M50 traffic tops boom

Carawaystick · 09-10-2014 10:46pm

R108 to M50 E
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4094802,-6.2586196,3a,75y,87.61h,86.51t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s1STVrJIEsn5mdJCcowNvwQ!2e0?hl=en

R108 to M50W
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4086445,-6.2729707,3a,75y,251.52h,94.55t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCBgAvfyL-uPzMEzkq-tjDw!2e0?hl=en

N2 to M50S
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4016696,-6.3181092,3a,75y,261.24h,80.76t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOF6MDgLcPBJeiUUe3HObAQ!2e0?hl=en

N3 to M50S
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3794373,-6.3662665,3a,75y,196.71h,73.68t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1smkVB32nG_9bXyJQ1DgabMw!2e0?hl=en

N4 to M50S
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3557498,-6.384113,3a,75y,232.35h,76.29t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sFuir5ilYO_mBM-6zelw9Kg!2e0?hl=en

All those short sliplanes are a bigger issue than the poor usage of aux lanes.

omicron · 09-10-2014 10:50pm

Thats exactly what I'm talking about, if people stayed in the auxiliary lane when merging there until its safe to merge properly instead of immediately trying to get into the main flow it would eliminate the issue altogether.

KevR · 09-10-2014 11:00pm

Our inter-urban motorway network is generally great. Unfortunately, we really don't have a good record when it comes to building high capacity, future proofed urban roads. M50, N4 (outer Dublin), N6 (Galway City) and the N40 (Cork) being some really bad examples that spring immediately to mind.

In my opinion, no new road should need capacity improvements for at least 40 - 50 years after opening, urban roads included. It's simply bad design and/or cheapness.

The M50 was effectively at capacity when it first opened. An expensive upgrade later, there has been a drastic improvement in traffic flow, however, it appears that it might be short lived.

N6 in Galway City - reached capacity far too quickly after opening. Designed to carry approx. 25K per day. Some sections are currently carrying almost double that. Grade separation and perhaps an extra lane in each direction would have been easy when it was initially built through green fields. All but impossible to upgrade now given that surrounding land is heavily developed.

The Athlone Bypass is one of the few urban roads that was really built right. 23+ years after opening, it is carrying roughly 33K per day. It can probably comfortably carry another 10K or so. It should hit the 40 year mark without any major congestion issues. They could have easily cheaped out and built a 1 + 1 at-grade bypass (something like the Nenagh Bypass) - it would have been a big improvement on driving through the town centre and capacity would have been ok for the first few years. Luckily, that didn't happen.

Aard · 09-10-2014 11:12pm

KevR wrote: »

In my opinion, no new road should need capacity improvements for at least 40 - 50 years after opening, urban roads included. It's simply bad design and/or cheapness.

I don't think that's fair. When the Western Parkway was designed, do you think the engineers would have been able to predict the huge expansion of peripheral residential areas in Dublin and the satellite towns? Most of the M50 had been built by 2001, before the real craziness took off in housing construction. Most of the shopping centres along the M50 wouldn't have been taken into account either - Charlestown, Dundrum, Carrickmines. Even Liffey Valley and Blanch were built after the first M50 section. Road engineers can only design for current circumstances and the immediately predictable future.

At any rate, it is the nature of urban roads that they facilitate latent demand. The move in transport planning atm is not constant capacity improvements, but demand management.

KevR · 09-10-2014 11:30pm

Aard wrote: »

I don't think that's fair. When the Western Parkway was designed, do you think the engineers would have been able to predict the huge expansion of peripheral residential areas in Dublin and the satellite towns? Most of the M50 had been built by 2001, before the real craziness took off in housing construction. Most of the shopping centres along the M50 wouldn't have been taken into account either - Charlestown, Dundrum, Carrickmines. Even Liffey Valley and Blanch were built after the first M50 section. Road engineers can only design for current circumstances and the immediately predictable future.

At any rate, it is the nature of urban roads that they facilitate latent demand. The move in transport planning atm is not constant capacity improvements, but demand management.

I am almost sure that I read on here a while back that consultants were brought over from the UK when the M50 was being planned initially. Apparently, they strongly advised putting in a 3rd lane from the get-go and advised on free-flowing junctions (as opposed to the signalised roundabouts which were put in). If true, it means the cheap option was deliberately taken.

I completely disagree with "Road engineers can only design for current circumstances and the immediately predictable future". Our inter-urban motorway network has generally been designed for the very long term. Hundreds of kilometers of the new inter-urban could have been built to a lower spec and it would have been fine in the short to medium term. Going very long term, a lower spec would have been a disaster (trying to do capacity upgrades is a lot more difficult and expensive than doing it right the first time). The same long term view should have been taken for strategic high capacity urban roads such as the M50. Arguably, a long term view is even more critical for routes which are in or are very close to urban areas - they are a nightmare to upgrade if surrounding land gets developed.

Some people are calling for the M17/18 to be scaled down because a D2M will not be needed in the short or medium term. A road that won't need capacity improvements for 50 years or more - excellent design and planning, just like the rest of the inter-urbans.

Aard · 09-10-2014 11:53pm

Regarding your second paragraph - I was referring to urban roads. I should have been more specific. And yes, it would have made sense to buy a wider strip of land than necessary. That's easier said in retrospect, however. At the time it may have added significantly to the costs. Remember too that car ownership and use increased dramatically in the 1990s - something else that was difficult to predict.

Sheldons Brain · 10-10-2014 1:13am

Aard wrote: »

Regarding your second paragraph - I was referring to urban roads. I should have been more specific. And yes, it would have made sense to buy a wider strip of land than necessary. That's easier said in retrospect, however. At the time it may have added significantly to the costs. Remember too that car ownership and use increased dramatically in the 1990s - something else that was difficult to predict.

It isn't rocket science to buy some land at the side of the road, if this was going to cost a lot it was because of providing planning permission for it and then buying it at inflated prices.

Predicting car ownership isn't rocket science either, other countries had such traffic and once Irish living standards reached that level we would too.

The reality is that the technocrats did predict these things, but those above them ignored this as they wouldn't be still be there when the crisis arose.

veryangryman · 10-10-2014 8:39am

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The reality is that the technocrats did predict these things, but those above them ignored this as they wouldn't be still be there when the crisis arose.

The reality of irish politics. 5 year plans (at the most) due to 5 year terms.

AugustusMinimus · 10-10-2014 10:40am

KevR wrote: »

I am almost sure that I read on here a while back that consultants were brought over from the UK when the M50 was being planned initially. Apparently, they strongly advised putting in a 3rd lane from the get-go and advised on free-flowing junctions (as opposed to the signalised roundabouts which were put in). If true, it means the cheap option was deliberately taken.

I completely disagree with "Road engineers can only design for current circumstances and the immediately predictable future". Our inter-urban motorway network has generally been designed for the very long term. Hundreds of kilometers of the new inter-urban could have been built to a lower spec and it would have been fine in the short to medium term. Going very long term, a lower spec would have been a disaster (trying to do capacity upgrades is a lot more difficult and expensive than doing it right the first time). The same long term view should have been taken for strategic high capacity urban roads such as the M50. Arguably, a long term view is even more critical for routes which are in or are very close to urban areas - they are a nightmare to upgrade if surrounding land gets developed.

Some people are calling for the M17/18 to be scaled down because a D2M will not be needed in the short or medium term. A road that won't need capacity improvements for 50 years or more - excellent design and planning, just like the rest of the inter-urbans.

I have no doubt in my mind that the cheap option was chosen for the M50 originally with disregard given to all good advice. The choice of junction (roundabouts) was absolute insanity at the time given the fact that freeflow junctions built from scratch wouldn't have cost much more.

You mention the M17/M18 I see. I'm afraid to say that again, we have gone for the cheap option here too. Instead of a free flow junction at the meeting of the M17/M18/M6, we are instead getting a 3 stack roundabout. It is literally absolute insanity what they are doing. Madness.

Idbatterim · 10-10-2014 11:16am

there is far more money to be made getting it wrong than right the first time!

Deedsie · 10-10-2014 1:47pm

Would the Dublin Outer Orbital Route not ease traffic on the M50? Would that not be a viable option? Think of all the traffic from South of Dublin that uses the M50 just to get to Dublin Airport?

If a link from the DOOR to the airport was included you would def remove some traffic from the M50

veryangryman · 10-10-2014 1:56pm

Not much though.

Most of these people are coming to/from work in Dublin (where the jobs are). Lets say 10% are not going anywhere within the city, its still not enough to significantly change traffic picture.

Lucan/Rathcoole/Balbriggan/Bray etc don't really have much pull jobswise so not many out there who avoid Dublin city to get to their destination. They are simply using the M50 to get from one end of town to another. Sandyford to Swords, Airport to Dun Laoighre etc.

Idbatterim · 10-10-2014 2:17pm

would the eastern bypass take a lot of the pressure off the current M50?

L1011 · 10-10-2014 2:19pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

would the eastern bypass take a lot of the pressure off the current M50?

Not really - the issue isn't traffic doing the full ring, as there's not much of it.

It would take a fair bit of traffic off the N11 and maybe through Dundrum etc though.

Carawaystick · 10-10-2014 2:58pm

omicron wrote: »

Thats exactly what I'm talking about, if people stayed in the auxiliary lane when merging there until its safe to merge properly instead of immediately trying to get into the main flow it would eliminate the issue altogether.

I think we're both agreeing here, but it is unreasonable to expect people to not use the short onslips, as they're there. If they were removed/blocked, then we could see if there's an improvement.

KevR · 10-10-2014 10:24pm

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

You mention the M17/M18 I see. I'm afraid to say that again, we have gone for the cheap option here too. Instead of a free flow junction at the meeting of the M17/M18/M6, we are instead getting a 3 stack roundabout. It is literally absolute insanity what they are doing. Madness.

Yes, the stacked roundabout is far from ideal. I seriously doubt that it will be cheaper than a free-flow though, that's the annoying thing. I suspect the roundabout was chosen on the grounds that they wanted to tack on a service area, the planning for which was rejected.

Rathmorrissey aside, the scheme is well spec'd.

patrickbrophy18 · 11-10-2014 11:35pm

While the increase in journeys on the M50 is undoubtedly a very positive sign of improved economic activity, I do think that further widening of the M50 for an ever increasing number of car journeys could prove unsustainable as per many of the assertions of posters on this and similar threads. In my opinion, it is now a major opportunity for the relevant transport bodies to plan an orbital rail or BRT network. The M50 is obviously there in part to accommodate those who would otherwise be traveling upwards of 90 minutes each way by public transport as a result of v-shaped (i.e. indirect) commutes. Given the multitude of major business parks within a 2 mile buffer radius either side of the M50, there must be a business case for an orbital rail or BRT network.

However, speed must be a major factor if it is to be a true incentive for use by current motorists. Think of an M50 for BRT/Rail(Heavy/Light) services with DART like speeds. Plus, any more widening of the M50 would more than likely require a huge amount of PSOs as it is bursting at the seems in many parts. An orbital BRT/Rail network would ideally take up the slack of the increase in M50 users as well as current users to curb increases in unsustainable travel. That isn't to say that there won't be an upward trend in cars on the M50. But, if we plan more sustainable ways of reaching destinations within it's vicinity, it should help to keep the increase of our carbon footprint in check. Together with a honeycomb of cycle ways radiating outward from each of the hypothetical stations, it should be a good start.

Jayuu · 12-10-2014 10:02am

Before any further work should be carried out we need to understand why the M50 is so busy. There has been no analysis of who is using it, where they get on, get off, why they use it and how busy are individual entrances and exits. There is also an increased amount of traffic from the Port Tunnel on to the road which wasn't there during the previous boom time. Also when we say the road is at capacity how is that determined. Is it a daily figure? Are their particular times when the road hits peak capacity? All of that needs to be done to see if there are particular pinch points which could be addressed.

I use the M50 every day as part of my commute from Coolock to Maynooth. In the morning I get on at Junction 3 (R132) and get off at Junction 7 (N4). In the evenings in order to avoid the toll I tend to come across the back roads to Blanchardstown and join at Juncton 6 and get off again at Junction 3.

One thing I've noticed is that barring accidents the main problem with the M50 is the southbound route from 8:15-9:30. Around this time the road seems to be full and there are constant tailbacks. While this can be explained by commuter traffic the strange thing is that the northbound route doesn't seem to experience the same problem in the evening from what I can tell. Hard for me to say exactly if this is the case because I'm coming home at around 6:30 to 6:45pm so traffic might have eased by that time. But the northbound route doesn't seem to experience the same congestion issues in the evening. One has to ask if the same traffic is using the road both ways why this is the case.

Personally I think it because the exits on the northside are better. The N4, N2, M1 exits are all freeflow exits which means tailbacks don't generally happen on the exits taking traffic off the M50 quicker and keeping it flowing. None of the southside exits are freeflow bar the N7 (and we still have Newlands holding that up). Also many of the exits on the southside lead directly into the places where people work so congestion builds on those exits very quickly in the morning which may have an effect back onto the mainline.

I should also note that the current congestion has only really happened since this autumn. Previous to that I could get from Coolock to Maynooth in around 25-35 minutes on my morning commute. Now it takes around 45-55 minutes at the same time. In the last while I've reversed my travel options so in the morning I leave the M50 at Junction5 (Finglas) and use the N2-M3 link to Blanchardstown and on to Maynooth via the back roads and the use the M50 from Junction 7 (Lucan) back to Junction 3 (M1) in the evenings.

But I think we need to avoid proposing simplistic solutions before doing proper analysis of the problem causes.

Aard · 12-10-2014 1:50pm

Jayuu wrote: »

But I think we need to avoid proposing simplistic solutions before doing proper analysis of the problem causes.

The first part of that sentence is so relevant, not only for discussion of M50 congestion problems, but pretty much any intervention be it roads, railways, or public transport networks. And as for the second half of the sentence, I completely agree that it is important to identify the root cause rather than treating more cosmetic issues. The problem there, however, is that dealing with the root problem is usually more time-consuming and labour-intensive, and doesn't lend itself to quick-fix projects that people can readily identify with (for example, adding an extra lane).

Carawaystick · 12-10-2014 5:14pm

Maybe we could build something like a Metro, on the West of the city...

12-10-2014 5:48pm

The first reason the M50 is so busy is simply the fact that far too many people are working a long distance away from there they live and the recent housing market issues have made it harder to move nearer to work.

The second is the fact that most of the jobs are in and around Dublin, forcing far too many to do long distance commuting.

Sometimes it's better to take a step back and see why there is an issue, it appears that the currently congested M50 is a symptom of a wider problem and not an issue with the road itself.

Having said that, whatever happened to the variable speed limits that were proposed and gantries installed for during the rebuilding?
Variable speed limits would (if enforced) have a major effect on the bunching of traffic now.

patrickbrophy18 · 12-10-2014 6:59pm

To better demonstrate what I was talking about in my previous post, I have attached a map of a potential orbital Luas line from Dun Laoghaire to Citywest. It would take in the future mass population center where the Golf Club used to be, Mackintosh Park, Cornels Court and Cabinteely. Here after, it would briefly join the Green Luas Line between Carrickmines and Ballyogan. From here, it would take a branch due west via Belarmine, Marlay Park, Kilmashogue, Knocklyon, Firhouse, Woodstown and Tallaght. After Tallaght, a new set of tracks would be laid bearing left towards Citywest instead of Belgard. Nevertheless, Belgard would be an additional journey permutation. See the following map for details:

//c3.staticflickr.com/3/2950/15517429075_26320f4552_c.jpg

Other orbital branches could include the following:

//c2.staticflickr.com/4/3932/15517026982_714a1c2fda.jpg

Aard · 12-10-2014 7:20pm

High capacity orbital services only make sense when they're fed by high capacity radial services. Furthermore, orbital routes work best when they're close so the centre - that route skirts the foothills of the Dublin Mountains and few people would use it.

12-10-2014 7:29pm

Aard wrote: »

High capacity orbital services only make sense when they're fed by high capacity radial services. Furthermore, orbital routes work best when they're close so the centre - that route skirts the foothills of the Dublin Mountains and few people would use it.

True, the circle line in London being a classic example, it's one of the busiest routes on the underground.

Carawaystick · 12-10-2014 8:03pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The first reason the M50 is so busy is simply the fact that far too many people are working a long distance away from there they live

That kind of thinking was grand in the auld job for life days. If you expected a family to uproot every time someone had a forced job change, sher the estate agents would have a field day
But you would have a generation of poorly educated pupils who attended a scattering of schools

patrickbrophy18 · 12-10-2014 8:52pm

Aard wrote: »

High capacity orbital services only make sense when they're fed by high capacity radial services.

Given that large portions of the routes which I've suggested intercept with high capacity bus services and two heavy rail lines, they should be a perfect fit.

Aard wrote: »

Furthermore, orbital routes work best when they're close so the centre

If by centre, you mean City Center, this leads to the unattractive option of v-shaped commutes as it focuses transport interchange dependency back into the city center. As I have said before, from experience, traveling to Citywest from Dun Laoghaire takes the guts of 2 hours each way because you have to go into the city only to go back out again. By car, this journey takes 30-40 minutes which gives me back the best part of 3 hours to my day and thus, a better work-life balance. While the type and duration of the journey mentioned would be difficult to compete with from a public transport perspective, I do believe a journey of this nature could be cut back to 50 minutes to an hour.

Aard wrote: »

That route skirts the foothills of the Dublin Mountains and few people would use it.

Very well, I have marked a deviation from the foothills of the Dublin Mountains in blue where there are higher population centers and far greater potential for use in the following link:

//c4.staticflickr.com/4/3927/15518269485_6b43a77a70_b.jpg

One criticism I might make towards the Luas system in its current state is the large number of stops that it makes. For example, Brides Glen and Cherrywood Stations on the Green Line are a stones throw from one another and should be consolidated. Similarly, on the Red Line, Stations such as Drimnagh, Golden Bridge and Suir Road are a quarter of a mile or less from each other which is ridiculously excessive. In one of my previous comments, I mentioned that speed is an important factor in making public transport an attractive alternative to the car. I can't see much speed being gained when stops are being placed this close together. The DART system is something that the Luas should be trying to emulate as much as possible. There should be a minimum of half a mile between successive Luas stops. Stations along the DART line can be up to 2 miles apart.

Chris_5339762 · 12-10-2014 10:24pm

To be honest thats a major problem with Dublin Bus too. There are far, far too many stops and coupled with DBs horrendous dwell times it just makes the whole process agonisingly slow.

NedNew2 · 12-10-2014 10:56pm

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

One criticism I might make towards the Luas system in its current state is the large number of stops that it makes. For example, Brides Glen and Cherrywood Stations on the Green Line are a stones throw from one another and should be consolidated. Similarly, on the Red Line, Stations such as Drimnagh, Golden Bridge and Suir Road are a quarter of a mile or less from each other which is ridiculously excessive. In one of my previous comments, I mentioned that speed is an important factor in making public transport an attractive alternative to the car. I can't see much speed being gained when stops are being placed this close together. The DART system is something that the Luas should be trying to emulate as much as possible. There should be a minimum of half a mile between successive Luas stops. Stations along the DART line can be up to 2 miles apart.

I always lose interest once someone starts talking in miles. Trying to talk about the future using terms from the past just doesn't fit quite right.

Aard · 12-10-2014 11:17pm

I don't want to get too focussed on one route. For a transport network to work, it needs to account for the thousands of origin points and thousands of destination points.

Given finite resourses, not all of those trips will map neatly onto a public transport network. Some trips will need to use the car to get from a to b. Again I'm not commenting on the DL-Tallaght route per se here.

For many if not most orbital routes, busses should provide ample capacity. There's no reason why a bus route cannot have dedicated lanes and priority at junctions, much like light rail. For example, even most large cities do not have orbital rail in the fringe suburbs (though there's the odd exception).

Orbital just isn't as important as radial, especially in a relatively mono-centric city like Dublin.

Irish Steve · 13-10-2014 12:03am

The M50 suffers from the major issue that it's the feeder road to most of the large industrial estates at places like Sandyford, Citywest, Parkwest, The Northern industrial parks between Blanchardstown and Finglas, and the whole N7 area, and others, and the public transport to these estates is dire, and not likely to improve any time soon, as the planners seem to be obsessed with hub and spoke, with the primary focus being central Dublin, so the result is that huge numbers of people have no choice other than a car as there isn't a viable public transport option to get to these large complexes.

The transit time from Ashbourne to places like Sandyford, or Citywest is not viable, as the main public transport route out of Ashbourne goes to the centre of Dublin, so getting back out again doubles the time, cost and aggravation of making the journey, as there's no way to pick up a ring road service in Finglas, it doesn't exist, so it's Beresford Place or O'Connell St, which doesn't necessarily then work easily for a link out of the city to the large estates, and having to go so far into the centre when you don't really want to is a pain. and a long journey, from Ashbourne to Saggart is over 2 hours, assuming no delays, no one in their right mind is going to spend 4 hours a day on that sort of commute. Sandyford is worse, as there's no easy way to get to the Luas from Beresford Place, and it's still close on 2 hours, I can be almost in Rosslare in 2 hours from Ashbourne by road, even at peak periods. as long as it's not too bad at Bray.

Some of the junctions on the M50 are dire, they are badly laid out, and make it hard to join with any degree of sense, which slows things down, and traffic light controls on some of them mean long tailbacks.

An extra junction between Red Cow and Blanchardstown to get into Parkwest would help things considerably, and changing the Liffey Valley area to make the flow work without the stupidity of some of the bus lanes would help as well, as would a overpass bridge between Valleymount and the Red Cow to make it possible to join the M50 without having to get through the traffic exiting to the N7,

I've suggested before that American style lane blockers to prevent people jumping from Lane 3 to the exit slip at the last moment, or jumping from the entry slip to Lane 3 at 60 Kph would help as well.

The M25 in the UK has variable speed limits, enforced by cameras on the gantries, and we need the same concept here, and it does work, with much higher volumes.

Some driver education won't come amiss, the M50 could take more traffic if the lanes were correctly used, there are more than a few occasions when the clearest lane is Lane 1, and Lane 3 is almost at a standstill.

M50 traffic tops boom

Comments