Troll Bridge

100gSoma

its kinda hard to believe the west link toll bridge is 1.80 each way.
the govt. gotta make 100000eurits per day off it in VAT. It will be 4.00 per day soon. (2euro each way). thats almost the cost of a short hop (drog - dublin) daily train fare. plus your paying indirectly through road tax and petrol tax.
Didn't want to post this in Economy etc cause Im not interesting in a business analysis etc, but just wondering if it affects many of you day to day?
I may be using it soon, but I think I'd be trés sour paying that much daily.

Mr Magnolia

It will be 4.00 per day soon. (2euro each way).

Where did you hear it was going up again from??

just wondering if it affects many of you day to day?

I use 2 toll bridges (drogheda and west-link) twice daily at a cost of ~34 euro per week.

I think I'd be trés sour paying that much daily.

If you don't think it's worth it don't use it, unfortunately it's a case of 'put up, or ..........'

Sam Vimes

Sparks400 wrote:

Where did you hear it was going up again from??




I use 2 toll bridges (drogheda and west-link) twice daily at a cost of ~34 euro per week.


If you don't think it's worth it don't use it, unfortunately it's a case of 'put up, or ..........'

its a case of put up or saying "oh wait, NTR are making millions for doing nothing except lifting a barrier. its modern day highway robbery". force them to sell the bridge back to the government (should never have been given to them in the first place) and get rid of the barriers

Lump

100gSoma wrote:

its kinda hard to believe the west link toll bridge is 1.80 each way.
the govt. gotta make 100000eurits per day off it in VAT. It will be 4.00 per day soon. (2euro each way). thats almost the cost of a short hop (drog - dublin) daily train fare. plus your paying indirectly through road tax and petrol tax.
Didn't want to post this in Economy etc cause Im not interesting in a business analysis etc, but just wondering if it affects many of you day to day?
I may be using it soon, but I think I'd be trés sour paying that much daily.

You could allways us the non toll road, but I'd presume you'd comp[lain about that too. Wait untill they bring in Congestion charging. My Lanlord is a carpenter and had to pay £8 congestion charge and £32 parking the other day when he was on a job in the center of London. If it's all most the cost o the train, then take the train, and stop moaning. It's better for the environment and sanity getting the train probably.

John

Mr Magnolia

Commander Vimes wrote:

its a case of put up or saying "oh wait, NTR are making millions for doing nothing except lifting a barrier. its modern day highway robbery". force them to sell the bridge back to the government (should never have been given to them in the first place) and get rid of the barriers

Do you think the Government will abolish the tolls when they do buy it back from NTR?

100gSoma

Hang on everyone. I didn;t come on the b1tch and moan about it at all. Was just asking what you thought of it. I know its a case of "put up or sh*t up!". I agree with Vimes that the Govt. should buy it back and have it open and no charge. but its a case of it being a HUGE earner for them. combined with tax and petrol tax its very expensive. I think the govts road safety strategy is to price everyone off the road. clever.

BTW I didn not hear off any source it is going up, but when something is 1.80 in Ireland, its almost gauranteed it will be 1.90 and then 2.00. so I would envisage an increase this year to 1.90.

godtabh

Commander Vimes wrote:

should never have been given to them in the first place

Who would've built it then? Its a piece of infrastructure the city needs. The goverment at the time couldnt afford to build it.

I'm all for PPP as long as they are done right. In this case it wasnt done right.

Sifo

personally it won't effect me that much but it still makes me sick to see the government moving the prices of everything up bit by bit so as to not cause a riot, and please forgive my fellow boardsies for their ignorance, im sure if you posted this after 3 when they finish school you would get a better response... :cool:

godtabh

Sifo wrote:

personally it won't effect me that much but it still makes me sick to see the government moving the prices of everything up bit by bit so as to not cause a riot, and please forgive my fellow boardsies for their ignorance, im sure if you posted this after 3 when they finish school you would get a better response... :cool:

I thought NTR set the prices not the goverement?

Sifo

for the toll bridge yes, but i said "everything"... now shoo..

ambro25

Lump wrote:

It's better for the environment and sanity getting the train probably. John

(i) I don't think trains or a congestion charge have got anything to do with a Toll Barrier on a motorway bridge.

(ii) I think you'll find that it would be better environmentally to not have a barrier toll, as cars would not need to brake/queue/stop/start/stop/start/.../lift barrier/start for good, and therefore consume much more petrol (with corresponding emissions) to cover the queueing distance to the toll, than in otherwise-free-flowing traffic conditions.

(iii) If public transport was a realistic option for the working population of Dublin, it would be much more used. Unfortunately, it is apparently a chicken-and-egg situation: no increase in public-transported commuters makes no increase in public transport infrastructure, and reciprocally, ergo more and more commuters by personal cars.

The fact that Dublin itself (architecturally/structurally/well... from a 'street-map' PoV) doesn't really lend itself to heavy traffic doesn't help. By that I mean that the city has not evolved structurally with 'large avenues'/'main thoroughfares' (e.g. Parisian Boulevards) through the ages, so there are no real 'natural traffic channels' in which car traffic can move fast/unimpeded.

This results in people living 20 miles away from Dublin with a 09:00 AM start having the choice of making a move at 07:00 AM or thereabouts by car, or 06:00 AM by bus/trains/whatever.... just by way of example.

Not soveable in the short or medium term and a serious momentum-inducing political foot-to-ass is needed for envisaging any viable long term solution.

Were I to be asked by the powers that be, my solution would be (financial/structural) incentives for two-wheels and car-pooling (e.g. free roadtax for bikes, cars with three people+ can use bus lanes at rush hours, etc.), but not any congestion charge... and let nature and economics take their course. I believe it would result in not any less traffic, but certainly more fluid.

My unsollicited €0.02.

EDIT: Oh - and my belief was that it was the EU who paid for most of that bridge, not NTR. Am I mistaken?

godtabh

Sifo wrote:

for the toll bridge yes, but i said "everything"... now shoo..

How does the goverment rise prices? Goverments raise taxes but its the retailers that charge what the think the market will bare. I dont use the toll road. I go around it. Its an open market so you have to choice to pay it or not.

Lump

ambro25 wrote:

(i) I don't think trains or a congestion charge have got anything to do with a Toll Barrier on a motorway bridge.

(ii) I think you'll find that it would be better environmentally to not have a barrier toll, as cars would not need to brake/queue/stop/start/stop/start/.../lift barrier/start for good, and therefore consume much more petrol (with corresponding emissions) to cover the queueing distance to the toll, than in otherwise-free-flowing traffic conditions.

(iii) If public transport was a realistic option for the working population of Dublin, it would be much more used. Unfortunately, it is apparently a chicken-and-egg situation: no increase in public-transported commuters makes no increase in public transport infrastructure, and reciprocally, ergo more and more commuters by personal cars.

The fact that Dublin itself (architecturally/structurally/well... from a 'street-map' PoV) doesn't really lend itself to heavy traffic doesn't help. By that I mean that the city has not evolved structurally with 'large avenues'/'main thoroughfares' (e.g. Parisian Boulevards) through the ages, so there are no real 'natural traffic channels' in which car traffic can move fast/unimpeded.

This results in people living 20 miles away from Dublin with a 09:00 AM start having the choice of making a move at 07:00 AM or thereabouts by car, or 06:00 AM by bus/trains/whatever.... just by way of example.

Not soveable in the short or medium term and a serious momentum-inducing political foot-to-ass is needed for envisaging any viable long term solution.

Were I to be asked by the powers that be, my solution would be (financial/structural) incentives for two-wheels and car-pooling (e.g. free roadtax for bikes, cars with three people+ can use bus lanes at rush hours, etc.), but not any congestion charge... and let nature and economics take their course. I believe it would result in not any less traffic, but certainly more fluid.

My unsollicited €0.02.

EDIT: Oh - and my belief was that it was the EU who paid for most of that bridge, not NTR. Am I mistaken?

Fine then, use the alternate roads if you're not willing to pay the toll for the fast route. It's not rocket science. You do have a choice in the matter. It'd be different if they was only one road in dublin, and it was a toll road, or if all the roads were toll roads.

John

Sifo

kearnsr wrote:

How does the goverment rise prices? Goverments raise taxes but its the retailers that charge what the think the market will bare. I dont use the toll road. I go around it. Its an open market so you have to choice to pay it or not.

prices, taxes, its all the same, why are you even nitpicking? u still got sand in your vagina?

youcancallmeal

Do you have to pay if your cycling across?

Mr Magnolia

youcancallme>al wrote:

Do you have to pay if your cycling across?

Cycling isn't permitted on motorways.

godtabh

Sifo wrote:

prices, taxes, its all the same, why are you even nitpicking? u still got sand in your vagina?

If your gona start name calling take it some where else. I made a valid point and the best you can come up to a responce is the above.

youcancallme>al wrote:

Do you have to pay if your cycling across?

No cycles or pedestrians allowed.

ambro wrote:

The fact that Dublin itself (architecturally/structurally/well... from a 'street-map' PoV) doesn't really lend itself to heavy traffic doesn't help. By that I mean that the city has not evolved structurally with 'large avenues'/'main thoroughfares' (e.g. Parisian Boulevards) through the ages, so there are no real 'natural traffic channels' in which car traffic can move fast/unimpeded.

The reason being that during WW2 most of the european cities were leveled during bombing runs and when the war was over there was a chance to plan properly.

Dublin city hasnt changed a lot since was founded streert wise. Thats why traffic need to be taken away from the city i.e. M50 and Port Tunnel. Tolls are need be collected but in a different form. There is many many different ways to collect tolls.

The simple fact is that the present system was desgined for the traffic on the roads. People didnt see the Celtic Tiger coming and as result underestimated the amount of cars on the road and hence picked the wrong system to toll people.

Sifo

kearnsr wrote:

If your gona start name calling take it some where else. I made a valid point and the best you can come up to a responce is the above.



No cycles or pedestrians allowed.



The reason being that during WW2 most of the european cities were leveled during bombing runs and when the war was over there was a chance to plan properly.

Dublin city hasnt changed a lot since was founded streert wise. Thats why traffic need to be taken away from the city i.e. M50 and Port Tunnel. Tolls are need be collected but in a different form. There is many many different ways to collect tolls.

The simple fact is that the present system was desgined for the traffic on the roads. People didnt see the Celtic Tiger coming and as result underestimated the amount of cars on the road and hence picked the wrong system to toll people.

What name calling?

WW2? you don't buy that bullsh*t do you?

godtabh

Sifo wrote:

u still got sand in your vagina?

What part of WW2 is bull****?

Sifo

kearnsr wrote:

What part of WW2 is bull****?

What you said about it?

And i only said what i said about your sandy vagina cos your nitpicking at peoples points of view, when theres really no need.

ambro25

Lump wrote:

Fine then, use the alternate roads if you're not willing to pay the toll for the fast route. It's not rocket science. You do have a choice in the matter. It'd be different if they was only one road in dublin, and it was a toll road, or if all the roads were toll roads.

John

The OP's ranting about the Toll Bridge (who isn't?), and everyone herein (bar a few unnecessarily-obnoxious ones) has either provided some form of political or economical observation about it (and maybe a few suggestions as to how it and/or traffic generally could be dealt with in the future), or justified the presence of the Toll Bridge for the simple reason that if you don't like it where it is, drive elsewhere (which is quite a puerile manner of arguing a point, if it ever was a point to be made, tbh :rolleyes:).

Ergo, if you don't want to discuss the toll bridge's real and possible/surmisable ins-and-outs, don't bother posting. That ain't rocket science either

Next, where-o-where did I suggest that I was "not willing to pay the toll for the fast route"?

godtabh

Sifo wrote:

What you said about it?

So your saying that Paris, Amseterdam,Berlin and the like were not bombed during the war and rebuilt after?

macguch

What a complete ripoff, they should just raise taxes on something and abolish the toll bridge.

godtabh

macguch wrote:

What a complete ripoff, they should just raise taxes on something and abolish the toll bridge.

Then you'd complain that something else is a rip off.

Sifo

kearnsr wrote:

So your saying that Paris, Amseterdam,Berlin and the like were not bombed during the war and rebuilt after?

yes, thats exactly what im saying :rolleyes:

godtabh

Sifo wrote:

yes, thats exactly what im saying :rolleyes:

Explain what you meant then.

biko

Sifo wrote:

yes, thats exactly what im saying :rolleyes:

And all those people didn't die either? Perhaps it didn't even happen?
You are funneh David Irving and you must be mates...
Sand in my bum, that's all heh heh

Sifo

I was refering to what you said about WW2 and the significance (lack of) it had towards the OP's opening post.
WW2 had a major impact on a lot of places, dublin was not one of those places... minor impact compared to most...

godtabh

Sifo wrote:

I was refering to what you said about WW2 and the significance (lack of) it had towards the OP's opening post.
WW2 had a major impact on a lot of places, dublin was not one of those places... minor impact compared to most...

While not answering the OP question it was related to the thread when this was brought up

youcancallme>al wrote:

The fact that Dublin itself (architecturally/structurally/well... from a 'street-map' PoV) doesn't really lend itself to heavy traffic doesn't help. By that I mean that the city has not evolved structurally with 'large avenues'/'main thoroughfares' (e.g. Parisian Boulevards) through the ages, so there are no real 'natural traffic channels' in which car traffic can move fast/unimpeded.

And why there is the need for toll roads.

Sam Vimes

kearnsr wrote:

Who would've built it then? Its a piece of infrastructure the city needs. The goverment at the time couldnt afford to build it.

I'm all for PPP as long as they are done right. In this case it wasnt done right.

they could have paid them in installments. taxpayers could have paid for it the same way they are now. the difference would be we would have finished paying for it years ago. there's no point building a road designed to decrease traffic congestion and then putting a massive bottleneck on it