M50 Tolling

ardmacha

More talk about M50 tolling
We'll have to await the report. Tolling at only one point on the M50 hardly makes sense, but tolling for distance travelled hardly makes sense either.
It will be interesting to see if they have the obvious idea of charging more at rush hour, you cannot say that an increased toll at a quite time is to reduce congestion.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/motorists-face-650-toll-to-ease-congestion-on-the-m50-29322273.html

MOTORISTS using the country’s busiest road face the prospect of having to pay up to €6.50 in tolls – more than twice the current rate – as part of plans to reduce overcrowding at peak times.

A major study carried out for the National Roads Authority (NRA) recommends says that five tolling points should be introduced across Dublin’s M50 to reduce demand from motorists making short trips.

However, the NRA faces a battle to implement the charges, as with Transport Minister Leo Varadkar has stated his opposition to the plans for now, warning that they would will push traffic into residential areas.

Capacity on the motorway is being severely reduced because of the numbers of people using it, often when there are alternative routes available.

Although the road was upgraded just three years ago at a cost of €1bn, the report says that “safe operational capacity” is being exceeded at peak times on some sections, including the connections with the M1 to the North, the N4 to Lucan and the West and the M7 to Cork and Kildare.

Unless demand is reduced, congestion will be “commonplace” within the next decade, it warns.

The report, which has been seen by the Irish Independent and which will be presented to local councillors today, also says:

- Journey times are becoming less reliable and traffic is moving more slowly because so many vehicles useare using the road.

- Motorists are being forced to queue to enter and exit the motorway at peak times.

- “Safe operational capacity” is being exceeded on some links at peak hours.

- A series of measures is needed to reduce traffic volumes, including varying the speed limit at certain sections and reducing the numbers coming on to the road at key times by having slower traffic signals at junctions.

- Five tolling points should also be introduced – between Ballymun and Finglas; the current point at Blanchardstown; at Parkwest between the N4 and Red Cow; between Firhouse and Ballinteer; and between Sandyford and Carrickmines.

- The tolls should be €1.30 each. The maximum charge would be €6.50 per car if all five points were passed, which would affect 4,400 drivers a day – 1.5pc of total users.

The study was a condition of planning permission for the upgrade, which was granted in 2008.

An Bord Pleanala told the NRA that it had to produce a plan to manage traffic volumes not later than three years after the M50 upgrade was completed to “protect the traffic capacity”.

It is expected that up to 81pc of all motorists will pay a toll if multi-point tolling is introduced. This compares with 39pc at present and it would remove one in 10 vehicles from the road.

The report will raise major difficulties for the Government, and in particular Transport Minister Leo Varadkar, who has already ruled out extra tolls on the country’s network.

This is because it cannot be seen to allow the motorway, which was upgraded at huge expense to the taxpayer, to return to gridlock with the knock-on economic impacts that would follow.

However, nor can it cannot be seen to penalise motorists who have already been hit with increases in motor tax, higher fuel prices, more expensive tolls and deteriorating roads.

Last night, Mr Varadkar ruled out the introduction of multi-point tolling for now, saying he did not think it was a “good idea”.

He said any hikes can only be in line with inflation.

The Minister for Transport and the Government have to give permission for new tolls, which means changes on the M50 are unlikely to happen while Mr Varadkar is minister.

“I do not think multi-point tolling is a good idea,” Mr Varadkar said when asked for comment by the Irish Independent on the NRA M50 report.

Mr Varadkar is a TD for Dublin West, one of the constituencies which the M50 runs through, and says a wider examination of congestion in the capital is needed.

He added: “It will only push traffic off the M50, on to other roads and through local communities,” he said.

“At present, congestion is not the problem that it was during the boom, but it will re-emerge as an issue as the economy recovers.

Upgraded

“At that point, we will need a joined-up solution to deal with congestion across the city – and not just on the M50.”

The report says there has been a 26pc increase in traffic volumes on the road since September 2008, with 320,000 trips a day made on the M50.

“If traffic on the M50 continues to grow, within 10 years congestion will again be commonplace,” it predicts the report says.

“Without the intervention of demand-management measures, the functionality and safety of the M50 would deteriorate, journey-time reliability would diminish and this would have negative consequences for economic activity.”

The NRA refused to comment on the report, saying it would be made public tomorrow.

A final version will be published in September.

serfboard

This will come in eventually. Like water meters, which was proposed by Mary Harney way way back and are coming in now.

The M50 is a fantastic road and is a victim of its own success. For instance, fadó fadó people travelling Galway->Belfast used to go cross-country Galway->Longford->Cavan->Monaghan->Belfast - a horrendous journey that took hours. The alternatives Galway->Sligo->Belfast or Galway->Dublin->Belfast were bad and busy roads. In the meantime, Galway->Sligo has improved, but nothing like the improvement using M6->M4->M50->M1, quicker and safer. However, this brings traffic onto the M50 that doesn't "need" to be there, and this is just one example.

And of course, a lot of Dublin-based folk use it as a shortcut, hoping on and off junctions (the Athlone bypass is very similar). It seems that it is to discourage this kind of journey that this is being considered.

The M50 is also a victim of bad planning (what else :rolleyes:) which allowed shopping centres to be built right beside it (Liffey Valley/Ikea).

I note from the article, that despite the headline, only 1.5 percent of users would have to pay €6.50.

I heard Eamon Gilmore saying it won't be brought in, and even Leo Varadkar doesn't seem to be in favour of it, but mark my words, this will be brought in. Eventually.

Chris_5339762

Its the only sensible cross city route at the moment, €6.50 or €13 return is madness. Stupid idea.

AugustusMinimus

serfboard wrote: »

The M50 is a fantastic road and is a victim of its own success. For instance, fadó fadó people travelling Galway->Belfast used to go cross-country Galway->Longford->Cavan->Monaghan->Belfast - a horrendous journey that took hours. The alternatives Galway->Sligo->Belfast or Galway->Dublin->Belfast were bad and busy roads. In the meantime, Galway->Sligo has improved, but nothing like the improvement using M6->M4->M50->M1, quicker and safer. However, this brings traffic onto the M50 that doesn't "need" to be there, and this is just one example.

Would the M1 to M7 connector significantly reduce M50 traffic though ?

ardmacha

I heard Eamon Gilmore saying it won't be brought in, and even Leo Varadkar doesn't seem to be in favour of it, but mark my words, this will be brought in. Eventually.

Varadkar made the point there that on congestion grounds it wasn't especially urgent. Probably he'd like to be able to say that the boom was back and the only small price for this was a toll on the M50, but it isn't really.

serfboard

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Would the M1 to M7 connector significantly reduce M50 traffic though ?

Well unfortunately I don't have any figures to indicate where M50 journeys are starting or ending so I can't say but it will certainly remove the longer-distance elements (Waterford ->Drogheda, Cork->Dundalk, Limerick->Newry, Galway->Belfast). However, what percentage these make up, I can't say. The point is, they shouldn't be on the M50 in the first place (but should be on the LOOR).

However, I can't see the LOOR being built for a long, long time, if ever.

Pete_Cavan

Multi-point tolling makes sense and I would support it if they reduced the price for each toll. There must be a huge amount of M50 users who pay no toll on it, eg. coming from M4 going anywhere south, coming from M7 to get onto M4, coming from M2 or M3 to the airport, etc. If they had three toll points at a euro each they would collect some money off a lot more motorists and would surely increas revenue dispite the lower charge. Tolls at Fingals/Ballymun and south of the Red Cow, in addition to the existing location would make sense. This way you only get charged €3 if you use most of the M50, instead of the current system where you get charged €3 if you use a certain stretch and nothing if you dont use that stretch. With the electronic tolling system already operation, introducing this would not be very difficult or expensive.

AugustusMinimus

Why should a person get charged more for travelling a greater distance on the M50 ?

IMO, there should be a set fee for using the M50. Everyone should get tolled once they enter onto the M50. So simply have tolling points at all entries to the M50. Simple.

Irish and Proud

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Its the only sensible cross city route at the moment, €6.50 or €13 return is madness. Stupid idea.

While demand management needs to be looked at, this suggested toll structure appears daft as it seems to defeat the primary purpuse of the M50 - to bypass Dublin. If it costs €6.50 to get around, then the Port Tunnel and East Link would work out cheaper and would be shorter, even if the Southside part of the journey would be on city streets. More sensible would be a max toll of €3.00 (for tags) with a default of €1.30 per toll point. This way, shorter journeys would still be curtailed while long distance traffic would be more moderately affected. In short, the M50 is a motorway and a motorway is generally for long distance traffic and demand for the road should be priced accordingly!

ardmacha

I'd say the Indo has the usual sloppy journalism on this one. The NRA guy on the radio now said that the planning process for the upgraded M50 required a report analysing demand after 3 years, this is it. It probably has a number of options and the Indo just chose to highlight the most expensive one.

antoobrien

I remember this being mentioned as a possibility sometime over the past few years but it was four 75c tolls that was being discussed. €1.30 tolls will just cause people to go back onto the local roads that the M50 is supposed to be bypassing.

If they want to do multiple tolls, put one south of the N7 at €1.50 reduce the current one to €1.50 with the appropriate discounts for tags.

Bards

Here's the Briefing Paper that the Media based their story on

http://www.nra.ie/News/RepositoryforPressReleases/file,18497,en.pdf

Chris_5339762

The traffic analysis undertaken as part of the widening scheme suggested that by
2023 many sections would have traffic flows in excess of 200,000 vehicles per day. A

Thats a crazy statement... it would put 'many sections' of the M50 busier, every single day, than the highest AADT ever recorded on the M25 near Heathrow, which was 196,000 in 2003.

Kellzer

Having tolls on the M50 is stupid. Using the M50 is the only way to get around Dublin, it is not a luxurious alternative that people choose to use. I am not against tolling motorways where there is an alternative option available (such as using the old Galway road instead of the new Motorway) but it is unfair to toll drivers who are using the only decent road on offer. It would be a nightmare trying to travel around Dublin on city streets and would be crazy to charge people commuting to work 13Euro for a round trip every day if they happen to travel the length of the M50.

veryangryman

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Thats a crazy statement... it would put 'many sections' of the M50 busier, every single day, than the highest AADT ever recorded on the M25 near Heathrow, which was 196,000 in 2003.

The whole thing is just an announcement of tolls increasing dressed up as an actual survey. Note how detailed they went with toll locations and prices. Yet when it came to the variable speed limits bit there is next to nothing about the actual limits or locations proposed.

Jayuu

I really am disappointed to hear the multi-tolling is not being considered. Multi-tolling would be a sensible option provided that the price point was set reasonably. Surely it would be possible to work out the current revenue being generated and then refactor that so that the price being set per toll point would generate the same amount of revenue but would be spread across a wider section of the traffic using the road.

As somebody who commutes from the Coolock to Maynooth every day I find it completely unfair that I have to pay €4.20 daily (on the reduced rates) for use of 13km of the M50 while a colleague of mine who commutes from around Bray uses 24km of the M50 and pays nothing.

And the idea that tolling would push people off the M50 is rubbish. I'm a perfect example. As much as I resent having to pay the toll every day, taking any alternative route to avoid adds potentially 15-20 minutes to my commute. And that's something that I'm not prepared to do. I reckon most motorists would be the same.

Chris_5339762

In theory its a good idea but they just CANT do it the typical Irish way and use it as a vessel to increase the cost. If you're going the full length of the M50 it CANNOT be more expensive than it is at the moment.

Maybe charge a certain amount for a full trip along the M50, a certain amount for between intermediate junctions and a bit more for 'junction hopping', like coming on at Tallaght and off at Firhouse.

senordingdong

So the road was built to take traffic off Dublins streets, and now they want to toll the road to reduce congestion.

It is nothing more than gouging at this stage and I have to say Varadkar is on the money. It will simply push drivers back onto the roads they were trying to get off.

I can think of plenty of journies where I use the M50 and how each of them can be made with alternative routes, if I'm prepared to leave earlier.
Looks like this will have to be the case.

mfceiling

senordingdong wrote: »

So the road was built to take traffic off Dublins streets, and now they want to toll the road to reduce congestion.

It is nothing more than gouging at this stage and I have to say Varadkar is on the money. It will simply push drivers back onto the roads they were trying to get off.

I can think of plenty of journies where I use the M50 and how each of them can be made with alternative routes, if I'm prepared to leave earlier.
Looks like this will have to be the case.

This.

What is the point of having a ring road around a city to keep the city congestion free and then charging premium rate for it?

If multi point charging comes on to it I will never put a wheel on it again.

L1011

Jayuu wrote: »

As somebody who commutes from the Coolock to Maynooth every day I find it completely unfair that I have to pay €4.20 daily (on the reduced rates) for use of 13km of the M50 while a colleague of mine who commutes from around Bray uses 24km of the M50 and pays nothing.

You're paying to use the Westlink, built by a private firm and bought by the state for a huge sum. The is absolutely and utterly nothing unfair about it.

The same applies to similar roads all around the world - the extremely expensive bit of the infrastructure is tolled. See Dartford.

veryangryman

MYOB wrote: »

You're paying to use the Westlink, built by a private firm and bought by the state for a huge sum. The is absolutely and utterly nothing unfair about it.

The same applies to similar roads all around the world - the extremely expensive bit of the infrastructure is tolled. See Dartford.

Agreed. The rest of the road is and has been paid for many times over. Same sort of tolls apply to crossing boyne Shannon tunnel suir bridge etc.

England has same idea for crossing the severn. Big toll but rest of motorway is not tolled

Jayuu

MYOB wrote: »

You're paying to use the Westlink, built by a private firm and bought by the state for a huge sum. The is absolutely and utterly nothing unfair about it.

The same applies to similar roads all around the world - the extremely expensive bit of the infrastructure is tolled. See Dartford.

Sorry but that doesn't wash. The Westlink was part of an overall road development to circle the city which was always the plan for the M50.

L1011

Jayuu wrote: »

Sorry but that doesn't wash. The Westlink was part of an overall road development to circle the city which was always the plan for the M50.

And the Westlink was a tolled section thereof, and still is.

There is nothing unfair, just a case of "I don't like paying, make everyone else pay too"

Jayuu

MYOB wrote: »

And the Westlink was a tolled section thereof, and still is.

There is nothing unfair, just a case of "I don't like paying, make everyone else pay too"

I don't see what the problem is in tolling the entire road as long as it's not just tolled randomly to increase revenue. If the revenue generated is the same but spread out that is a much fairer solution.

Yours potentially is a case of "I don't care if somebody else pays as long as I don't".

L1011

Jayuu wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is in tolling the entire road as long as it's not just tolled randomly to increase revenue. If the revenue generated is the same but spread out that is a much fairer solution.

It is nowhere close to "random"

Jayuu wrote: »

Yours potentially is a case of "I don't care if somebody else pays as long as I don't".

Want to see my toll tag bill? At this stage, the VAT is in to decent triple figures every year...

Jayuu

MYOB wrote: »

It is nowhere close to "random"

I don't think you understood what I am saying. I'm agreeing that multi-tolling should not be used as a revenue generation exercise. I'm saying that the same revenue can be generated from a wider section of the road users.

But look we're not going to agree on this so let's just agree to disagree.

And my VAT bill will be something similar.

Jumboman

The whole concept of tolling is a Scam we already more than pay for roads through road tax and petrol plus general taxation.

Whats the point in paying road tax when we cant even use one of the main roads in the country without having to pay a toll. Its bullsh!t.


If we follow this line of logic next the government will be charging people to walk on the footpath.

L1011

Jayuu wrote: »

I'm saying that the same revenue can be generated from a wider section of the road users.

...coming straight back to "I don't like paying, make other people pay too". This isn't even an argument, its a strop.

senordingdong

Jayuu wrote: »

I don't see what the problem is in tolling the entire road as long as it's not just tolled randomly to increase revenue.

The problem with tolling the whole road is that the road was built to take traffic off the streets of Dublin.

Then deciding to toll the road is counter productive as it would simply drive already hard pressed motorists off the alleviating road, and back onto the congested roads.

Also, what's this 'road tax' thing?
Do you mean motor tax?

Aard

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Why should a person get charged more for travelling a greater distance on the M50 ?

IMO, there should be a set fee for using the M50. Everyone should get tolled once they enter onto the M50. So simply have tolling points at all entries to the M50. Simple.

Completely agree with this approach. I would go a step further and have a changing fee based on time of day, higher at peak times, lower during the off-peak. This way discretionary journeys will be discouraged during peak hours, which will give better flow for commuters during rush hour.

Chris_5339762

mm I'm not sure about that, I reckon there are very few discretionary journeys during the peak.

What I think should be done is to remove the toll altogether, widen the N7 to N4 part to D4 (somehow), continue to the D3 to the Bray bypass, connect an area near the N2 junction to the M1 near J4 (to reduce weaving near the airport), and properly freeflow J12 (way underpowered) and J11 (ludicrous that they didn't remove the roundabout).

senordingdong

Aard wrote: »

Completely agree with this approach. I would go a step further and have a changing fee based on time of day, higher at peak times, lower during the off-peak. This way discretionary journeys will be discouraged during peak hours, which will give better flow for commuters during rush hour.

That is one of the most daft and backward ideas I've ever heard.

Are you just ignoring the fact that the m50 was built to alleviate congestion in Dublin?

Furthermore, who makes discretionary journies on the m50?
The people that use the toll road do it because they have to, not because they want to.

Aard

What's the alternative? Keep widening the M50? 3 lanes? 4? 8? No matter how many lanes you have, traffic will fill it. This is proven. What is also proven is that the only way to reduce congestion is through a congestion charge (aka a toll).

Duiske

senordingdong wrote: »

Also, what's this 'road tax' thing?
Do you mean motor tax?

Were you really so confused as to what he meant that you had to question him on it ?

mfceiling

Aard wrote: »

What's the alternative? Keep widening the M50? 3 lanes? 4? 8? No matter how many lanes you have, traffic will fill it. This is proven. What is also proven is that the only way to reduce congestion is through a congestion charge (aka a toll).

Ridiculous.

City centre of Dublin is busy so what then....toll the quays?

Quays are used less and the surrounding roads are busy....toll them.

So you reduce congestion on the m50 by tolling it? Where's the traffic gone that was previously congesting it? The surrounding areas of Finglas, blanch, Lucan, Tallaght, clondalkin, knocklyon, dundrum, firhouse, ballymun, swords, ballyfermot, templeogue, leopardstown, Dublin city etc etc etc etc etc.

Do you see any problem with these areas now being choc o bloc with traffic, while a lesser number of motorists pay a premium to use the outer ring road of Dublin, which was designed to reduce congestion in the previously mentioned areas?

Wait for it, wait for it..there it is...the sound of the penny dropping.

senordingdong

Aard wrote: »

What's the alternative?

Traffic will fill it, we're in agreement on that.
The only thing proven by a congestion charge is that it turns a profit. Because the use of vehicles is a necessity, and congestion is an inevitability.

There is a congestion charge in London...and not surprisingly, it is still congested.

Duiske wrote:

Were you really so confused as to what he meant that you had to question him on it ?

On the contrary, it appears to be everyone else that is confused, and it is something that needs clearing up.

We pay motor tax, which is a tax for owning an mpv. People in this country appear to be under some illusion that they pay 'road tax' and that it is supposed to be ring fenced for roads. It's not.
'I've paid my tax now fix some bleed'n potholes!' is one we hear alot.

Technoprisoner

would a second ring road feeding off the m50 work better?

senordingdong

Technoprisoner wrote: »

would a second ring road feeding off the m50 work better?

Like the M100?.

It would make sense, especially since the article alleges that a large amount of the traffic is from vehicles driving from one corner of the country to another, via Dublin.
Also, an integrated high quality NETWORK of roads. Not just a few decent ones around the capital.

But the most important thing is that these all cost ALOT of money, and this agenda is about making money, not spending it.

L1011

In the absence of the DOOR (M90 was the next most likely number for it after the N40 got used for Cork) being built, extending the M9 to the M4 with proper all-access junctions would likely relieve the M50 of a fair amount of cross country traffic, as well as the fairly narrow local roads around Naas/Straffan/Clane etc.

There are now decent enough roads (R121 and likely future reclassified new roads) from the N2 through the N3 and to Lutrrelstown GC north of the Liffey and again (R136) from Woodies south of the Liffey to the N81. If the "missing link" bridge is ever built, we have the ring road for local traffic and the M50 should be for longer distance traffic only.

veryangryman

MYOB wrote: »

In the absence of the DOOR (M90 was the next most likely number for it after the N40 got used for Cork) being built, extending the M9 to the M4 with proper all-access junctions would likely relieve the M50 of a fair amount of cross country traffic, as well as the fairly narrow local roads around Naas/Straffan/Clane etc.

There are now decent enough roads (R121 and likely future reclassified new roads) from the N2 through the N3 and to Lutrrelstown GC north of the Liffey and again (R136) from Woodies south of the Liffey to the N81. If the "missing link" bridge is ever built, we have the ring road for local traffic and the M50 should be for longer distance traffic only.

Any case at all for simply removing all R road junctions? I think that may help if the actual goal is to help long distance traffic and not just rape the tax paying motorist

Aard

mfceiling wrote: »

City centre of Dublin is busy so what then....toll the quays?

Quays are used less and the surrounding roads are busy....toll them.

No I don't advocate tolling the quays. There is merit in keeping the M50 moving as it is a high-speed, safe, grade-separated car-only road. The only way to ensure it keeps moving is by tolling it at a level that keeps it just below capacity. That toll could be as low as €1 for all I know. Once traffic goes even slightly over capacity, you're left with congestion. Believe it or not I'm trying to be helpful to drivers with this suggestion.

So you reduce congestion on the m50 by tolling it? Where's the traffic gone that was previously congesting it? The surrounding areas of Finglas, blanch, Lucan, Tallaght, clondalkin, knocklyon, dundrum, firhouse, ballymun, swords, ballyfermot, templeogue, leopardstown, Dublin city etc etc etc etc etc.

Yes, local traffic would use local roads. Traffic would be dispersed. There are many alternative routes for people. There would not be gridlock on local roads or in residential areas.

You ask, where's the traffic gone. That line of thinking assumes that traffic management is a zero-sum game. It's not. Many trips are discretionary. How many people use the M50 to get to Dundrum, or the Square, or IKEA just because they can, and not because they really need to. Having a free M50 incentivises people to use it where previously they mightn't have. I remember when the Southern Cross Route was built my mother started going to the Square when she never used to before. Suddenly she was making a 5km journey that she didn't need to. Encouraged by having a free road. I'm sure there are a lot more people like her.

When roads are built, they create demand where none existed before. This is proven.

Do you see any problem with these areas now being choc o bloc with traffic, while a lesser number of motorists pay a premium to use the outer ring road of Dublin, which was designed to reduce congestion in the previously mentioned areas?

"Choc o bloc" is a sensationalist term, I think, to describe a slight increase in the number of private vehicles using local roads.

Wait for it, wait for it..there it is...the sound of the penny dropping.

Let's discuss this without being condescending.

Chris_5339762

I dont think the DOOR (or M90 or whatever) will make that much difference. Most of the peak time M50 traffic is short/medium distance commuting, and not traffic going from Waterford to Drogheda etc. Again, the problem is the lack of decent public transport and cross city driving routes. Spending the DOOR money on the Eastern Bypass would help Dublin a lot more, although the tunnel option would cost a fortune and the bridge option just won't happen.

L1011

veryangryman wrote: »

Any case at all for simply removing all R road junctions? I think that may help if the actual goal is to help long distance traffic and not just rape the tax paying motorist

There's not that many, all bar of them are beyond the area covered by the R121/R136 even without a linkup. One of them is fairly essential to serve IKEA and another to serve Cherrywood which were both built with the knowledge the motorway was there, albeit no consideration that it was a bypass.

If we had the DOOR the M50 would effectively be a city relief road, but as that basically isn't going to happen, if we could get the R121/R136 bridged and extended to the M1 and further south through Tallaght you could close the Ballymun, Firhouse exits and maybe Ballymount.

mfceiling

Aard wrote: »

No I don't advocate tolling the quays. There is merit in keeping the M50 moving as it is a high-speed, safe, grade-separated car-only road. The only way to ensure it keeps moving is by tolling it at a level that keeps it just below capacity. That toll could be as low as €1 for all I know. Once traffic goes even slightly over capacity, you're left with congestion. Believe it or not I'm trying to be helpful to drivers with this suggestion.



Yes, local traffic would use local roads. Traffic would be dispersed. There are many alternative routes for people. There would not be gridlock on local roads or in residential areas.

You ask, where's the traffic gone. That line of thinking assumes that traffic management is a zero-sum game. It's not. Many trips are discretionary. How many people use the M50 to get to Dundrum, or the Square, or IKEA just because they can, and not because they really need to. Having a free M50 incentivises people to use it where previously they mightn't have. I remember when the Southern Cross Route was built my mother started going to the Square when she never used to before. Suddenly she was making a 5km journey that she didn't need to. Encouraged by having a free road. I'm sure there are a lot more people like her.

When roads are built, they create demand where none existed before. This is proven.



"Choc o bloc" is a sensationalist term, I think, to describe a slight increase in the number of private vehicles using local roads.



Let's discuss this without being condescending.

Believe me there would be huge traffic jams if it was dispersed to local roads - they were never designed for the capacity of vehicles that would be on them.

Where is it proven that a road being built to aid congestion now has created a demand that wasn't there before.

The M50 is not primarily used for people heading out for a spin - it's a necessary evil to have to use it all for the vast majority of people.

Aard

mfceiling wrote: »

Believe me there would be huge traffic jams if it was dispersed to local roads - they were never designed for the capacity of vehicles that would be on them.

Where is it proven that a road being built to aid congestion now has created a demand that wasn't there before.

The M50 is not primarily used for people heading out for a spin - it's a necessary evil to have to use it all for the vast majority of people.

I'm on a tablet ATM and cannot easily provide links. It is accepted in the transport planning world that creating road space (either through new roads, widening existing ones, making junctions more free-flowing) leads to demand for that road space that didn't exist before. The anecdote about my mother driving to the Square is exactly the same thing. Multiply that thousands of times across the city, with many trip generators (generally shopping centres), and that is a lot of demand that previously was non-existant. As I said above, traffic management is not a zero-sum game. People will make non-essential use of a road, just because they can.

I wouldn't describe the M50 as a necessary evil, as such. I don't think it's all that bad really. I just would like to see it being used in the most efficient way possible. There is a tipping point with traffic congestion, call it 100 cars. At 99 cars, traffic moves just as smoothly as 50 cars. At 101 cars, however, congestion begins, and it's just as bad at 110 as it is at 150. There's a lot of digits there, sorry, but I hope the basic idea comes across. The key is identifying the tipping point for congestion, and allowing a number of vehicles just below that. Unfortunately the only way of doing it is through tolling. Building more lanes just pushes the problem ten years into the future at massive cost, at which point the exercise begins again.

I really do want the M50 to work at its best. This is not an anti-car argument I'm putting forward. It's anti-congestion. I'd prefer to see (using the numbers above again) 90 cars moving through the M50 freely and efficiently than 110 cars moving through with bottlenecks and congestion.

Chris_5339762

I'm on a tablet ATM and cannot easily provide links. It is accepted in the transport planning world that creating road space (either through new roads, widening existing ones, making junctions more free-flowing) leads to demand for that road space that didn't exist before.

This is true and has been proven, but what this (I have to say, quiet overused) argument is that it makes life easier for every single person who uses that road.

mfceiling

Aard wrote: »

I'm on a tablet ATM and cannot easily provide links. It is accepted in the transport planning world that creating road space (either through new roads, widening existing ones, making junctions more free-flowing) leads to demand for that road space that didn't exist before. The anecdote about my mother driving to the Square is exactly the same thing. Multiply that thousands of times across the city, with many trip generators (generally shopping centres), and that is a lot of demand that previously was non-existant. As I said above, traffic management is not a zero-sum game. People will make non-essential use of a road, just because they can.

I wouldn't describe the M50 as a necessary evil, as such. I don't think it's all that bad really. I just would like to see it being used in the most efficient way possible. There is a tipping point with traffic congestion, call it 100 cars. At 99 cars, traffic moves just as smoothly as 50 cars. At 101 cars, however, congestion begins, and it's just as bad at 110 as it is at 150. There's a lot of digits there, sorry, but I hope the basic idea comes across. The key is identifying the tipping point for congestion, and allowing a number of vehicles just below that. Unfortunately the only way of doing it is through tolling. Building more lanes just pushes the problem ten years into the future at massive cost, at which point the exercise begins again.

I really do want the M50 to work at its best. This is not an anti-car argument I'm putting forward. It's anti-congestion. I'd prefer to see (using the numbers above again) 90 cars moving through the M50 freely and efficiently than 110 cars moving through with bottlenecks and congestion.

I'm not sure on this.

The M50 is needed by the majority to get to work, not to go on shopping sprees or people out for a drive for the sake of it.

You can't penalise it by tolling it and hoping people will avoid it.

As i have said before - where will the traffic go if it becomes too expensive to use? If you toll it on every entry/exit you probably will cut the congestion on it but at what cost? Less traffic on it means less revenue. More traffic in surrounding suburbs as people start to avoid it completely.

No way in the world are people using the M50 in large numbers because it's there - people have to get to work and do business, and the whole idea of spending on roads infrastructure was to get people to their place of work quicker, safer and to get goods, services etc to their destination faster. To then start tolling the major ring road around dublin which in turn links all the major motorway networks is counter productive.

veryangryman

mfceiling wrote: »

No way in the world are people using the M50 in large numbers because it's there - people have to get to work and do business, and the whole idea of spending on roads infrastructure was to get people to their place of work quicker, safer and to get goods, services etc to their destination faster. To then start tolling the major ring road around dublin which in turn links all the major motorway networks is counter productive.

Main reason was not to get people to their place of work quicker. The M50 is unique in that its almost the only motorway for NON Dublin based traffic. That is that it bypasses Dublin. So if you are in Dublin and moving around it you should do so with the local infrastructure... Roads or otherwise.

That all said.... The bad public transport, poor current links expensive living cost in the city etc makes the M50 the only game in town for many suburban dwellers, especially where work and home are opposite sides of the liffey.

I do think that metro west the door and eastern bypass would sort this out much better. However the Gov just want to take more of our money rather than invest the already huge tax rates in these no brainer schemes

K.Flyer

I am intrigued by some of the suggestions of closing certain access / exit points and where to toll.
How many of you actually rememeber driving around Dublin in pre M50 days or even during the toll gates debacle on the bridge?
Of course if you build a road people will use it and if its in the right place it may even get busy, is that not the reason for it in the first place???
Heavy, and in some places unfair, tolling will only put traffic back onto roads that the M50 was intended to take them from and with the increase in traffic volumes thats going to cause mayhem.
My suggestion for tolling, in as much as I am against it, would be say a two euro charge for each vehicle at every entry point and thats it. Two euro to go onto the road, regardless of distance.

ardmacha

My suggestion for tolling, in as much as I am against it, would be say a two euro charge for each vehicle at every entry point and thats it. Two euro to go onto the road, regardless of distance.

Exactly. While some argue here that the bridge was the expensive bit, there was a lot of money spent on other parts of the M50 also.

Metro west is all very good, but what express buses run on the M50 to allow people travel (say) from Tallaght to Sandyford?


Another problem is that traffic is all expected to go on the M50, which does not have an unlimited capacity. For instance the likes of Belgard Road has ridiculous traffic calming on what should be an important parallel route for circulation. This kind of thinking is found all over Dublin.

There is surely some scope for linking the Ballymount and N7 junctions which are very close together and in a congested area.

K.Flyer

ardmacha wrote: »

There is surely some scope for linking the Ballymount and N7 junctions which are very close together and in a congested area.

They are already linked via Ballymount Rd Upper from the Red Cow to where Honda is.
That road and the section along the M50 will begin to move much better when the Newlands Cross flyover is completed.