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

ishmael whale

Yes, properly applied tolls probably can do something to help traffic management. No, the Westlink toll does not fit into that category because its just a legacy from a botched business arrangement. If it wasn’t there we wouldn’t build it. If we wanted to use tolls to regulate the M50 we’d do it differently.

The queues are long enough from the bridge at present to obstruct traffic using the M50 but not using the bridge. That’s an indication that its screwing up traffic generally, rather than aiding it. If this contention is really so controversial (and I don’t believe it is) then lets have our experimental week of barrier lifting to see what happens.

Alternatively, if you see the key to increase efficiency as hamstringing the M50 lets close one lane in each direction for a week and see what that does.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

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.

I totally agree with this last statement.

Metrobest

antoinolachtnai wrote:

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.

I agree in principle. Commuters need choices. But public transport cannot chase bad development and poor planning. The horse has to come before the cart.

For a lot of M50 commuters there is a certain element of lifestyle choice involved. Nobody is forced to run a car, or buy a house, or work in an industrial park off a congested peripheral motorway. There are other options.

antoinolachtnai

For a lot of them, maybe, but for most of them, there aren't actually that many choices. If you want to get married, have babies and have a reasonable amount of money to pay the bills, and aren't in a position where you can earn a very large amount of money, then you are pretty short on choices.

We have to accept the development that's been done already. We can't undo it now.

The comments about closing one carriageway of the M50 don't serve any purpose that I can see.

Zaph0d

ishmael whale wrote:

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.

So you believe that more people will use the M50 during peak hours if capacity is increased by road widening or removing toll delays. However, you don't believe that increased usage will result in the traffic moving at the same average speed as before.

One way to look at the balance between congestion, road capacity and demand is to see an analogy with a consumer market for goods. In this case the consumers are the motorists, the goods are the use of the roadspace and the price is paid in time plus a fixed toll. Amongst the consumers the use of the roadspace brings them different benefits depending on the type of journey being undertaken (from going to a friend's funeral to buying a bar of chocolate). The consumers value their time at different rates throughout the day. A journey is attempted on the road when a consumer judges that the journey is worthwhile compared to other options (other roads, public transport, bike, not doing the journey at all, doing the journey later). A balance point (like the price of a product that balances supply and demand) is reached when no more consumers will attempt to use the road, given the current average road speed.

When capacity is increased more people can use the road. For a while things run faster (supply increased for constant demand) but soon people start to switch from other means of transport and buy cars, new housing and offices are zoned for the surrounds of the road, and journeys previously not worth attempting are now carried out. The minimum acceptable peak hour road speed remains constant, however and once sufficient cars have been added to the road this point is reached again.

As DubTony says: traffic is here to stay.

Shane Ross can't help you.

Victor

http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/0202/ntr.html

Ahern rules out West Link bridge buy
February 02, 2005 16:03

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern admitted in the Dail today that the M50 motorway in Dublin looks like a 'car park' during peak times. But he said a buy-out of the West Link toll bridge is not being considered by the Government.

Instead, he said there are plans to widen the M50 and introduce 'barrier free tolling' to speed up the traffic.

He also admitted that traffic volumes meant that long term the M50 itself would not solve West Dublin's traffic problems.


Mr Ahern said efforts will be made to try and prevent mass disruption when the M50 is being widened, and he will consult with the Environment Minister about this. This work is due to begin this summer.

ishmael whale

Zaph0d wrote:

So you believe that more people will use the M50 during peak hours if capacity is increased by road widening or removing toll delays. However, you don't believe that increased usage will result in the traffic moving at the same average speed as before.

I think we're going round the mulberry bush a bit. Now, I can repeat all that stuff again if its really necessary, but you might just reflect on the thought that if additional roads simply cause an increase in otherwise unneeded traffic, why not simply close the M50 altogether? Surely building it at all was a mistake.

Zaph0d

ishmael whale wrote:

but you might just reflect on the thought that if additional roads simply cause an increase in otherwise unneeded traffic, why not simply close the M50 altogether?

I think you're trying to disprove my argument by showing an absurd corollary which is fair enough.

We are straying off topic which is what should we do about the M50 toll bridge but in any case...

Reducing the capacity of a busy road would be devastating to those whose lifestyles are predicated on that road. In the case of the M50, housing for 300,000 people has been built in the last 25 years at a density of around 25 people/hectare. This density cannot support public transport.

CityWest, ParkWest, Blanch centre, Liffey Valley and the Square were all built to mop up the excess supply on the M50. Already a new warehouse retail/office park is planned for the Carrickmines exit of the unbuilt remaining section of the M50.

So this vast edge city has been built in response to the M50. but the process does not work in reverse: reducing the capacity of the M50 would not immediately get rid of the low density housing estates or retail warehouses. The demand cannot be reduced as easily as it can be increased.

Surely building it at all was a mistake.

It was a mistake to build such a vast car-dependent area West of the city. It was a waste of land and a cruel joke at the expense of many of the poor residents who were housed there against their will despite not being able to afford cars.

Andrew Duffy

Dunphy had the CEO of NTR's road division on this morning. Basically, the toll gates can handle 7,800 vehicles per hour, and a two-lane motorway can deliver 7,200, but the M50 isn't delivering that much due to the weaving at junctions. When the road is widened and the junctions improved, the toll gates will have to be removed to avoid them becoming the bottleneck.
All from the horse's mouth. I found it amusing that Dunphy barked about "experts" like Conor Faughnan of the AA (a journalist) to someone whose only business is running a busy road - surely a genuine expert? The conclusion I drew was that this campaign is indeed a self-serving publicity stunt.

Mayshine

Would people agree that the toll shoud vary at different times of the day. If the bridge is an aid to keeping congestion under control (!!) surely I shouldn't have to pay much to travel over it a 2am as opposed to 8:30am

I would love to see a more flexible way of tolling - maybe it can happen when electronic tolling happends

DW

ishmael whale

Zaph0d wrote:

It was a mistake to build such a vast car-dependent area West of the city.

Certainly and, indeed, a policy for Dublin transportation that consisted in simply increasing road capacity to take more cars is not sustainable. All I’m pointing out is the situation is a trade-off – some additional road capacity is justified as the city grows. An unobstructed two lane ring road in Dublin does not see excessive.

Andrew Duffy wrote:

The conclusion I drew was that this campaign is indeed a self-serving publicity stunt.

The campaign is undoubtably a self serving publicity stunt, but at the same time NTR are stakeholders in the situation rather than independent experts. They have to justify the fact that they will end up collecting a multiple of the cost of building the bridge, so suggestions that the toll assists traffic flow and/or that the problem is caused elsewhere help their case.

It might be noted that NTR’s position as you describe it, that the toll gates have the capacity but the road can’t deliver it, is not entirely consistent with the earlier reported statement that lifting the toll would move the congestion at junctions.

More likely, NTR’s position is a ball of smoke. It’s not the situation that toll booth operators are sitting idle, impatiently waiting for the M50 to deliver them a customer. It is the situation that a queue builds up from the booth and reaches back miles, obstructing traffic that doesn’t even need to use the bridge.

The idea that the toll gates have adequate capacity but the M50 can’t deliver it just doesn’t hold water.

zanardi

Greetings all,

m50roadblock.com are nothing to do with Shane Ross, but they are self serving, they don't want to spend their lives sitting on the m50 listening to traffic reports saying how busy the approach to the toll bridge is.

The real deal here is that there is an artifical barrier as well as a physical one. NTR do not want traffic to get to certain levels on the barricades, this is because they loose money if traffic goes up!

This data is from the NRA (no, not the ones with guns unfortunately):

These are the levels of traffic on the m50 that cause the split in revenue between national toll roads and the government to switch from 50:50 to 80:20

2001 79,000
2002 83,000
2003 86,000
2013 115,000
2004 88,000
2005 92,000
2006 96,000
2007 99,000
2008 103,000
2009 106,000
2010 109,000
2011 111,000
2012 113,000
2014 117,000
2015 118,000
2016 120,000
2017 122,000
2018 123,000
2019 125,000
2020 126,000

Right now, we are tottering at the 90,000 mark - once it hits +92,000 then they stand to loose over twenty million a year!

I have to shout it out:

THERE IS A HIDDEN AGENDA HERE


peace will come .... ... ...... .. . ...

bIFF bIFF

DubTony

zanardi wrote:

Greetings all,
it in revenue between national toll roads and the government to switch from 50:50 to 80:20
....
Right now, we are tottering at the 90,000 mark - once it hits +92,000 then they stand to loose over twenty million a year!

Zanardi, I think you need to go back and read the NRA site to get the facts.
http://www.nra.ie/PublicPrivatePartnership/ProjectTracker/M50SecondWest-LinkBridge/#d1643.html

The government will be paid 80% of revenue on car number 92,000. It will only receive 50% for car number 91,999.
NTR will lose nothing, it just won't make as much from "customers" after 92,000 cars have crossed the toll booths. This makes little or no difference to NTR as, to take in this extra money, won't cost them any more. It's a profit of €0.36 per car instead of €0.90. Their current profits remain the same. This reduction in profit is for "new business" - that's free new business with no increase in operating costs.
Any business person would jump at it. To say that NTR is purposely holding up development of automatic tolling for this reason, is non-sensical. Sorry.

Tony

Zaph0d

zanardi wrote:

Greetings all,

m50roadblock.com are nothing to do with Shane Ross, but they are self serving, they don't want to spend their lives sitting on the m50 listening to traffic reports saying how busy the approach to the toll bridge is.

The real deal here is that there is an artifical barrier as well as a physical one. NTR do not want traffic to get to certain levels on the barricades, this is because they loose money if traffic goes up!

This data is from the NRA (no, not the ones with guns unfortunately):

These are the levels of traffic on the m50 that cause the split in revenue between national toll roads and the government to switch from 50:50 to 80:20

2001 79,000
2002 83,000
2003 86,000
2013 115,000
2004 88,000
2005 92,000
2006 96,000
2007 99,000
2008 103,000
2009 106,000
2010 109,000
2011 111,000
2012 113,000
2014 117,000
2015 118,000
2016 120,000
2017 122,000
2018 123,000
2019 125,000
2020 126,000

Right now, we are tottering at the 90,000 mark - once it hits +92,000 then they stand to loose over twenty million a year!

I have to shout it out:

THERE IS A HIDDEN AGENDA HERE

The switch to 80:20 revenue sharing only applies to traffic above the limits you have listed above, so NTR will not lose money when the traffic passes into these bands, in the same way that your income doesn't decrease when your income passes into a higher tax band.

Victor has previously posted a link to the NRA's page that details this agreement:

http://www.nra.ie/PublicPrivatePartnership/ProjectTracker/M50SecondWest-LinkBridge/#d1643.html

Am I missing something here?

How can you possibly get rid of peak hour congestion by increasing demand for the road? If you remove the toll then more cars will use the road and your journey will take longer. You actually predict this on your own web site. Learn to love congestion it's here to stay until the next depression or the point where oil reaches $200/barrel, or the point where all roads in Ireland are tolled electronically according to demand.

ishmael whale

I take it the relevant section you are referring to is below, which clearly contradicts the statement attributed to NTR that the toll plaza has sufficient capacity but the M50 can’t deliver the cars fast enough. NTR’s comparison to the Drogheda bypass suggests that the M50 would need a 40 lane plaza to process traffic, rather than the current 14. (I’m not suggest a 40 lane plaza is even feasible – its just to get a sense of scale, and confirmation that the toll plaza is the problem. I don’t need such confirmation, but some people seem to.)

I take the statement as confirmation that the NRA accept that the toll is an artificial constraint which creates, rather than relieves, congestion.

http://www.nra.ie/PublicPrivatePartnership/ProjectTracker/M50SecondWest-LinkBridge/#d1643.html

“Despite the construction of the second bridge and additional lanes, and the introduction of electronic toll collection, the toll plaza is sub-optimal having regard to the daily traffic throughput to be catered for. The 14 lane West-Link toll plaza is, today, processing traffic volumes approaching 90,000 vehicles each day which represents an increase of almost 9 per cent on the 2003 average daily flows. …….. In contrast, the Drogheda Bypass toll plaza, which was designed by the National Roads Authority and which came into operation in June 2003, is a 10 lane plaza (5 lanes in each direction) and processes approximately 24,000 vehicles per day.

While the Authority considers that the toll operator is managing the individual lane throughputs at the plaza efficiently, it is nonetheless the case that the toll facility at West-Link is not satisfactory for the current traffic volumes. It is both the NRA’s and NTR’s view that the solution at West-Link is to convert the West-Link Toll Plaza to a fully free-flow electronic toll collection system over time. By this is meant that road users would meet no barriers at West-link and would pass through at standard motorway speed…….”

mackerski

I don't think I've ever seen more than two lanes open on the M1 toll (including the automatic lane). Furthermore, I wouldn't be surprised if the figure of 24,000 included cars paying at the slip road toll stations, not on the mainline.

Dermot

ishmael whale

I’m not clear at the point you are making. Are you saying that, because some people pay at slip roads, that the maximum capacity of the Drogheda toll plaza is actually higher than 10 lanes would suggest?

mackerski

ishmael whale wrote:

I’m not clear at the point you are making. Are you saying that, because some people pay at slip roads, that the maximum capacity of the Drogheda toll plaza is actually higher than 10 lanes would suggest?

I've really got two separate points:

* Because the full 10 lanes are not always in operation (are they ever?), the M1 plaza is probably way overcapacity. Without knowing the max capacity of the M1 mainline toll, you can't extrapolate a figure for the number of lanes that should be needed for a known traffic volume on the M50.

* If the figure quoted is the daily tolled-vehicle count then not all of them had to pay in the mainline tolls. Put differently, the slip road toll stations boost the capacity of the tolled stretch above what would be manageable at the mainline plaza alone.

Dermot

ishmael whale

Thanks for the clarification. I agree the comparison is indicative rather than scientific but at the same time it is instructive that NRA regard the comparison as useful.

Taking another estimate, if, as you say, there’s only typically only two lanes open in each direction, adding in an unscientific extra lane in respect of slip-road payers, that makes 5 lanes catering for 24,000 cars. Pro rata, this would suggest that 19 lanes would be a suitable amount for the Westlink’s 90,000 cars. Given the statement that it already caters for 100,000 vehicles on occasion it still suggests that the toll plaza is not adequate. And bear in mind this is only confirming the practical experience of heavy queuing.

Victor

Mayshine wrote:

Would people agree that the toll shoud vary at different times of the day. If the bridge is an aid to keeping congestion under control (!!) surely I shouldn't have to pay much to travel over it a 2am as opposed to 8:30am

This is what will happen with the Port Tunnel. Cars will pay based on traffic volumes. About €5 inbound during the morning rush and the same out in the evening rush, but only about half that off-peak. Trucks are free (the whole purpose of the tunnel).

DubTony

Here's a link to some info on the Dartford Bridge on the M25 (sort of) around London.

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/hatfieldhigh/IT/PT%20Assignments/Unit%201/bridge.htm

Interesting point that there are about 85,000 vehicles a day using it, (they are all going in the same direction) but there are 12 toll lanes each way, that's 12 for the bridge and 12 for the tunnels that go in the opposite direction. There are 7 each way on the West Link. And each side of the West link handles about half as much traffic as the Dartford Bridge. It should also be noted that there are at least 5 dedicated auto toll lanes on the Dartford Bridge.

There are also 4 lanes crossing the bridge approaching the 12 toll lanes. I've never crossed the bridge at rush hour; nearest I got was 4 pm, and I sailed through. It should also be noted that the 4 lanes split approximately 100 metres from the booths, and there is another 100 metres on the other side to merge back to 4 lanes. Is this how it should be done?

Tony

jlang

Is this how it should be done?

Maybe, but the fact that the toll booths are so close to the bridge and that the n4 junction is so close to the other side (and that the traffic backs up heavily on both sides will make any upgrade to the toll booths short of electronic tolling next to impossible to implement.

MrPudding

jlang wrote:

Maybe, but the fact that the toll booths are so close to the bridge and that the n4 junction is so close to the other side (and that the traffic backs up heavily on both sides will make any upgrade to the toll booths short of electronic tolling next to impossible to implement.

There is a fairly big gap between the toll plaza and the next northbound junction. Would it be possible to build another toll plaza further north? You could then have one tolling northbound only and the other tolling southbound only.

MrP

ishmael whale

There’s a letter in this morning’s Irish Times from ICTU, drawing attention to their suggestion in their budget submission that the bridge be bought out. They point out that if NTR were to hold out for €400 million, that there’s always the option of building a second toll free bridge for €50 million.

http://www.ictu.ie/html/publications/ictu/Congress%20Budget%20Submission%202005.pdf

“Capital funding should be provided in this Budget to allow the compulsory purchase (CPO) of the West Link bridge so that the bridge can be open tollfree. Ultimately this bridge will be the property of the people. It will revert to the state in a decade and this proposal simply brings the date forward and thereby boosts competitiveness by eliminating the delays on this important bottleneck. It is remarkable in a modern economy that the premier urban bypass should be tolled and especially that the toll should be largely privately appropriated when the vast bulk of the funding for the M50 was funded by the taxpayer. Congress is not against tolling of roads funded by the private sector, (which, again, the M50 is not) provided there are alternative routes. Congress is totally opposed to the proposal that the toll should be extended as a shortsighted and expensive way to fund the third lane on the M 50, which would compound the issue of the adverse economic impact of delays at the bridge, long into the future.”

Zaph0d

ishmael whale wrote:

They point out that if NTR were to hold out for €400 million, that there’s always the option of building a second toll free bridge for €50 million.

Does NTR's contract not grant it the exclusive right to toll all traffic between the N3 and the N4 junctions of the M50?

sliabh

Zaph0d wrote:

Does NTR's contract not grant it the exclusive right to toll all traffic between the N3 and the N4 junctions of the M50?

This would be a bad move in principle as well. It's one thing for the government to buy out a contract they have engaged in at the agreed rate. However if they were to engage in what is effectively economic blackmail to get better terms they would have serious credibility problems when negotiating other infrastructure contracts in the future.

ishmael whale

Zaphod

I've certainly seen that said, which would suggest that the State could not build a second toll bridge nearby. I'm not clear on is if this stops the State providing an alternative bridge but not tolling it, and I don't know if ICTU gave that any consideration when they made this suggestion.

Sliabh

Can I suggest that giving the impression that the State can be taken for a ride is hardly a good precedent, to be maintained in the face of all opposition.

sliabh

ishmael whale wrote:

Can I suggest that giving the impression that the State can be taken for a ride is hardly a good precedent, to be maintained in the face of all opposition.

The state agreed to the terms of the contract. Good bad or indifferent they have to abide by them. If they started breaking contractual terms (apart from the fact that this is illegal) no one would agree to do government work again.

ishmael whale

Clearly Government can't break contractual arrangements, because they're subject to the law like anyone and NTR can access the courts.

However, the prohibition is stated as NTR having the exclusive right to toll that section of the M50. On the face of it, that seems to allow the State to build a second bridge so long as they don't toll it.

http://www.nra.ie/PublicPrivatePartnership/ProjectTracker/M50SecondWest-LinkBridge/#d1643.html

"The Toll Agreement provides that the Toll Company (NTR plc.) has, until the expiry of the agreement in the year 2020, the exclusive right to toll traffic travelling on the M50 between the N4 (Galway Road interchange) and the N3 (Navan Road interchange)."

Zaph0d

ishmael whale wrote:

On the face of it, that seems to allow the State to build a second bridge so long as they don't toll it.

Would NTR not then erect a toll plaza at one end of the new bridge? They maintain the road between the N3 and N4 in addition to the bridge.

The critical question is whether peak hour traffic speeds would increase or decrease following removal of the toll plaza and tolls.

You must believe they would increase, because otherwise it wouldn't be worth buying out NTR for half a billion and losing 10s of millions a year in govt revenue.

ishmael whale

I nothing more about NTR’s agreement other than what’s posted up above. It’s just interesting to notice other options if NTR were to insist on an asking price of €400 million.

Incidently, the NTR company seems to be worth €649 million. So either Westlink amounts to nearly two thirds of the company’s value, or this estimated asking price is excessive.

Clearly I believe the congestion caused by the bridge is worth sorting out and it doesn’t look like it would cost as much as advertised. As already said, the State can surely find a more efficient way of raising revenue than by erecting roadblocks.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/0204/ntr.html
“NTR chairman Tom Roche has increased his stake in the infrastructure company to 44.8%. ... They are worth around €27 today, giving NTR a total value of €649m.”

Victor

Of course the bridge needn't be "next to", it could be "near", but road + bridge would cost oh, about €200m to build.

mackerski

Victor wrote:

Of course the bridge needn't be "next to", it could be "near", but road + bridge would cost oh, about €200m to build.

So that way, we'd have two roads and bridges for half the (estimated) price of forcibly buying back the first one, and Frank McDonald would do his nut. It's got my vote...

Dermot

ishmael whale

It was another day on the M50, as 90,000 vehicles passed over the Westlink leaving €180,000 in their wake. The State pocketed about €100,000, and NTR took the remaining €80,000.

As they queued the punters reflected on the Department of Transport’s guideline that projects should cost commuting travel time at €8 an hour and non-commuting travel time at €7. Presumably if there’s two of us in the car commuting together that’s €16, they reflected, but lets be generous, split the difference and call it a cost of €7.5 per vehicle. That means a one minute delay of 90,000 vehicles on the Westlink costs €11,250. And that’s not taking into account people who use the M50, get caught in the queue but don’t need to use the bridge.

Eight minutes of an average delay and that’s NTR’s share of the toll paid for. Hmm.

ishmael whale

I received this e mail recently. I’m replying as below.

Dear Ishmael,
I am writing in response to your email concerning traffic congestion on the M50. While fully understanding and appreciating your high level of frustration with the congestion, the removal of the Toll Facility at West-Link would neither materially improve that congestion nor facilitate the efforts of the National Roads Authority in implementing the M50 Upgrade Plan. The public debate on the issue has been characterised by an amount of misinformation and I would direct you towards our website
http://www.ntr.ie/news/_Customer%20Information.htm, where you will find a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the plans underway to address them.

With kind regards,
Jim Barry
Chief Executive, NTR plc.
jim_barry@ntr.ie

Dear Jim

Thank you for your e-mail, and the link to a consumer information newsletter provided by NTR. You might be interested in this link on the NRA website.
http://www.nra.ie/PublicPrivatePartnership/ProjectTracker/M50SecondWest-LinkBridge/d1643.html
“Despite the construction of the second bridge and additional lanes, and the introduction of electronic toll collection, the toll plaza is sub-optimal having regard to the daily traffic throughput to be catered for. The 14 lane West-Link toll plaza is, today, processing traffic volumes approaching 90,000 vehicles each day which represents an increase of almost 9 per cent on the 2003 average daily flows. …….. In contrast, the Drogheda Bypass toll plaza, which was designed by the National Roads Authority and which came into operation in June 2003, is a 10 lane plaza (5 lanes in each direction) and processes approximately 24,000 vehicles per day. While the Authority considers that the toll operator is managing the individual lane throughputs at the plaza efficiently, it is nonetheless the case that the toll facility at West-Link is not satisfactory for the current traffic volumes. ….”

This is confirmation that the NRA accept that the toll is an artificial constraint which creates, rather than relieves, congestion. The comparison to the Drogheda bypass suggests that the M50 would need a 40 lane plaza to have an equivalent, rather than the current 14. It might be noted that NTR’s position as you describe it, that the toll gates have the capacity but the road can’t deliver it, is not entirely consistent with other statements that lifting the toll would move the congestion at junctions. It might also be noted that it is intuitively clear that toll booth operators are not sitting idle, impatiently waiting for the M50 to deliver them a customer. It is the situation that a queue builds up from the booth and reaches back miles, obstructing traffic that doesn’t even need to use the bridge.

I acknowledge that the State takes a fair share of the toll. However, I dare say the State can find ways of gathering revenue that don’t included erecting a roadblock on the M50. Can I also suggest it is hardly a benefit to say that the bridges will eventually come into State hands ‘free of charge’ when, as we know, the cost of the bridge will have been repaid many times by the toll receipts. A frank acknowledgement of this might get you more of a hearing. Incidently, if you are interested in communicating to your customers you might take the opportunity of revealing the exactly how much of NTR’s profits are generated by the Westlink bridge.

Yours sincerely
Ishmael

DubTony

Nice reply Ishmael. However your link to NRA site is "not found".
This link seems to get there.

http://www.nra.ie/PublicPrivatePartnership/ProjectTracker/M50SecondWest-LinkBridge/

Although, unfortunately, I have a feeling that most of Jim Barry's emails probably won't even make it to his inbox in the coming days and weeks.

Tony

ishmael whale

I don't know if this is for real, but hopefully its a sign of some movement.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/0323/ntr.html

" NRA is looking at West Link options

March 23, 2005 19:31
The National Roads Authority is discussing with the Government the possibility of buying out the West Link bridge from NTR, the company that operates the tool booths on the bridge, the Oireachtas Transport Committee has been told.

Committee chairman John Ellis said they had been told previously that the price of a buy-out was totally exorbitant. But NRA chief executive Fred Barry said the authority was now involved in discussions with the Government on a buy-out, as it was a matter that needed a ministerial decision.

Mr Barry also said that it would take until 2008 or 2009 before tolling at the West Link bridge could be done electronically, with devices fitted to every vehicle passing through.


On major roads outside the Dublin area, he said electronic tolls would be installed but there would also be the opportunity to pay by cash.

On the M3 motorway, he said the proposed toll would be west of Navan at a cost of €1.20, which would be less than charged on other routes. In general, he said the NRA favoured the use of variable tolls as a way of managing the traffic flow, but the authority would not favour no tolls, at any hour of the day"

antoinolachtnai

What is this business about variable tolls that they keep going on about? Do they mean adjusting the price in line with the demand?

Victor

ishmael whale wrote:

On the M3 motorway, he said the proposed toll would be west of Navan at a cost of €1.20

I thought there was only one toll on the M3 on the Dublin/Meath border.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

What is this business about variable tolls that they keep going on about? Do they mean adjusting the price in line with the demand?

Possibly. Alternatively, you get a ticket when you join the motorway and pay in proportion to distance you travel, quite common in France.

murphaph

Victor wrote:

I thought there was only one toll on the M3 on the Dublin/Meath border.

Dear God no. That wouldn't make anywhere near enough profit. The controversial toll that you'll have to pay before paying for the P&R at Pace, before paying for the train to Spencer Dock, before paying for the Luas to work is located near the Dublin-Meath border. The one at Navan was always there, just nobody likes to talk about it.

Zaph0d

ishmael whale wrote:

I don't know if this is for real, but hopefully its a sign of some movement.

http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/0323/ntr.html

" NRA is looking at West Link options

Seems false...
http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/0324/ntr.html

RTE wrote:

Cullen rules out toll bridge buy-out

March 24, 2005 16:40
Transport Minister Martin Cullen has said there are no proposals on his desk or in his Department to buy out NTR's interest in the West Link bridge on Dublin's M50. NTR operates the toll booths on the bridge.

He told the Dail he wanted to dispel what he felt was a mistaken impression that an immediate buy-out was under negotiation. Minister Cullen said the income from the tolls was funding the widening of the M50.

He said what had been discussed with NTR was a move to barrier-free tolling as quickly as possible. The Minister said he had also told NTR he did not accept that this change should take four or five years.


National Roads Authority chief executive Fred Barry yesterday told the Oireachtas Transport Committee the NRA was discussing with the Government the possibility of buying out the bridge.

Victor

Oddly he doesn't deny a buyout is on the NRA's desks.

ishmael whale

Transport Minister Martin Cullen has said there are no proposals on his desk or in his Department to buy out NTR's interest in the West Link bridge on Dublin's M50.

Maybe he's keeping file in his shed.

Minister Cullen said the income from the tolls was funding the widening of the M50.

Yes, and the queues caused by the toll gates are adding to the need to widen the M50. Its like that old song:

"My sister sells condoms to sailors
My Dad pricks the heads with a pin
My Mother performs the abortions
Oh Christ, how the money pours in"

ishmael whale

Another little one to watch.

According to this, http://www.ntr.ie/doc.asp?key=93, NTR’s after tax profit is 17.2 million. Taking a crude calculation of 35 cent profit per vehicle, 90,000 vehicles a day, 365 days a year, gives a figure of about 11.5 million of profit in respect of Westlink. So this one operation accounts for two thirds of NTR’s aftertax profits.

So when I said above

.... the NTR company seems to be worth €649 million. So either Westlink amounts to nearly two thirds of the company’s value, or this estimated asking price is excessive.

The situation seems to be, remarkably, that Westlink constitutes two thirds of NTR’s value.


http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/0419/ntr.html
West Link buyout is an option
April 19, 2005 09:33
RTE News has learned the National Roads Authority is preparing a report for Minister for Transport Martin Cullen which includes the option of buying out the West Link toll bridge. It is believed the cost of such a move would be between €300m and €400m. The Minister will receive the report in the coming weeks.
NTR, which runs the bridge and two other tolls, yesterday announced profits of €18m for last year. Traffic delays caused by the West Link bridge on the M50 have prompted calls for the Government to buy it out. Under the agreement with the company that runs the bridge there is a clause which allows the State to take it over.
Of every €1.80 spent at West Link by motorists €1 goes to the Government in taxes and licence fees. 80 cent goes to NTR, of which 35 cent is profit after tax.

Zaph0d

ishmael whale wrote:

Of every €1.80 spent at West Link by motorists €1 goes to the Government in taxes and licence fees. 80 cent goes to NTR, of which 35 cent is profit after tax.

So the state is earning 3 times the profits of NTR on the west link toll. Is the govt considering buying out the westlink bridge and then eliminating tolling? if so and the buyout price is 300-400m, then the above figures show that the additional loss in state revenues would be 900m to 1.2b so a total price of 1.2b to 1.6b.

Another alternative is that the state takes over the tolling and tries to run it more efficiently or with better technology, or sets a lower price for the toll. How likely is this?

ishmael whale

You are absolutely right that the Government would need to find its lost revenue elsewhere. But I think the contention is that erecting a roadblock on the M50 is simply a bizarre way of raising money. So I take it that the idea would be to abolish the Westlink toll, and pursue the question of how roads in general might be sensibly tolled as a separate project.

I’m not sure your figures regarding lost tax revenue are accurate. €1 by 90,000 vehicles per day by 365 days means the State would need to find about €33 million p.a for the next 15 years. One alternative would be hijack aircraft, force them to land in Shannon, and shake down the passengers. Oh, sorry, we’re already doing that.

As a point of comparison, Government gets about €700 million p.a. from motor tax. An increase of 0.5% would take care of the Westlink toll. Yes, I’m sure lots of people have pet transport projects they’d like to stitch into the tax system, but I’m not sure there’s many as glaring as this one.

Zaph0d

How long is the peak hour queue at the m50 toll bridge?

I pay the toll 2 or 3 times a week but never at peak hours. The queue is only a couple of cars and I pay it with the shrapnel in the door pockets and cup holders or I tax my passengers. Then I get to accelerate away. It's no bother off-peak.

How would you feel about raising the m50 toll during peak hour to discourage people from using the road during this time? You could raise it to a point where the queue reduced to a couple of cars. The toll could be reduced off-peak so that the change was revenue neutral. This is the diamteric opposite approach to removing the toll during peak hours. The net result is that you would get the 'relief' that you're after - faster peak journey time. On the other hand you would have to pay more and poor people and those whose journeys were less important would be priced out of making their journeys during peak or might not make their journeys at all.

ishmael whale

Charging extra at peak times assumes that people have some alternative to travelling, and that the Westlink bridge is the right place to impose a toll to regulate traffic. Both of these propositions are questionable.

The toll has increased significantly in recent times, but does not seem to have had any impact on usage. That suggests what we might guess intuitively – most people using the bridge at peak times are using it to get to work, and have no real alternative at their disposal short of moving home or job (which, I suggest, is a little bit drastic to as a consequence of a toll of €1.80.)

From what we can gather, the toll was simply applied at the bridge as a consequence of the decision to built it with private finance. So far as we know, no-one said ‘Hmm, a toll bridge over the Liffey Valley would be just the ticket to manage traffic flows.’ Suggestions regarding tolling as a traffic management system seemed to be based on the idea that cars be charged for joining the M50 in the first place, rather than stopped at a toll booth blocking the carriageway.

The congestion caused by the Westlink toll is simply the unintended consequence of a bad decision. Any solution aimed at cleaning up this mess will be nearly as ugly as the present reality.

antoinolachtnai

Well, wherever you put the toll booth, you're going to create a blockage. There might even need to be two blockages, one on entry and the other on exit.

I don't think that raising the toll at the peak would be such a bad idea.

Obviously, people have to have an alternative to using their cars for the types of journeys they make over the bridge. Otherwise there would be widespread mayhem. At the moment there is only one Dublin bus that uses the west link, and passengers are charged a premium for using it, because there are supposedly 6 stages on the bridge. (http://www.dublinbus.ie/your_journey/viewer.asp?route=76A)

I really think a good bus service serving the areas around the M50, with appropriate priority measures, could make a dent in the mayhem on the road. It would cost 50 or 100 m to implement, and wouldn't really be profitable, but it would still be cheaper than building another ring road or buying out the bridge (not that that would necessarily help).

Victor

Zaph0d wrote:

This is the diamteric opposite approach to removing the toll during peak hours.

Removing tolls at peak times simply means more people would travel at peak times, making things worse.

murphaph

antoinolachtnai wrote:

I really think a good bus service serving the areas around the M50, with appropriate priority measures, could make a dent in the mayhem on the road. It would cost 50 or 100 m to implement, and wouldn't really be profitable, but it would still be cheaper than building another ring road or buying out the bridge (not that that would necessarily help).

Spot on. The hard shoulder should be immediately converted to bus lane as a remedial measure. There should be a high frequency orbital service, closely following the route of the M50. It would indeed make a dent, or at least offer the poor sould an alternative to sitting in gridlock.