Port Tunnel: open it up due to conditions

Cookie_Monster

Any merit in dramatically reducing the cost of the tunnel to encourage people to use it during the bad weather?

Getting as much traffic outa the CC as quick as possible should be the aim, no? Especially with public transport knocking off early. At this stage it could be considered a safety issue and even opened for free perhaps

paulm17781

There's hardly any traffic on the quays tonight. It probably would have been helpful yesterday though.

Run_to_da_hills

It would only encourage more to drive into the city center which is the last thing DCC want at the moment. The reason Dublin Bus went so smooth today compared to yesterday is because there was less traffic on the road.

amacachi

Was in it yesterday afternoon heading North, plenty in it, probably hitting close to what is seen as its ideal maximum.

Chris_5339762

Getting out of town using it is probably a good idea, but going into town would be a disaster as it would just dump rush hour traffic into the port.

markpb

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Getting out of town using it is probably a good idea, but going into town would be a disaster as it would just dump rush hour traffic into the port.

Even using it for clearing the city centre would be awkward as it would drag a lot of traffic onto the north quays and Sheriff St. During the snow in January, it was one of the pinch points as people used it to avoid Amiens St and Dumcondra.

CIE

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It would only encourage more to drive into the city center which is the last thing DCC want at the moment. The reason Dublin Bus went so smooth today compared to yesterday is because there was less traffic on the road.

Institute uni-directional traffic flow. If all lanes went out of the city, nobody could use the tunnel to drive in.

amacachi

CIE wrote: »

Institute uni-directional traffic flow. If all lanes went out of the city, nobody could use the tunnel to drive in.

Huh? Have one of the tunnels exit onto the N1 against the traffic? Or just close the Southbound tunnel? I can't see either being very helpful.

markpb

amacachi wrote: »

Huh? Have one of the tunnels exit onto the N1 against the traffic? Or just close the Southbound tunnel? I can't see either being very helpful.

It's not hard to change the direction a tunnel flows in if you have moveable lane barriers at either end. Google Lincoln Tunnel for an example.

CIE

markpb wrote: »

It's not hard to change the direction a tunnel flows in if you have moveable lane barriers at either end. Google Lincoln Tunnel for an example.

Pretty good example tunnel-wise, although it has three two-lane tunnels instead of two; the centre tunnel's lanes become uni-directional during rush hours (into Manhattan in the AM, to New Jersey in PM). Not hard to conceive at least one lane in each Port tunnel changing direction for the same purpose, or changing both lanes' flow in the case of emergency travel needs.

amacachi

Adding trucks into the city in these conditions is a good idea?

Cookie_Monster

amacachi wrote: »

Adding trucks into the city in these conditions is a good idea?

well the idea of them using it is to get to the port anyway which is function normally. trucks don't pay anyway...

Just in the evening rush hour say make the tunnel only 1 or 2 euro from 5-7 to encourage people to use it only to get home. the rest of time it can be priced normally

Victor

It wouldn't be practical to use the tunnel in contra-flow without adding to the control systems, e.g. adding traffic lights and variable message signs facing the other direction.

There is also the (already existing) merging problem at the ends of the tunnels, which would probably destroy any increased capacity.

CIE

Victor wrote: »

It wouldn't be practical to use the tunnel in contra-flow without adding to the control systems, e.g. adding traffic lights and variable message signs facing the other direction.

There is also the (already existing) merging problem at the ends of the tunnels, which would probably destroy any increased capacity.

Agreed, if you were going to do it on a permanent basis. Emergency basis ought to be executable with Garda supervision and NRA co-operation. As for tunnel ends: Might be possible to keep one lane reversed on the M1 perhaps up as far as the Airport, if you have merging problems? Perhaps Sheriff Street/Seville Place and North Wall Quay should become uni-directional during the rush as well, and maybe get the south quays into helping with traffic flow now that there are more bridges across the river. (The Lincoln Tunnel example has one lane reversed for buses only on New Jersey's state route number 495, during morning rush.)

amacachi

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

well the idea of them using it is to get to the port anyway which is function normally. trucks don't pay anyway...

Just in the evening rush hour say make the tunnel only 1 or 2 euro from 5-7 to encourage people to use it only to get home. the rest of time it can be priced normally

If you were to have both tunnels used only for outward travel then the lorries would have to go through the city instead of the tunnel is what I meant.

CIE

amacachi wrote: »

If you were to have both tunnels used only for outward travel then the lorries would have to go through the city instead of the tunnel is what I meant.

Not if you institute a lorry travel ban. Why would lorry companies want to operate during emergency weather conditions in the first place, is a question one needs to ask, due to the high potential for damage and loss. Supermarket shelves may end up a bit bare for a day or so, but another thing that is advised to the public during weather emergency is to stock up on extra food.

amacachi

CIE wrote: »

Not if you institute a lorry travel ban. Why would lorry companies want to operate during emergency weather conditions in the first place, is a question one needs to ask, due to the high potential for damage and loss. Supermarket shelves may end up a bit bare for a day or so, but another thing that is advised to the public during weather emergency is to stock up on extra food.

Yeah that's something that wasn't mentioned earlier, and would be more than a slight disruption to everything.

patrickbrophy18

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Any merit in dramatically reducing the cost of the tunnel to encourage people to use it during the bad weather?

Getting as much traffic outa the CC as quick as possible should be the aim, no? Especially with public transport knocking off early. At this stage it could be considered a safety issue and even opened for free perhaps

Couldn't agree with you more. I've been constantly hearing about the gridlock caused by these conditions. Reducing the cost of the tunnel would definitely be an incentive and also to minimize disruption for public transport such as buses and trams.

CIE

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Any merit in dramatically reducing the cost of the tunnel to encourage people to use it during the bad weather?

Getting as much traffic outa the CC as quick as possible should be the aim, no? Especially with public transport knocking off early. At this stage it could be considered a safety issue and even opened for free perhaps

Couldn't agree with you more. I've been constantly hearing about the gridlock caused by these conditions. Reducing the cost of the tunnel would definitely be an incentive and also to minimize disruption for public transport such as buses and trams.

I would myself go as far as advocating suspension of charging tolls at the worst of the storm and until roads are in better condition.

markpb

CIE wrote: »

I would myself go as far as advocating suspension of charging tolls at the worst of the storm and until roads are in better condition.

So you'd advocate making it more attractive to travel at a time when authorities are asking people not to make un-necessary journeys?

CIE

markpb wrote: »

So you'd advocate making it more attractive to travel at a time when authorities are asking people not to make un-necessary journeys?

If they're already travelling at the height of the storm, would you advocate they stop dead and spend the night stuck on the roads? This is for the purpose of getting people home during an early dismissal at work.

Richard tea

I would also favor the toll roads scraping their tolls or dropping the price down to maybe 50 cent during these bad driving conditions. At this rate its costing me 29 euro a week on tolls. Normally I would spend that in a month:(

paddyland

Typical, selfish response of people to adverse conditions. Joe Duffy made the same stupid comment on the radio one day, asking why trucks aren't charged instead of cars. Missing the point ENTIRELY.

We need to DISCOURAGE aimless, wasteful, inefficient private motorists. NOT ban them, simply discourage them. Trucks and buses and vans are reliant on freedom of movement, and aimless private motoring increases time and costs enormously.

These same people would open the bus lanes to private cars too, meaning NOBODY can get through the jams. I remember the terrible floods of six years ago, when the bus lanes were opened to cars. The cars piled into the bus lanes and got marooned in the floods, and so, the only vehicles which could wade the floodwaters, the buses, had nowhere to go.

The tunnel provides a crucial breathing tube for the city, allowing trucks safe and efficient passage through, and keeping them away from everyone else. The tunnel also provides safe, quick passage for those who vitally need quick passage. You pay for the privelege, and rightly so. As soon as that tunnel is jammed up with selfish motorists who demand free access everywhere at will, it just becomes another clogged up pore, of no use to anybody.

There is only ONE thing that causes all our congestion woes in this city, and that is people's own selfishness.

paddyland

CIE wrote: »

Not if you institute a lorry travel ban. Why would lorry companies want to operate during emergency weather conditions in the first place, is a question one needs to ask, due to the high potential for damage and loss. Supermarket shelves may end up a bit bare for a day or so, but another thing that is advised to the public during weather emergency is to stock up on extra food.

Is this for real? Simply unbelieveable.

Perhaps if we didn't have any lorries at all, ever, your life might be more bearable...

Victor

CIE wrote: »

Not if you institute a lorry travel ban. Why would lorry companies want to operate during emergency weather conditions in the first place, is a question one needs to ask, due to the high potential for damage and loss.

Not if you institute a commuting ban. Why would organisations want to operate during emergency weather conditions in the first place, is a question one needs to ask, due to the high potential for injury and death?

KevR

CIE wrote: »

I would myself go as far as advocating suspension of charging tolls at the worst of the storm and until roads are in better condition.

The barriers at the M6 toll were lifted last Tuesday morning when the snow was really bad. I think they did it for safety - people trying to come to a complete stop in those conditions would have been dangerous. People were driving very slowly anyhow so they only had to slow down a little more to safely make it through the toll plaza.

Although, I have an electronic tag which beeped as I was going through and I was still charged. I don't feel aggrieved, just saying..

paddyland

There is a very pertinent difference between the toll at the Port tunnel, and the general toll system.

The tolls on the M6, M4, M3, and of course the wretched West Link, are purely revenue earners. There is some argument for tolling on the PPP roads, to repay the cost of building the roads. There is little argument for the toll on the West Link, which has been accused of being another scam visited upon us by the Pee Flynn elements of FF. But besides all that, they perform no civic duty other than as revenue generators, for good or ill.

The Port tunnel, while also generating revenue, performs a specific traffic management function, in encouraging heavy vehicles out of the congested city centre, and also in regulating the general traffic flow through the tunnel for vital public health and safety reasons. You cannot simply fill the tunnel to congestion point with freeloading motorists, the repercussions of traffic jams in the tunnel are far more serious than on roads in general. The Port tunnel toll provides a valve, which through it's specific charging arrangements, ensures that the tunnel operates to it's most efficient capabilities, and I have to say, it is one of the few elements of our transport infrastructure which works tremendously well, allowing for hiccups in it's construction and management.

Del2005

CIE wrote: »

Not if you institute a lorry travel ban. Why would lorry companies want to operate during emergency weather conditions in the first place, is a question one needs to ask, due to the high potential for damage and loss. Supermarket shelves may end up a bit bare for a day or so, but another thing that is advised to the public during weather emergency is to stock up on extra food.

Can you imagine the uproar if the shops all closed or ran out of basics. Trucks are a vital part of our economy and if you ban them then the country would be in a bigger mess then we are now, how would the councils get their salt etc?

Wasn't the premium rate toll dropped in the port tunnel and you only had to pay the off peak toll at all times?

CIE

Del2005 wrote: »

Can you imagine the uproar if the shops all closed or ran out of basics. Trucks are a vital part of our economy and if you ban them then the country would be in a bigger mess then we are now, how would the councils get their salt etc?

Why would the shops run out instantly if just one delivery was missed?

And frankly, for the councils to expect getting their salt at the height of the storm is like closing the barn door after the horses escape. I did not say a ban on emergency vehicles, remember, and either way, salt delivery lorries qualify as that. Commercial deliveries do not.

paddyland wrote: »

Is this for real? Simply unbelieveable.

Perhaps if we didn't have any lorries at all, ever, your life might be more bearable...

No, I didn't say ban lorries permanently. I said lorry travel during the height of the storm had to be banned. That makes things safer for people already on the road trying to get home. Then again, making posts such as this makes one's agenda suspect...

paddyland wrote: »

Typical, selfish response of people to adverse conditions. Joe Duffy made the same stupid comment on the radio one day, asking why trucks aren't charged instead of cars. Missing the point ENTIRELY.

We need to DISCOURAGE aimless, wasteful, inefficient private motorists. NOT ban them, simply discourage them. Trucks and buses and vans are reliant on freedom of movement, and aimless private motoring increases time and costs enormously.

These same people would open the bus lanes to private cars too, meaning NOBODY can get through the jams. I remember the terrible floods of six years ago, when the bus lanes were opened to cars. The cars piled into the bus lanes and got marooned in the floods, and so, the only vehicles which could wade the floodwaters, the buses, had nowhere to go.

The tunnel provides a crucial breathing tube for the city, allowing trucks safe and efficient passage through, and keeping them away from everyone else. The tunnel also provides safe, quick passage for those who vitally need quick passage. You pay for the privelege, and rightly so. As soon as that tunnel is jammed up with selfish motorists who demand free access everywhere at will, it just becomes another clogged up pore, of no use to anybody.

There is only ONE thing that causes all our congestion woes in this city, and that is people's own selfishness.

Nothing more selfish than social engineering, which is what's being advocated here. Discouragement is tantamount to a ban, since it implies adverse legal sanction. And the last thing that needs to be on the road in a storm is trucks and vans.

Del2005

CIE wrote: »

Why would the shops run out instantly if just one delivery was missed?

And frankly, for the councils to expect getting their salt at the height of the storm is like closing the barn door after the horses escape. I did not say a ban on emergency vehicles, remember, and either way, salt delivery lorries qualify as that. Commercial deliveries do not.
No, I didn't say ban lorries permanently. I said lorry travel during the height of the storm had to be banned. That makes things safer for people already on the road trying to get home. Then again, making posts such as this makes one's agenda suspect...
Nothing more selfish than social engineering, which is what's being advocated here. Discouragement is tantamount to a ban, since it implies adverse legal sanction. And the last thing that needs to be on the road in a storm is trucks and vans.

The dangerous conditions have been ongoing for over a week now. How are lorries supposed to stay off the road for road for this long and how is any buisness which has paid huge money supposed to survive with it's assets off the road?

Salt can't be stored it has to be constantly replenished.

The roads where fine for driving on, it was the people who couldn't drive on them. People where driving too close, not allowing other vehicles to get up hills before they tried and doing countless other stupid manoeuvres.

You're against banning private transport but want to ban businesses Banning commercial vehicles wouldn't have improved anything.

paddyland

CIE wrote: »

No, I didn't say ban lorries permanently. I said lorry travel during the height of the storm had to be banned. That makes things safer for people already on the road trying to get home.

So if we had an exceptionally severe winter, that lasted for, say, three months, you would put lorries off the road for all that time? Have you ever looked around at all the lorries on the road? There are far, far more lorries on the road than simply lorries delivering your morning bread to Tescos. A huge chunk of industry in this country relies upon the constant movement of lorries and freight around the country, and overseas, for a whole host of obscure purposes. Thousands and tens of thousands of people rely on that traffic for a week's employment. And on a whim, you would simply dismiss all of that, because you don't understand it, and it is not relevant to you personally. Except of course when it interferes with your personal unassailable right to drive your private car wherever you will, preferably free of charge.

CIE wrote: »

Then again, making posts such as this makes one's agenda suspect...

Strange assumption, but if I have one agenda, it is to call time on some of the nonsense I read on this forum.

dowlingm

Allowing private cars to use the tunnel free in counterpeak directions might free up the city centre and its traffic junctions a bit without excessively adding to driving incentive. Just a thought...

antoinolachtnai

Certainly in the evening it doesn't work, because the city-bound traffic ends up going into and tying up the city centre traffic between amiens st, George's Quay and O'Connell Bridge, which taken together is a lot like a giant roundabout. The core problem is that there isn't enough capacity on that roundabout. Traffic backs up North Wall Quay as a result, and eventually it will back up into the Tunnel. If that happens, access to the tunnel would have to be restricted and that would cause problems of its own out on the M50.

In the mornings I would have my doubts too. You would draw people to cross the city centre rather than go around the M50, at least to some extent.