M3 & M4 toll up

OldmanMondeo

If your like me you may not have known until now, but, I just read on AA site that the tolls on both M3 & M4 have gone up 10c for cars. Even more reason not to use the M4.

Seth Brundle

They are all going up!
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1103/breaking28.html

L1011

kbannon wrote: »

They are all going up!
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/1103/breaking28.html

Pretty certain that the OP is correct and only the M3 and M4 are raising car tolls. Commercial tolls are increasing across the board. That IT article is an out-of-date guesstimate, the tolls require maximum toll byelaws published and only the M3, M4, and Port Tunnel (which charges nowhere close to its maximum) published new ones in the papers so far.

Seth Brundle

Sorry this is the link I had meant to put up:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0102/1224309715605.html

Oirish Times wrote:

Motorists will also be hit by an increase in tolls as the National Roads Authority has approved a 10 cent rise from yesterday on parts of the M1, M8, M6, Limerick tunnel, M3, M4, M7. The M50 toll for goods vehicles has increased by 10 cent but will remain unchanged for private vehicles. Dublin port tunnel rates remain unchanged.

Miscreant

I spotted this on the way home from Galway on Saturday (New Year's Eve) on the M4 toll. The signs said €2.80 for cars as I approached but I was only charged €2.70 as the increase had not come into effect yet. They seemed to have changed the signs in advance.

_Kaiser_

Lovely! That's an extra 40c per day/€2-€2.80 per week for me to fork out for so!

On a motorway (the M3) that's seriously underused and has a "income guarantee" for the operators as it is! :mad:

Seth Brundle

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Lovely! That's an extra 40c per day/€2-€2.80 per week for me to fork out for so!

On a motorway (the M3) that's seriously underused and has a "income guarantee" for the operators as it is! :mad:

With no disrespect to you or other M3 users) I've no sympathy. I can recall many Navan people in the media* calling for the tolled M3 to be built ASAP and saying that they wanted it (rather than a 2+1 alternative).

Personally, I felt that the M3 was a bad choice and openly said so. Now are people starting to regret the decision?





* I understand that they don't represent everyone in Navan & Kells but they were the only ones shouting

Gophur

kbannon wrote: »

With no disrespect to you or other M3 users) I've no sympathy. I can recall many Navan people in the media* calling for the tolled M3 to be built ASAP and saying that they wanted it (rather than a 2+1 alternative).

Personally, I felt that the M3 was a bad choice and openly said so. Now are people starting to regret the decision?
......
* I understand that they don't represent everyone in Navan & Kells but they were the only ones shouting

You are incorrect.

The people travelling the N3 wanted a Motorway. Nobody (and you can check) asked for a road with tolls. Such a short road and two tolls only 36km apart. It is ridiculous.

The M3, by the way, has been a life-saver. There has, already, been a reduction in the numbers of people injured and killed, directly due to the M3 being opened. One fatality to date IIRC and that was a freak incident.

As a road, the M3 is fantastic. The so-called reasons being put forward by it's opponents have all been found to be false. The new road integrates well into the environment and has only brought benefits.


And, there is no justification for any increase in toll prices.

_Kaiser_

kbannon wrote: »

With no disrespect to you or other M3 users) I've no sympathy. I can recall many Navan people in the media* calling for the tolled M3 to be built ASAP and saying that they wanted it (rather than a 2+1 alternative).

Personally, I felt that the M3 was a bad choice and openly said so. Now are people starting to regret the decision?





* I understand that they don't represent everyone in Navan & Kells but they were the only ones shouting

Well the M3 is ridiculously overspecced for the volume of traffic that uses it true - but something did need to be done about the old N3 (besides lowering the limit on it in a cynical - and failed I might add - attempt to drive traffic onto the motorway) as it was/is very poor after Navan/Kells in places.

But then again. don't forget where the last Minister for Transport lives - if you need a reminder take a spin out the Dublin/Navan-Trim road sometime and compare to other roads in the county - so there was always going to be an M3 in some form or other in my opinion.

What's annoying me is that they are raising the prices despite falling traffic volumes and even though the income is guaranteed anyway (thanks to the agreement signed by that same Minister I presume - who made sure too that the last exit outbound before the Dunboyne toll allows those from his hometown to avoid it!)

Seth Brundle

Gophur wrote: »

You are incorrect.

I expressed my view, not a fact. I will also try to dig out a copy of either Prime Time or Q&A from back then.

Gophur wrote: »

The people travelling the N3 wanted a Motorway. Nobody (and you can check) asked for a road with tolls. Such a short road and two tolls only 36km apart. It is ridiculous.

There were many available alternatives that could have been chosen. The most obvious was a 2+1 upgrade of the old N3. Also, given that there was the M1 and M4 with the N2 HQDC, a route from Navan to these could have been built without affecting the Tara/Skryne valley in the same way.

Gophur wrote: »

The M3, by the way, has been a life-saver. There has, already, been a reduction in the numbers of people injured and killed, directly due to the M3 being opened. One fatality to date IIRC and that was a freak incident.

I never disputed the safety benefits of a motorway. I just didn't believe that the M3 was required. If a motorway extension from Navan to Kentstown to Ashbourne was completed (for example0, would this not have saved lives? Would a 2+1 not have saved lives? We'll never really know!

Gophur wrote: »

As a road, the M3 is fantastic. The so-called reasons being put forward by it's opponents have all been found to be false. The new road integrates well into the environment and has only brought benefits.

Source?

Gophur wrote: »

And, there is no justification for any increase in toll prices.

Did I say there was?

markpb

Gophur wrote: »

The people travelling the N3 wanted a Motorway. Nobody (and you can check) asked for a road with tolls. Such a short road and two tolls only 36km apart. It is ridiculous.

I agree that having two tolls is unfair (compared with other roads which have one or none) but if people want a motorway, why shouldn't they pay for it? Of course nobody wanted a tolled motorway, everyone wants something for nothing.

Seth Brundle

markpb wrote: »

Of course nobody wanted a tolled motorway, everyone wants something for nothing.

IIRC, it had been planned as a PPP project for a long time. Once it is PPP, it becomes tolled!
My recollection was that it was planned for two tolls, so nothing hidden from the public there.

Gophur

kbannon wrote: »

I expressed my view, not a fact. ........

Not quite. You claim to have recalled something, that was stating a fact, not expressing an opinion.

kbannon wrote: »

.........
There were many available alternatives that could have been chosen. The most obvious was a 2+1 upgrade of the old N3. Also, given that there was the M1 and M4 with the N2 HQDC, a route from Navan to these could have been built without affecting the Tara/Skryne valley in the same way.

............

The alternatives were examined and the best solution was chosen.

As for a route from Navan to the other roads? So what? What about the other users of the N3, apart from those unlucky enough to have to live in Navan? (Navan has the most inappropriately named "relief road" in Ireland, with SEVEN sets of traffic lights.) Running a road from Navan to the N2 wouldn't be much use, given the daily blockage at the Northern end of the Ashbourne bypass.

kbannon wrote: »

...........
I never disputed the safety benefits of a motorway. I just didn't believe that the M3 was required. If a motorway extension from Navan to Kentstown to Ashbourne was completed (for example0, would this not have saved lives? Would a 2+1 not have saved lives? We'll never really know!

...........

The M3 was needed. I take it you must never had to sit in the road-blocks that were Kells, Navan, Dunshaughlin etc.? It was patently obvious the motorway was needed. The Dublin Donegal trip was unnecessary torture. As I posted above, Navan Kentstown would be of very limited value, serving only a few people.

kbannon wrote: »

.............

Source?[................/QUOTE]

What kind of source are you looking for? The Tara Skryne valley (that nobody cared about before teh motorway was mooted) is still there. The destruction of the valley by the motorway (post construction) hasn't happened. It's kinda ironic looking at all the houses built in the locality which are not deemed to be destructive to the valley yet are examples of the most hideous planning decisions of the past 20 years.

kbannon wrote: »

...........

Did I say there was?

You didn't. I was stating my opinion, not referring to anyone else's opinion.

L1011

kbannon wrote: »

With no disrespect to you or other M3 users) I've no sympathy. I can recall many Navan people in the media* calling for the tolled M3 to be built ASAP and saying that they wanted it (rather than a 2+1 alternative).

Personally, I felt that the M3 was a bad choice and openly said so. Now are people starting to regret the decision?





* I understand that they don't represent everyone in Navan & Kells but they were the only ones shouting

2+1 would have been inadequate and is an inherently unsafe type of road, which is why the NRA no longer builds them

Also, had we been waiting for the state to publically fund ANY upgrade of the N3, we'd still be waiting.

L1011

kbannon wrote: »

Sorry this is the link I had meant to put up:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0102/1224309715605.html

Article is still wrong.

bladespin

Drainage problems, poor responce to icing, longer travel distance and travel time than the 'old' road and terrible recovery service, yeah that's value!

_Kaiser_

bladespin wrote: »

Drainage problems, poor responce to icing, longer travel distance and travel time than the 'old' road and terrible recovery service, yeah that's value!

I'd agree with you on all of those except the travel time.

I can make Blanchardstown in 45 mins now whereas previously it would have taken me over an hour - and longer now with the reduced speed limit on the old road.

There's no excuse for the drainage issues though and the road surface quality isn't the best around Kells-Navan. Equally the piss-poor efforts at gritting the road last year (half the inside lane only) - thankfully we've gotten away with it this year.

Gophur

bladespin wrote: »

Drainage problems, poor responce to icing, longer travel distance and travel time than the 'old' road and terrible recovery service, yeah that's value!

Drainage problems? Where?

Poor response to icing? What do you mean?

Longer distance? So what? It's an obstacle-free route.

Travel time is significantly shorter. I don't know what route you're comparing it to, but there's no way on earth anyone who had to travel through Navan and/or Dunshaughlin has had their travel time increased.

The M3 is one of the great success of the last 20 years. It's a testament to good planning and good construction. It has eased the lives of so many.

It's just wrong that the users are penalised so much when the likes of the M50 is free for so many every day. (the M50 toll is for the West-link bridge, not the motorway, as such)

A more reasonable toll for the M3, and in one location only, would have been the fairest solution.

markpb

Gophur wrote: »

The M3 was needed. I take it you must never had to sit in the road-blocks that were Kells, Navan, Dunshaughlin etc.? It was patently obvious the motorway was needed. The Dublin Donegal trip was unnecessary torture

Justification for motorways does not come from traffic jams - it comes from usage figures. Just because people sat in a jam in Kells does not automatically mean that Kells needs a motorway.

Gophur wrote: »

A more reasonable toll for the M3, and in one location only, would have been the fairest solution.

Definitely. Personally I'd prefer a toll that charged you for the number of exits you passed but I realise that would be more complicated and expensive to install and maintain.

Gophur

markpb wrote: »

Justification for motorways does not come from traffic jams - it comes from usage figures. Just because people sat in a jam in Kells does not automatically mean that Kells needs a motorway.

.........

It does, actually. The volume of traffic, and the sizes of the traffic jams, did justify the motorway.

The M3 motorway was built for more than the residents of Meath, by the way. Also, the tolling strategy (no. of tolls and charges) has put too much traffic on the old road.

_Kaiser_

Gophur wrote: »

Drainage problems? Where?

At the end of the motorway itself at Kells it can get very bad in heavy rain. Equally there's a few iffy stretches around Navan where surface water is a problem.

Poor response to icing? What do you mean?

Last year in the bad ice/snow, the effort that was made to keep the motorway clear was abysmal - it was obvious that they sent the gritter up the inside lane only and even at that only half that lane was done. The outside lane wasn't touch ed at all with the result being that everyone was forced to crawl along in the inside lane (unless you had a 4x4 or quattro)

The rest though I agree with you on - particularly:

It's just wrong that the users are penalised so much when the likes of the M50 is free for so many every day. (the M50 toll is for the West-link bridge, not the motorway, as such)

A more reasonable toll for the M3, and in one location only, would have been the fairest solution.

Increasing the tolls now when the numbers using it (which have always been low) are falling due to unemployment/higher running costs AND when the revenue is guaranteed anyway thanks to the agreement in place, can only be viewed as a cynical cash-grab from already stretched commuters who have no choice but to pay it if they are to get to work (and no - before this suggestion comes up again - "moving closer" isn't an option for most people - especially if they have family/kids.. something that seems lost on a lot of people most of the time)

Gophur

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

At the end of the motorway itself at Kells it can get very bad in heavy rain. Equally there's a few iffy stretches around Navan where surface water is a problem.


Last year in the bad ice/snow, the effort that was made to keep the motorway clear was abysmal - it was obvious that they sent the gritter up the inside lane only and even at that only half that lane was done. The outside lane wasn't touch ed at all with the result being that everyone was forced to crawl along in the inside lane (unless you had a 4x4 or quattro)

.........

But they are separate arguments and nothing to do with whether the motorway should have been built or where it was positioned.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

..............



Increasing the tolls now when the numbers using it (which have always been low) are falling due to unemployment/higher running costs AND when the revenue is guaranteed anyway thanks to the agreement in place, can only be viewed as a cynical cash-grab from already stretched commuters who have no choice but to pay it if they are to get to work (and no - before this suggestion comes up again - "moving closer" isn't an option for most people - especially if they have family/kids.. something that seems lost on a lot of people most of the time)

One can only wonder at the clowns who negotiated such contracts on behalf of the State?

Seth Brundle

Gophur wrote: »

The alternatives were examined and the best solution was chosen.

By Whom?
Do you really believe that?
What about this then for example?
What about claims by archaeologist Maggie Ronayne regarding interference by the NRA on the preparation of the M3 Archaeological Reports?

Gophur wrote: »

As for a route from Navan to the other roads? So what? What about the other users of the N3, apart from those unlucky enough to have to live in Navan? (Navan has the most inappropriately named "relief road" in Ireland, with SEVEN sets of traffic lights.) Running a road from Navan to the N2 wouldn't be much use, given the daily blockage at the Northern end of the Ashbourne bypass.

I'm not sure what exactly your point is.

Ok then - why was the M3 built? According to the NDP, it was supposed to be an interurban between Dublin and the Northwest (despite there being nothing significant in the Northwest there to meet it).

You seem to think that it was put in place to help alleviate the traffic congestion in and around Navan. It wasn't, despite what you wish to think.
However, we now have a major road going from Dublin to, well, nowhere!

Gophur wrote: »

The M3 was needed. I take it you must never had to sit in the road-blocks that were Kells, Navan, Dunshaughlin etc.? It was patently obvious the motorway was needed. The Dublin Donegal trip was unnecessary torture. As I posted above, Navan Kentstown would be of very limited value, serving only a few people.

1. I frequently travelled the old N3 and my wife still does.
2. Why was the M3 (in its present form) needed? Would no other alternative have been as good?
3. What do you mean that a route via Kentstown would have served only a few people? You see, you are confusing the M3 with a commuter route, which is not what it was built for.

Gophur wrote: »

What kind of source are you looking for?

I'll happily accept anything you offer if it shows that the "so-called reasons being put forward by it's opponents have all been found to be false" and that "the new road integrates well into the environment and has only brought benefits".

Gophur wrote: »

The Tara Skryne valley (that nobody cared about before teh motorway was mooted) is still there. The destruction of the valley by the motorway (post construction) hasn't happened. It's kinda ironic looking at all the houses built in the locality which are not deemed to be destructive to the valley yet are examples of the most hideous planning decisions of the past 20 years.

Firstly many people did care about the area beforehand and its unfair to speak for everyone without asking them all first!
Secondly, a road project is inherently different from one off housing projects (which for other reasons though has fecked up this country). A road project affects the water table for a start which affects the underlying archaeology.
Thirdly, what archaeological or environmental evidence has been found since the development to show that any destruction hasn't happened (bearing in mind all of the destruction during the development)?

I was never against measures to relieve traffic pressure for those commuting from Navan or any other town. However, to automatically assume (as did many pro-current M3 followers) that anyone objecting to the M3 plan were against any form of relief is wrong.
I am against the current motorway. To have four motorways travelling through a small area within one county is daft, especially when no consideration appears to have linked Navan to any of the others (mainly N3 to either N/M2 &/or M4).

MYOB wrote: »

2+1 would have been inadequate and is an inherently unsafe type of road, which is why the NRA no longer builds them

Also, had we been waiting for the state to publically fund ANY upgrade of the N3, we'd still be waiting.

At the time of planning the M3, the NRA were only too happy to develop 2+1 projects.

I'm not sure if your last sentence was directed towards me, but yes, for any action to occur quickly, private involvement would be necessary. Therefore tolling suddenly becomes part of the equation.

Gophur

kbannon wrote: »

............. we now have a major road going from Dublin to, well, nowhere!

......................

When you come out with such a statement, the rest of your post deserves to be ignored.

markpb

Gophur wrote: »

When you come out with such a statement, the rest of your post deserves to be ignored.

He's right though. Motorways are built for very specific conditions - they link large urban areas where the volume of traffic between those areas exceeds 52,000 AADT. Motorways should not be built without at least two cities or where the demand along that route does not justify building it. They are built to handle a large volume of traffic, not built because of a traffic jam or because a bypass has too many traffic lights.

The M3 was never predicted to have enough traffic to justify the route which is (presumably) why the tolling operators insisted on their safety net - payments from the DoT if the traffic fell below a certain volume. The busiest section of the M3 Clonee to Pace had a predicted aadt of only 30,500, rising to 60,000 by 2024. You can see the actual usage figures on the NRA website if you want.

People asked for a motorway where none was required and now they're complaining that it's tolled. Tough titty.

Baggly

Thats a bit of a specious argument Gopher; as a regular user of the m4 over the m3, i would tend to agree with Kbannon's point as well as the majority of the rest of his post.

Seth Brundle

That's a good argument Gophur! :rolleyes:


As for the ending of the M3, it ends adjacent to Kells* whereupon a dual carriageway continues for another few kilometres until you reach the edge of the Cavan border. Not really a project linking two interurban areas now, is it?


* population in 2006 was 5,248 (wikipedia). I can't see the 2011 results on cso.ie but according to this article, the population in Kells actually decreased between 2006 and 2011!

Gophur

markpb wrote: »

He's right though. Motorways are built for very specific conditions - they link large urban areas where the volume of traffic between those areas exceeds 52,000 AADT. Motorways should not be built without at least two cities or where the demand along that route does not justify building it. They are built to handle a large volume of traffic, not built because of a traffic jam or because a bypass has too many traffic lights.

The M3 was never predicted to have enough traffic to justify the route which is (presumably) why the tolling operators insisted on their safety net - payments from the DoT if the traffic fell below a certain volume. The busiest section of the M3 Clonee to Pace had a predicted aadt of only 30,500, rising to 60,000 by 2024.

..............

So, you're saying the people who live in North Meath, Cavan, Fermanagh, Leitrim and Donegal (and such places served by the road) didn't deserve to have such access to the capital City? And such infrastructure, needed to help the prosperity of the regions, should not have been built?

The volume of traffic, alone, is sufficient justification for such a road. There is no necessity for an urban conurbation to be at each end of it.


(When you're quoting AADT, at least have the presence of mind to explain what it is supposed to mean. Some fancy planning term, eh?)

markpb wrote: »

...........

People asked for a motorway where none was required and now they're complaining that it's tolled. Tough titty.

You're incorrect (obviously didn't read the previous posts), and your compassion is under-whelming.

Baggly

...so you are not going to address the rest of kbannons post?

markpb

Gophur wrote: »

So, you're saying the people who live in North Meath, Cavan, Fermanagh, Leitrim and Donegal (and such places served by the road) didn't deserve to have such access to the capital City?

They do of course (I'm from Cavan ). However, they do not need a motorway unless the traffic levels demand it. You don't build expensive infrastructure just because people want it - you built it if it will be used. Would you suggest that we built a TGV-class train line between Dublin and Cavan town too if people wanted it? Of course not, we'd built a regular train line because the demand isn't there to make it worthwhile.

The volume of traffic, alone, is sufficient justification for such a road. There is no necessity for an urban conurbation to be at each end of it.

I've shown you the figures from the NRA -the demand is simply not there. It doesn't matter how many people live in the Cavan/Fermanagh region - it's not enough to justify a motorway and it won't be without a city there.

When you're quoting AADT, at least have the presence of mind to explain what it is supposed to mean. Some fancy planning term, eh?

Annual Average daily traffic, abbreviated AADT, is a measure used primarily in transportation planning and transportation engineering. It is the total volume of vehicle traffic of a highway or road for a year divided by 365 days. AADT is a useful and simple measurement of how busy the road is. It is sometimes incorrectly reported as "average annual daily traffic".

Ultimately this isn't about what people want or what they think they need. You can't give people expensive infrastructure as a sop to make them feel better - that's the kind of crazy electioneering that left us where we are today.

Gophur

kbannon wrote: »

That's a good argument Gophur! :rolleyes:


.........

You made a ridiculous remark, colouring the rest of whatever points you were trying to make. I, as posted, ignored them.

kbannon wrote: »

............ Not really a project linking two interurban areas now, is it?

.........

You're stating a fact, which is true, but superfluous. Who stated such a road had to link two urban areas? The road was to give access to a region, which is has, very successfully.

kbannon wrote: »

.......... the population in Kells actually decreased between 2006 and 2011!

So what? The road was built for so much more than Kells. The NRA actually have preliminary plans for an extension of the M/N3 past Cavan town, but that will be unlikely ever to be built.


The people looking foolish, now, are those who opposed the road and those who said it wasn't needed. For once, some proper planning and foresight was out to good use.