politicians were all involved and it's known that these were paid 'consultancy' money by NTR. It should also be remembered that the 51% majority shareholder in NTR is...............the government (that is, we the public). They (we) receive half the toll profits (plus 21% VAT + any corporation tax NTR pay as a whole) and this money can (is, at least in part) be spent on improving public transport-the only known tackler of congestion. So, it's not a simple case of some private company ripping everyone off. A few years ago I'd have been all for removing the toll, now I'm not so sure. It is a dead certainty that removing the toll WILL increase patronage of the M50 and that unknown quantity is key. While the idea of the yield from the bridge (the pubic portion) being spent on public transport is noble, the reality is that no taxes/revenue streams are ringfenced to any department, so again it's ambiguous. What will happen? The tolls will stay. BTW, lifting the barriers is not scientific because traffic will still have to slow right down to pass between them, therefore it would not accurately simulate toll removal. It may be interesting to see the chaos that ensues though if they did lift them for a couple of weeks....imagine all the people who currently take other routes all piling onto the M50

ishmael whale

It is well understood that the State takes a fair portion of the toll. I think the key point that I want to get across here is just the recognition that the toll is not a “pay for what you get” charge like bin charges. The toll has well paid for the bridge at this stage, so it only serves to gather revenue for NTR and the State. The point is that the State hardly needs to erect a roadblock to collect tax. However, clearly NTR would need to be compensated to buy them out of the picture because its their bridge.

I have a lot of trouble accepting the suggestion that the bridge is contributing to traffic management. This requires us to believe that this botched decision has magically left to posterity a valuable traffic management device and that, accidently, this choke point is at the right point to ensure the M50’s capacity is maximised.

I think this contention fits into the same category as the idea that investing money in the bridge was a risky venture. Its an attempt to retrofit some kind of sense on this bizarre situation, but equally falls apart when reflected on. If there was no toll on the bridge we wouldn’t have invented one (and possibly wouldn’t have needed to expand the bridge to six lanes.)

antoinolachtnai

Well, you are leaving out the argument that if the bottleneck wasn't at the tollbridge, it would move to the junctions nearby. I know you don't accept that as being proven, but there has been a fair amount of study done on the topic already, and I don't think it's fair to completely discount it.

If the toll plaza didn't cause congestion (i.e., if the tolls were all collected automatically, and there was no barrier) would you be ok with it?

You could still argue that the toll section isn't worth the money. What would you think if the entire M50 was tolled, without disruption?

Also, would it be more acceptable to you if the money from the toll was ploughed into providing public transport around the M50, giving the people living there an alternative to driving everywhere?

casey jones

This just another self publicity venture by Ross and Dunphy. They jumped on the eircom bandwagon because of the large number of investors involved and achieved nothing except increase pressure on the board resulting in the sale of the mobile wing of the company, i.e. the main growth area. Investors then got vodafone shares which decreased in value and eircom was sold for a song.

This campaign has nothing to do with helping the hardpressed commuter and everything to do with keeping Ross and Dunphy in the public eye. The former to help his political career and the latter to boost his listener numbers.

The govt gets €1 of every €1.80 from the tolls and would have to fork out €400M to remove this source of revenue, a double whammy. What services would Ross and Dunphy like govt to cut to replace this ? Sounds like the worst kind of populist nonsense.

ishmael whale

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Well, you are leaving out the argument that if the bottleneck wasn't at the tollbridge, it would move to the junctions nearby. I know you don't accept that as being proven, but there has been a fair amount of study done on the topic already, and I don't think it's fair to completely discount it.

I'd be interested in any objective study on this congestion topic. It just seems astonishingly fortunate that the Westlink toll booth is at just the right place. So astonishingly fortunate that I think it can just be discounted, particularly as the queue at the toll booths raises the question of 'is the cure worse than the disease'.

If there was no toll, would anyone be saying 'what we need to get the M50 working right is a toll just on the north side of the Westlink Bridge delaying traffic for long enough to make a queue build up'?

At the end of the day I can half accept someone saying 'look, they made a hames out of it but the powers that be will never admit it was such a mistake that they have to buy out NTR. Particularly if sorting it involves a very public payment of hundreds of millions. They'd rather let people queue for the foreseeable until the bridge is bought out in the normal course, even if some economist geek produced loads of figures saying it was worth buying NTR out now.' But I find it hard to accept arguments that this massive mistake was actually sensible in some respect.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

If the toll plaza didn't cause congestion (i.e., if the tolls were all collected automatically, and there was no barrier) would you be ok with it?.

The congestion is the main problem. If the tolling didn’t cause congestion, then I would see no particular need to buy out NTR. The toll would still represent bad value for money, but in any event that is simply a cost that needs to be carried. However, installation of an automated system would seem to involve extra expense. Paying an extra toll just to do away with the congestion caused by the mechanism of collection seems like a bridge too far, so to speak.

I’ve no problem with a coherent general approach to motorway tolling, efficiently collected and with proceeds used for some public benefit (so long as its not wasted on the Western Rail Corridor).

casey jones wrote:

This just another self publicity venture by Ross and Dunphy.

I don’t doubt that Ross and Dunphy’s involvement has to do with a view that this is a good issue to grandstand on. But its still a worthwhile case.

Assuming €400 million is the figure (and I’ve no source for this, it just seems to be the figure being kicked around) this amount will be paid anyway. Its just a question of whether it should be paid in dribs and drabs over the years by people passing over the toll bridge thus causing massive congestion, or whether it should just be paid off in a lump sum.

So its not necessarily a question of cutting services to fund this. Its more a question of finding a way of bringing that €400 million back into the public finances, say by a simple increase in motor tax.

sliabh

ishmael whale wrote:

Assuming €400 million is the figure (and I’ve no source for this, it just seems to be the figure being kicked around) this amount will be paid anyway. Its just a question of whether it should be paid in dribs and drabs over the years by people passing over the toll bridge thus causing massive congestion, or whether it should just be paid off in a lump sum.

Well the advantage of it being paid for in dribs and drabs by tolls is that the people that are making the greatest use of the bridge are the ones paying for it. A lump some from the state now means everyone in the country pays for it, whether they use it or not.

ishmael whale

sliabh wrote:

Well the advantage of it being paid for in dribs and drabs by tolls is that the people that are making the greatest use of the bridge are the ones paying for it. A lump some from the state now means everyone in the country pays for it, whether they use it or not.

Firstly, because I feel Irish public debate has a tendancy to beat around the bush, you are absolutely right. Relieving the congestion by abolishing the toll involves transferring the cost of €400 million away from the point of usage of the bridge and assigning it elsewhere. That means that some people who are paying quite a lot and drive over the bridge quite frequently will, in all probability, pay less than they do at the moment and other people, including some who never use the bridge, will pay more.

However, bear in mind that if we stuck to the idea that only people who use a piece of road should pay for it then there would not be one inch of tarmac laid in Mayo which like several counties is dependant on tax raised elsewhere for its infrastructural needs.

Why move the cost away from users and onto the general purse? The bridge has already been paid for. What’s left is a financial contribution that derives from a botched business arrangement. The people using it have no particular connection to the fact that the bridge was financed by a flawed arrangement. Putting it another way, its not their fault.

Also, it’s a key piece of national infrastructure. It not only benefits to the people immediately using it. Efficient transport in Dublin benefits the country.

Also, 60% of net tax raised from households is raised in the Dublin area, or 80% if you add in the Mid East region. Transferring the charge to the general taxation area, depending on how exactly the charge is levied, really just transfers the cost from people passing over the bridge to people living in its immediate catchment area. So I don’t see any great distributional problem arising from the State buying out NTR.

Metrobest

ishmael whale wrote:

It is well understood that the State takes a fair portion of the toll. I think the key point that I want to get across here is just the recognition that the toll is not a “pay for what you get” charge like bin charges. The toll has well paid for the bridge at this stage, so it only serves to gather revenue for NTR and the State. The point is that the State hardly needs to erect a roadblock to collect tax. However, clearly NTR would need to be compensated to buy them out of the picture because its their bridge.

I have a lot of trouble accepting the suggestion that the bridge is contributing to traffic management. This requires us to believe that this botched decision has magically left to posterity a valuable traffic management device and that, accidently, this choke point is at the right point to ensure the M50’s capacity is maximised.

I think this contention fits into the same category as the idea that investing money in the bridge was a risky venture. Its an attempt to retrofit some kind of sense on this bizarre situation, but equally falls apart when reflected on. If there was no toll on the bridge we wouldn’t have invented one (and possibly wouldn’t have needed to expand the bridge to six lanes.)

The point is, had the bridge by some bizarre reason been a financial failure, NTR would have borne the cost. I have no problem with the tollbridge gathering revenue for the taxpayers. Anything that discourages people from using cars is a good thing. I am 100% in favour of private companies building roads, at no cost to the taxpayer, and those who want to pay to use the road can do so. With the M50 tollbridge, that is the reality of it.

The DTO has surveyed traffic levels on the M50; volumes are on the increase and even with three lanes the road will be fairly slow-moving. An IKEA, or a free-for-all tollbridge, would spell utter chaos. In my view there should be a second toll on the M50 somewhere south of the Red Cow - proceeds of the tolls then used to finance new metro lines for Dublin.

Cars pollute the atmosphere. The polluter should pay.

ishmael whale

Just a brief response to Metrobest

“The point is, had the bridge by some bizarre reason been a financial failure, NTR would have borne the cost.”

This is such an unlikely possibility it can be ignored. It has no relevance to this debate at all.


“Anything that discourages people from using cars is a good thing.”

While clearly public transport needs to be developed, this is a very extreme position. You have to recognise that the city grew without any real investment. That deficit should be addressed, but in the meantime people have to get to work.

“I am 100% in favour of private companies building roads, at no cost to the taxpayer, and those who want to pay to use the road can do so. With the M50 tollbridge, that is the reality of it.”

The M50 tollbridge seems to be acknowledge even by NRA as a flawed arrangement, which they would not repeat. I think the Westlink experience suggests that its best for public authorities to build the roads, and to collect the tolls themselves for purely public benefit.

”Cars pollute the atmosphere. The polluter should pay.”

Fine, but loads of people sitting in their cars burning petrol while they wait to pay the toll is hardly doing much for the environment. A carbon tax is surely the response to the pollution issue, unless you are suggesting that cars on the M50 are filthier than cars in Connemara.

Metrobest

Whale, it's already been stated that the State gets a share of the toll revenue. I approve of that.

In terms of filthiness, I would imagine that cars on the M50 do indeed pollute more than in Connemara. There's a lot of SUVs on that road!

ishmael whale

Metrobest wrote:

Whale, it's already been stated that the State gets a share of the toll revenue. I approve of that!

It has indeed been stated and acknowledged by me. As I have already said, the state does not need to erect a roadblock on the M50 to raise tax. They could achieve much the same result by sending teams of pickpockets down Henry Street. If that's your idea of sensible revenue gathering then fair play to you.

Metrobest wrote:

In terms of filthiness, I would imagine that cars on the M50 do indeed pollute more than in Connemara. There's a lot of SUVs on that road!

As you have correctly pointed out, the amount of pollution relates more to the vehicle's fuel consumption rather than its location. So why are you struggling with the idea that the Westlink toll is an substitute for a carbon tax?

If you just accept that the Westlink is an example of an complete hames, you'll find life gets a lot simpler.

antoinolachtnai

Remarks about other participants' ability to grasp your point of view and bald comparisons to thievery are not really very helpful. Asking us to accept at the outset what you are trying to argue doesn't help very much either.

Strictly speaking, it's more of a congestion tax than a carbon tax, since it only applies in one congested area, not to the whole country. I know you think that the M50 would have much greater capacity if the tolls were removed, and that congestion wouldn't arise. But I don't agree with you, because I don't think the capacity of the M50 of a whole is really all that large. The reason I think that is because there are queues at the interchanges as well as at the toll plaza.

What really galls me is that the people who work/live along the M50 have no alternative to using their cars. There is next-to-no bus service along the route. It simply isn't the case that there is no way of setting up a public transport service quite rapidly in the area. A very good service could be provided with a relatively small initial investment and a fairly small subsidy.

ishmael whale

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Remarks about other participants' ability to grasp your point of view and bald comparisons to thievery are not really very helpful. Asking us to accept at the outset what you are trying to argue doesn't help very much either.

I am most certainly not expecting anyone to accept my points without debate. It's simply that the opposing points - such as that the bridge assists traffic flow (a quite bizarre statement when you think on it), that it is a useful way of collecting revenue (as if the government has no alternative to erecting roadblocks), that NTR took on a risky investment (reversal of reality), that the toll is related to usage (although the charge nets a multiple of the cost of the bridge) and that the toll is an anti-pollution measure (pure irrelevance) have been debated and refuted. Leaving, to my mind, only one conclusion. If the toll remains its really just because its politically difficult to stop.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Strictly speaking, it's more of a congestion tax than a carbon tax, since it only applies in one congested area, not to the whole country.

Debating whether the toll is a congestion tax or a carbon tax is a red herring. The toll is just a legacy or a botched business arrangement.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

There is next-to-no bus service along the route. It simply isn't the case that there is no way of setting up a public transport service quite rapidly in the area.

I have no problem with the development of public transport. I just don't see a need to canonise the framers of the Westlink bridge.

mackerski

Metrobest wrote:

Cars pollute the atmosphere. The polluter should pay.

#include <standard points about excise duties on petrol>
#include <wry observation about cost of road tax>

#ifdef ROAD_TAX_SYSTEM_SILLY
printf("Hey! Why don't dirtier cars cost more in road tax???");
#endif

Victor

mackerski wrote:

#include <standard points about excise duties on petrol>
#include <wry observation about cost of road tax> #ifdef ROAD_TAX_SYSTEM_SILLY printf("Hey! Why don't dirtier cars cost more in road tax???"); #endif

Excise duties and road tax (etc.) are considered insufficient to cover the true impact of motoring.

ishmael whale, removing the toll removes one of the disincentives to motoring (in this particular case using the bridge). Anything that is free will be oversubscribed (/me looks at attempts to contol the amount of water people use) and will be abused.

So "bored housewife from Malahide with large credit card limit" will look in the Pavillions, Blanchardstown, Liffey Valley (may not go to the Square, but would really like to check out Dundrum when it opens) instead of just going to Pavillions and maybe Blanchardstown. All to look at what are essentially the same clothes in the same shops at much the same price. This contributes little to the local economy as the money spent goes on (a) car (b) fuel (c) widening the M50 when it needn't be otherwise.

Likewise, an abnormal amount of people seem to live on the wrong side of the river to where they work. Why? (Yes, stamp duty used to be a factor, but snobbery is a bigger one)

All the while, the people who need to use the bridge for business (i.e. creating wealth) are stuck behind "bored from Malahide" because she insists on driving at 30mph in the overtaking lane.

DubTony

I guess this thread needs lightening up a little. Just for a few minutes though. Here's how one citizen of Massachusetts handles tolls on the Mass. Pike.

http://www.zug.com/pranks/turnpike/


Tony

DubTony

While on the subjest of the Mass Pike, here's an interesting fact.
The Massachusetts Turnpike is 138 miles (approx. 220km long). The tolls are paid at various stages along the route, and the cost to travel from one end to the other is $5.60 or $8.60 depending on which way you travel. (A tunnel in Boston has a westbound-only toll of $3.00.)

Taking the $8.60 figure, this works out at €6.60 using todays conversion rate. That's a cost of 4 U.S. cents (€0.03) per kilometre.

I believe the part of the M50 the Westlink bridge is on is 3.2 kilometres. At €1.80 per trip that's a cost of €0.56 per kilometre travelled.

If there was the same difference in the price of petrol, a litre in the states costs approx. €0.40, a 50 litre fill up would cost us here in Ireland about €375.

Bet we wouldn't stand for that !!!!! ... or would we?

Tony

ishmael whale

Victor wrote:

Excise duties and road tax (etc.) are considered insufficient to cover the true impact of motoring.

By whom? Any figures I've seen suggest motorist make a healthy contribution to public finances.

Victor wrote:

ishmael whale, removing the toll removes one of the disincentives to motoring (in this particular case using the bridge). Anything that is free will be oversubscribed (/me looks at attempts to contol the amount of water people use) and will be abused.

If the queues at the toll plaza didn’t regularly get so incredibly long, if the business arrangement behind it was not so fatally flawed, if the idea that a reasonable alternative to simply ending the toll was that the northside and southside should organise a large scale exchange of population was not so bizarre, if the suggestion that snobbery had something to do with the issue was not so irrelevant, you might actually have a point.

But, unfortunately, you are simply falling into the same trap of assuming the toll must be rational at some level. Its not. It belongs in Ripley’s Belief It Or Not Odditorium. To my ears attempts at defending it sound like that guy hung up in the cell in the ‘Life of Brian’ announcing that ‘Crucifixion is the best thing the Romans ever did for us. If it wasn’t for crucifixion this country’d be in a right bloody mess.’

DubTony

Simple fact, and there are no tests or comparisons or studies needed. If the toll booths go, traffic will back up at the junctions.

When NTR built the first "new" set of toll booths on the bridge, there was a marked decrease in the amount of time spent waiting to pay when heading south. Immediately however, junction 9 (N7) backed up to the point where there were cars waiting in the hard shoulder of the motorway. This was instantaneous.

We don't need to "get rid of tolls" on the M50, we need to toll the whole damned thing. It seems that when the M50 is completed to the M11, about 80% of cars on it won't use the toll bridge at all. Surely a fairer system of tolling could be introduced. Using a toll road should be easy and automatic, with a standard per kilometre price attached. As a vehicle enters the M50 it could be scanned (technology is available) and scanned as it exits. This can't be done, however, until the junctions and roads joining the motorway are upgraded.

The cost of the toll would be on a per km basis and could be set to reflect the current toll. This should actually make travelling from Tallaght to Ballymun cheaper than it is today as those travelling from the M11 to the N7 would be paying a portion of that toll. And it would reduce the number of people using the road to get to "the next exit". A bit like turning the lights off when you leave a room ... "have you seen this months toll bill?

Although, realistically, it couldn't be that simple. Some of the decisions already made are truly stranger than fiction.

Tolling a road that was originally designed to keep people out of a gridlocked city ...

Only two lanes on each side of a motorway circling a major city ...

Roundabouts at junctions on a motorway ...

Building shopping centres at almost every junction of what is basically a massive relief road ... (seems Dundrum will be the biggest in Europe :eek:)

Allowing developers to build housing estates "within easy reach", without upgrading infrastructure to and from a motorway ... (anyone been in Sandyford and Stepaside lately?)

etc., etc., etc...

The M50 is a nightmare, and whether tolls stay or go, or whether we wait in line or zip through, and if it's widened to 10 lanes someday, it won't make a damned bit of difference. Traffic is here to stay. What's really needed are some radical new ideas.

... holding my breath ...

Tony

Zaph0d

Mr Whale

Do you accept that

• However poor the toll arrangement now looks, that there is no way out of this contract with NTR that does not involve a huge spend of general taxpayers money plus a huge loss of future government revenue to pay for costs that would otherwise be born specifically by the people gaining benefit from the M50?
• The toll bridge reduces demand for M50 journeys due to delay and price?
• If the toll is removed or the toll plaza delay is removed that this will cause increase in demand for M50 journeys?
• That although demand for roadspace is not limitless, that it is proportional to road capacity?
• That a road capacity increase, where latent journey demand exists, is then followed by a traffic demand increase to the point where average traffic speeds remain unchanged

I don't like paying the toll and I don't like having to queue but I like the alternative less.

For the same reasons, the M50 upgrade won't ease congestion it wil just generate more peak hour journeys at the same average speed. If anyone wants to bet on this let me know.

Tomorrow I'm going to see if I can buy shares in NTR.

ishmael whale

Zaphod,
If you read back over the thread I think you’ll find, in fairness, that I’ve already answered most of your questions.
• However poor the toll arrangement now looks, that there is no way out of this contract with NTR that does not involve a huge spend of general taxpayers money plus a huge loss of future government revenue to pay for costs that would otherwise be born specifically by the people gaining benefit from the M50?
I’ve already addressed this point several times. NTR’s share of the toll has to be paid by the public one way or the other. The only decision is whether it be paid in dribs and drabs by people using the bridge, hence causing congestion, or whether it should be paid out of general taxation in one lump sum. Government does not have to erect a roadblock on the M50 to collect tax, and collecting tax in this manner is hardly efficient. Efficient transport in Dublin benefits the country, so the idea that the Westlink is a benefit enjoyed only by the people using it is not sustainable.
• The toll bridge reduces demand for M50 journeys due to delay and price?
I don’t doubt that it does, and acknowledged earlier that removing the toll increases the capacity of the M50.
• If the toll is removed or the toll plaza delay is removed that this will cause increase in demand for M50 journeys?
Yes indeedy.
• That although demand for roadspace is not limitless, that it is proportional to road capacity?
True, but we have to keep this debate within reason. Following this logic to extremes would suggest that a great way of keeping traffic off the M50 would be to reduce it to one lane in each direction.
• That a road capacity increase, where latent journey demand exists, is then followed by a traffic demand increase to the point where average traffic speeds remain unchanged
As per above, we have to be careful with extremes here. Yes, if road becomes quicker then more people will use it and potentially bid away the time advantage gained (although we’ll clearly be moving more people than before). But following this logic blindly would suggest that, as above, that we reduce the M50 to one lane. My own read is the amount of traffic queuing at the bridge simply reflects the fact that there aren’t too many real alternatives for many people and they have to use the road. To that extent the result of the toll is to fleece a captive audience as much as reduce traffic flow.

I’ve only one question from earlier which crystalises the issue for me.

If there was no toll on the Westlink bridge would we be saying the way to get the M50 moving is to slap a toll plaza on the northside of the bridge that slows the traffic enough so that it queues back for miles?

Zaph0d

ishmael whale wrote:

I’ve already addressed this point several times. NTR’s share of the toll has to be paid by the public one way or the other. The only decision is whether it be paid in dribs and drabs by people using the bridge, hence causing congestion, or whether it should be paid out of general taxation in one lump sum. Government does not have to erect a roadblock on the M50 to collect tax, and collecting tax in this manner is hardly efficient. Efficient transport in Dublin benefits the country, so the idea that the Westlink is a benefit enjoyed only by the people using it is not sustainable.

I think it is a fair argument that the roadblock on the motorway is a bad way of collecting tax. However I don't think high demand roadspace should be paid for entirely out of general taxation rather than by those who use it, according to how much they use it. I think this is where we differ. I prefer tolling to having to queue as a means of limiting road space demand because I value my time more highly than the cost of the tolls. If we remove the toll then people who value their time at less than the cost of the toll will be encouraged to carry out journeys they otherwise would not. Result: a reduction in average traffic speeds. Imagine the roadblock delay being replaced with sitting in traffic surrounded by time-rich people on frivolous peak hour journeys.

• That a road capacity increase, where latent journey demand exists, is then followed by a traffic demand increase to the point where average traffic speeds remain unchanged
As per above, we have to be careful with extremes here. Yes, if road becomes quicker then more people will use it and potentially bid away the time advantage gained (although we’ll clearly be moving more people than before). But following this logic blindly would suggest that, as above, that we reduce the M50 to one lane.

As the road capacity along the route of the M50 was increased, housing was built to be dependent on that road space. (eg 30,000 people living on 5,000 acres in Lucan with no train). I would guess that reducing the journey capacity would hinder the economies of sprawling Tallaght, Clondalkin and Blanch when people found that many journeys had become unfeasible.

I’ve only one question from earlier which crystalises the issue for me.

If there was no toll on the Westlink bridge would we be saying the way to get the M50 moving is to slap a toll plaza on the northside of the bridge that slows the traffic enough so that it queues back for miles?

In a hypothetical situation where the m50 is not tolled, you could say that we wouldn't build the toll plaza, but this is not an argument for dismantling it now that we have granted a contractual concession to NTR to run it.

I think we can all agree that changing to a more high-tech means of collecting the toll that doesn't involve a delay will increase the capacity of the M50 but not the average traffic speed. From the individual motorist's point of view, the journey will take the same time but there will be more cars being carried during peak hours.

It is in NTR's interest to switch to electronic tolling as it will generate more revenue for them and may be cheaper to collect. According to the NRA's web site, NTR and the NRA are working on this.

ishmael whale

Zaph0d wrote:

I prefer tolling to having to queue as a means of limiting road space demand because I value my time more highly than the cost of the tolls.

I have no particular problem with the idea of efficiently collected tolls on public roads, with the proceeds used for some public benefit. I simply don't think the Westlink toll fits into this category.

Zaph0d wrote:

In a hypothetical situation where the m50 is not tolled, you could say that we wouldn't build the toll plaza, but this is not an argument for dismantling it now that we have granted a contractual concession to NTR to run it.

At the same time, if we agree that we wouldn’t build it, then we are acknowledging that the world would be a happier place if it was dismantled.

There might be great difficulties in dismantling it, and even a big up front cash hit. Those difficulties might mean the toll stays for the foreseeable. But I have a (probably insane) belief that if the reality of the situation is recognised, rather than pretending that the toll forms part of some clever and subtle strategy, some mitigation might take place.

For those interested, this is on RTE’s site today:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0202/tollbridge.html

No buy-out of toll bridge says Ahern

02 February 2005 13:49
The Taoiseach had told the Dáil that buying out the Westlink Toll Bridge is not an option.

Answering questions from the Labour leader, Pat Rabbitte, on traffic congestion in west Dublin, Bertie Ahern said the Government was not considering buying out the contract operated by National Toll Roads.
He said the solution to the problem was the implementation of the M50 upgrade and the introduction of barrier free tolling….

LFCFan

Zaph0d wrote:

It is in NTR's interest to switch to electronic tolling as it will generate more revenue for them and may be cheaper to collect. According to the NRA's web site, NTR and the NRA are working on this.

Why should it be taking so long though? It is already a reality in other countries and it's not like NTR are short of a few bob to get it sorted. The also own Irish Broadband so the ways and means of transmitting the data is at hand if needed!

Zaph0d

ishmael whale wrote:

But I have a (probably insane) belief that if the reality of the situation is recognised, rather than pretending that the toll forms part of some clever and subtle strategy, some mitigation might take place.

What do you mean? What kind of mitigation might take place? A reduction in the toll? A reduction in the average M50 journey time?

ishmael whale

Mitigation in the sense of relief of the congestion on the bridge.

Now, bear in mind you are talking to someone who reckons just buying them out is probably worthwhile, whatever about the optics. But other ideas that seem to be out there include negotiating an arrangement whereby the barriers are lifted at peak times/when queues get too long. These would likely also involve the State making a direct payment to NTR in respect of the lost income, but shelling out in this manner might catch less headlines than a straight buyout.

Zaph0d

ishmael whale wrote:

Mitigation in the sense of relief of the congestion on the bridge.

Relief of congestion means higher average speeds/lower average journey times. When this happens more journeys will be undertaken at peak hour on the M50 until the congestion returns to the balance point it was at before. Unless you increase the M50 capacity beyond the point where all the latent demand for peak hour journeys can be met, the road will remain congested. You will not go any faster. If you want relief, I advise you to get air conditioning, leather seats, a good CD sound system and just chill out.

ishmael whale

In fairness, I don’t think the readjustment is quite as simple and mechanical as this. Yes, more people will use the M50, but that’s going to happen anyway with the growth of the city. It’s a question of balancing increasing demand against reasonable facilities.

In terms of a sanity check, there is nothing particularly excessive about Dublin having an unobstructed two lane ring road to provide some reasonable ability to drive north to south without going through town. There is something strange about putting a toll bridge halfway along and pretending the resultant queues are a public benefit.

antoinolachtnai

How would opening the barriers at peak help? All you would do is create a bigger tailback at the junctions of the M50.

It is easy enough to find out if I am wrong. Check if there are tailbacks at the junctions already at peak times. If there are, it seems reasonable to suggest that the tailbacks will be even bigger if traffic reaches them faster.

Expanding the junctions won't help that much either. the roads into the city just can't hold any more traffic. The traffic on roads outwards will swell to fill any capacity you build, as people live further away from the city.

The only real way out of the mess is to use the roadspace more efficiently, i.e., have decent public transport.

Metrobest

ishmael whale wrote:

It has indeed been stated and acknowledged by me. As I have already said, the state does not need to erect a roadblock on the M50 to raise tax. They could achieve much the same result by sending teams of pickpockets down Henry Street. If that's your idea of sensible revenue gathering then fair play to you.

If you just accept that the Westlink is an example of an complete hames, you'll find life gets a lot simpler.

I'm all in favour of tax being deducted at source. And I like choice. Driving along the M50 is a choice. People who choose to do it, and contribute to the gridlock, must pay. There are other roads, other options if one hates paying the small €1.80 charge. People can share cars, take the bus, change jobs. The toll is not the root of all traffic evil you like to think it is. Far from being a "hames" the Westlink is actually keeping a lid on things. Profit being made (fairly) by NTR is completely irrelevent.

Here is my main criticism of the M50 upgrade project. There is no provision for a cycle lane. Installing a lane between certain junctions would do wonders to take cars off the road. A lot of people only travel between two junctions along the motorway; a cycle lane (sealed off from road traffic, obviously!) would do wonders to get folk out of their cars. Such cycle lanes run alongside most of the Dutch motorways (and even train lines!) and they're just brilliant for commuters.

antoinolachtnai

Well, to be fair, the public transport is pretty ropey. Travelling from Palmerstown to Sandyford, which is a pretty typical commute these days is difficult using the bus. It's that bit too far to cycle. With the price of houses and everything else, people can't just give up their jobs or move somewhere different.

Commuters need real choices.