M50 again an example of more roads = more traffic?

monument

The Independent today covers an NRA report on the M50. Highlights include:

• Journey times are becoming less reliable and traffic is moving more slowly because so many vehicles use are 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.

Is the M50 once again proving that more roads equal more traffic?

Was Metro West such a bad idea after all?

Will Leo's opposition to tolling put the NRA on shaky ground against planning permission or is there other traffic management solutions?

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”.

And how much is the M50 used for short trips?

galwaycyclist

What I don't understand is this part of the article

- 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.

Surely this logic is backwards if you are trying to discourage short trips? Should the charge on the first toll not be €6.50 and drop by €1.30 for each additional toll location passed - until a floor of €1.30 is reached?

Or am I missing something?

Victor

The M50 upgrade EIS specifically stated that congestion would happen and it would be back to it's previous levels of congestion within 10-20 years if Metro North and DART underground weren't built.

monument wrote: »

And how much is the M50 used for short trips?

I imagine a huge amount - and a lot of it is going to shopping centres - seeing the N4 exit tailed back for several km northbound on a Saturday afternoon is mad. Then you have people who insist on only using the one lane when going from the M50 southbound to Newlands Cross.

A few things would help:
* Proper charging at car parks and using the funds for traffic management and public transport.
* Implement proper bus routes on the Tallaght-Blanchardstown axis.
* Intelligent traffic systems, including variable speed limits.
* More balanced tolling.
* Actual enforcement of traffic law.
* Rebalancing the tolls to discriminate against cars.

galwaycyclist wrote: »

Surely this logic is backwards if you are trying to discourage short trips? Should the charge on the first toll not be €6.50 and drop by €1.30 for each additional toll location passed - until a floor of €1.30 is reached?

I see your point. It would need to be carefully modelled. However, in the structure you suggest, people would drive the length of the M50 twice so they could travel a few km for less.

Two points
* Having no charge for most users merely encourages them to go long distances, e.g. Bray to Dundrum or Liffey Valley shopping centres - although closer locations might have the same shops.
* One solution might be a high initial charge and a low per km increment.

blue.jester

galwaycyclist wrote: »

What I don't understand is this part of the article



Surely this logic is backwards if you are trying to discourage short trips? Should the charge on the first toll not be €6.50 and drop by €1.30 for each additional toll location passed - until a floor of €1.30 is reached?

Or am I missing something?

This is such a good idea it is staggering me that I have never heard of it before. This would serve both sides of the tolls. The people forced to use it daily would see the decrease and those doing the short hop would be discouraged.

Why can't the boys and girls paid the big bucks come up with thinking like this. Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter!

D.L.R.

The M50 is a flawed route but that doesn't mean Metro West is a good idea.

monument

Victor wrote: »

The M50 upgrade EIS specifically stated that congestion would happen and it would be back to it's previous levels of congestion within 10-20 years if Metro North and DART underground weren't built.

When were the last of the upgrades finished?

D.L.R. wrote: »

The M50 is a flawed route but that doesn't mean Metro West is a good idea.

No, but demand might make MW or at least some kind of light rail / tram close to its route a good idea. I think it might make an even better BRT route.

A BRT / walking / cycling bridge over the River Liffey (in place of the planned MW bridge)... Would't it be the only major structural issue in the way of decent BRT?

bikeman1

Surely the problem with tolling the M50 throughout is that it will force traffic back onto local roads which would make them congested again and also create a danger of more traffic on local roads which have a higher number of pedestrians and cyclists.

What's wrong with the M50 being extremely busy at peak times? Is it not the same the world over? I can recall being on the ring road around Rome and the M25 in London and thinking, god we have it lucky!

TINA1984

This is Ireland guys, car is king country. Once the M50 chokes up again in the not too distant future the 'obvious' thing to do will be to build the DOOR, build the south eastern bypass and make the port tunnel more commuter friendly. DU & Metro West won't be on the radar.

Chris_5339762

Pre-upgrade, the M50 was jammed to the hilt so it was quicker to go through town.

Post upgrade, the M50 seems to be the only sensible cross city route even with all the jams.

I'm in Rathfarnham and if work moved me to Beaumont I'd go on the M50 because the alternatives (either Harolds Cross or Rathmines) would be insanely long and frustrating commutes.

Edit: And all the whinging they're doing... the congestion on the M50 isn't a patch on that on the M25. We do not see 40 mile jams if there is an accident.

veryangryman

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Pre-upgrade, the M50 was jammed to the hilt so it was quicker to go through town.

Post upgrade, the M50 seems to be the only sensible cross city route even with all the jams.

I'm in Rathfarnham and if work moved me to Beaumont I'd go on the M50 because the alternatives (either Harolds Cross or Rathmines) would be insanely long and frustrating commutes.

Edit: And all the whinging they're doing... the congestion on the M50 isn't a patch on that on the M25. We do not see 40 mile jams if there is an accident.

M25 cant really be helped though, 12 lanes wide in some places and still pretty heavy

M50 shouldnt be so busy for a city of 1 million though. Still its hardly at a standstill. Yet another stupid tax, good on ye government.

ProudDUB

Don't know if charging for parking in the shopping centres along the M50 are the answer. Would it not just drive people away from those shopping centres and towards other ones? What is the point of building them in the first place, if we then bring in practices that turn people off going to them?

For example, I shopped in town all the time when I lived in town. I now live in North Co Dublin. If I want to pop in to town for 2-3 hours, I have to cough up nearly a tenner for the privilege of doing so. So I don't, I go to Swords Pavilions or Blanchardstown instead. If all I want is a Dunnes, I go to Charlestown or Donaghmede SC's. If the two SC's that are on the M50 start start charging me for parking & the two that aren't don't....guess which ones I'll stop going to?

msg11

If they charge money for the short journeys they are going to cause mayhem on the roads around the city that the M50 would normally be used for, I for one would not pay 6.50 to go to Blanch and the traffic in town would be crazy with everyone thinking the same so in turn Blanch will lose my custom.

Why is it in Ireland the solution to everything is to tax it. I mean how about they come up with some real solutions that fix these issues.

Shedite27

It's a feckin motorway, it's meant to be busy!

dowlingm

Without traffic analysis it's going to keep coming down to build build build. For a % of those on the M50 even penal tolls won't keep them from driving because a) they refuse to countenance public transport or b) public transport doesn't meet their needs.

What is likely to happen in an Irish context is that tolls will be levied on b) to meet the needs of a) by building additional road capacity. What is not likely to happen is a coherent Dublin transportation network which meets the needs of those currently not using it and thereby removing enough demand from the M50 to produce a decent result for everybody.

As for Metro West - the mistake they made there was not designating it as a LUAS which could operate with Lines A and F2 (and their depots). By designating it as a high capacity segregated mode it opened the way for criticism of spending too much and contributing to sprawl.

dowlingm

ProudDUB wrote: »

Would it not just drive people away from those shopping centres and towards other ones? What is the point of building them in the first place, if we then bring in practices that turn people off going to them?

That's a capitalism problem, not a public policy one. Those shopping centres, many of them built in opposition to good planning policy, have taken custom and viability out of other shopping zones. Putting a price on the congestion they cause could force said shopping centres to support enhanced local transportation such as improved local buses, cycle lanes, secure bike stands and so on.

monument

TINA1984 wrote: »

This is Ireland guys, car is king country. Once the M50 chokes up again in the not too distant future the 'obvious' thing to do will be to build the DOOR, build the south eastern bypass and make the port tunnel more commuter friendly. DU & Metro West won't be on the radar.

Car is king country? But when other options are provided, Dubliners keep using them and they strongly support them.

Most of what you suggest sounds like a way to build traffic.

Cheaper port tunnel = more users.

DOOR = more space on the M50 for more local traffic... And what next when it fills again?

And your comments about DU and MW sounds a lot like those against Dart, those against Luas, and those against DublinBikes.

msg11 wrote: »

If they charge money for the short journeys they are going to cause mayhem on the roads around the city that the M50 would normally be used for, I for one would not pay 6.50 to go to Blanch and the traffic in town would be crazy with everyone thinking the same so in turn Blanch will lose my custom.

Why is it in Ireland the solution to everything is to tax it. I mean how about they come up with some real solutions that fix these issues.

The 6.50 would be if you were going the whole way around the M50.

bikeman1 wrote: »

Surely the problem with tolling the M50 throughout is that it will force traffic back onto local roads which would make them congested again and also create a danger of more traffic on local roads which have a higher number of pedestrians and cyclists.

What's wrong with the M50 being extremely busy at peak times? Is it not the same the world over? I can recall being on the ring road around Rome and the M25 in London and thinking, god we have it lucky!

What's the problem with a very busy M50? It's going to get worse, that's the problem.

dowlingm wrote: »

Without traffic analysis it's going to keep coming down to build build build.

Planners have access to Cencus data which for the first time allows them to see where people are going to and from, at least for most peope at peek times.

There's an amazing amount of data in there.

Con Logue

Tolling the M50 is just another excuse by Official Ireland to screw the rest of us to keep paying their wages.

listermint

But its not busy. I think thats more the point. What constitutes busy these days?

Try driving it 6 Years ago, you'll know busy then.

I dont think ive been held up on the M50 in 4 years short of a major accident. Place is a practical paradise.

Jamie2k9

The M50 has to be the worlds most expensive road ever. It cost something like 1 billion per km to build. Once it was all completed they had to more less rebuild it lather.

How this country has wasted so much money on a road when they could of build many more motorways. How on earth wasn't the outer motorway around Dublin not build when the regional motorways were.

Dublin has major transport/traffic problems and a real transport plan is needed.

n97 mini

Victor wrote: »

T
I imagine a huge amount - and a lot of it is going to shopping centres - seeing the N4 exit tailed back for several km northbound on a Saturday afternoon is mad.

The N4 exit tails back because of people skipping the queue and forcing in near the top of the exit lane. It happens so much that the traffic further back in the queue barely moves. It's a daily occurrence at rush hour, and it is people taking the p1ss in most instances.

It is not an excess of traffic that is the problem, it's an excess of queue skipping, and I'm disappointed this hasn't been recognised.

Heavy traffic on Saturdays is people heading to anywhere between Galway and Donegal. Traffic bottle necks again and slows to a crawl where 3 lanes become 2 at Leixlip. Same as the M7.

TINA1984

monument wrote: »

Car is king country? But when other options are provided, Dubliners keep using them and they strongly support them.

Most of what you suggest sounds like a way to build traffic.

Cheaper port tunnel = more users.

DOOR = more space on the M50 for more local traffic... And what next when it fills again?

And your comments about DU and MW sounds a lot like those against Dart, those against Luas, and those against DublinBikes.

I'm in general agreement with your points, but I don' t think the general (voting) public are, hence my post. In the M50's instance its stakeholders including commuters from the GDA, Road Hauliers etc. who have a vested interest in seeing tolls being limited on the M50, and money being spent on more roads, and bigger roads, ahead of public transport projects like DU, MN or MW.

Given that FF & FG will more then likely swap places again come the next general election, and the 'pro' public transport parties Labour and the Greens remaining electorally irrelevant or being happy to sacrifice policies on the altar of coalition agreements, then I can't see public policy shifting in favour of new mass transit systems being constructed. Not when the NRA and local authorities have a long list of road construction projects at hand.

The Meath and Kildare North bye-elections in 2005 are a microcosm of this trend. Given a choice between politicians promising more roads, or politicians promising better public transport, I think we can guess which way the great Irish public will go. If there is going to be a DU, then you can be sure there'll be a few whopper road projects to go with it.

Carawaystick

The fact anyone would consider charging users of a city bypass more if they bypass more of the city just shows them to be completely incompetent.

As mentioned upthread, lots of give tailbacks are caused by people skipping a slowdown and cutting in later, increasing the slowdown, or the new lands cross junction backing up onto m50 mainline
Or the very short onmerges, which I thought the upgrade was supposed to fix, rather than exascerbate

Picking between Ballymun & Finglas for a toll is daft as there is the ikea road to Charlestown or the r108 parallel to runway 10-28.

What might make sense is charging more users the same toll as westlink, further from the n3/n4 section, and reducing the toll such that revenue is similar. However, the effect of rat-running needs to be considered carefully.

One benefit of increasing the tolled area would be to increase the likelihood of a n3-4 link improvements. At the minute, the roads from Clonsilla/Blanch to Lucan aren't exactly suitable for double decker busses

dowlingm

TINA1984 wrote: »

Given a choice between politicians promising more roads, or politicians promising better public transport, I think we can guess which way the great Irish public will go. If there is going to be a DU, then you can be sure there'll be a few whopper road projects to go with it.

Not least since roads come with tasty contracts which can go to roads companies whereas the costs of DU/MN will require a bit of direct overseas purchasing in the form of tunnel boring machines, rails and vehicles.

Victor

dowlingm wrote: »

As for Metro West - the mistake they made there was not designating it as a LUAS which could operate with Lines A and F2 (and their depots). By designating it as a high capacity segregated mode it opened the way for criticism of spending too much and contributing to sprawl.

Technically, Metro West isn't all that different to the Red Line between Tallaght and Heuston. They could even be joined up if they wanted

dowlingm

But the Metro vehicles were supposed to be 2.6m wide so that would have caused issues with platforms being too tight on the LUAS alignment and too wide if 2.4m wide LUAS vehicles ventured onto Metro. LUAS could also have gotten away with a bit less segregation because people would have been accustomed to it on A and C.

Victor

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

The M50 has to be the worlds most expensive road ever. It cost something like 1 billion per km to build. Once it was all completed they had to more less rebuild it lather.

No, it was expensive, but not that expensive.

Section Cost
Port Tunnel €751m
Santry Bypass €...m
Northern Cross Route €90m
Western Parkway €...
First Westlink Bridge (may include the N3-N4 section) €30m
Second Westlink Bridge €20m?
Southern Cross Route €...m
South Eastern Motorway €500m
Upgrade €1,000m
Total ~€3,000m

The buyout of the toll is a cost to users, not the state.

Total length 46km http://maps.google.ie/maps?saddr=M50&daddr=53.33352,-6.38334+to:Unknown+road&hl=en&ll=53.316929,-6.37619&spn=0.209199,0.676346&sll=53.235941,-6.137152&sspn=0.026199,0.084543&geocode=FV1FLAMd6Wei_w%3BFRDOLQMdFJme_ylvfPf-NHNnSDFX6kYBUppWew%3BFSMYLgMdtgSh_w&mra=dme&mrsp=0&sz=14&via=1&t=m&z=11

Cost per ~€65m/km

Dublin has major transport/traffic problems and a real transport plan is needed.

The plan is there, the problem is implementation.

n97 mini wrote: »

The N4 exit tails back because of people skipping the queue and forcing in near the top of the exit lane. It happens so much that the traffic further back in the queue barely moves. It's a daily occurrence at rush hour, and it is people taking the p1ss in most instances.

I've not seen this. While I only use the N4-N7 section, what I see is a single line of traffic from the canal towards Liffey Valley. The right hand lane at Liffey Valley goes to the city center, so I don't see how there is any cutting in. http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Liffey+Valley+Shopping+Centre,+South+Dublin&hl=en&ll=53.355437,-6.386243&spn=0.001633,0.005284&sll=53.32432,-6.251695&sspn=0.209163,0.676346&oq=Liffey+Valley&hq=Liffey+Valley+Shopping+Centre,+South+Dublin&t=k&z=18 I wonder if there is a weaving issue on the N4 between the M50 and Fonthill Road - a distance of about 500 metres.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Or the very short onmerges, which I thought the upgrade was supposed to fix, rather than exascerbate

There are auxiliary lanes for much of the length - you have hte whole distance to the next junction to merge.

One benefit of increasing the tolled area would be to increase the likelihood of a n3-4 link improvements. At the minute, the roads from Clonsilla/Blanch to Lucan aren't exactly suitable for double decker busses

Potentially one builds the Metro West bridge and have it as a public transport bridge.

the groutch

not surprised that the M50 is "too busy", Dublin Bus have been pushing people into using cars with price increase after price increase.

Cookie_Monster

I wonder can it be shown that local roads surrounding it are busier / quieter as a result. If busier than yes it's simply more people driving, if quieter than surely that's just the M50 doing it's job of taking traffic off local roads...

I'm sure the answer lies somewhere inbetween the two, but tolling it further to restrict usage and push traffic back onto local roads is just insanity, increasing fuel and motor tax would have a bigger benefit in reducing car usage (and have the bonus of being country wide) if thats the way they want to go.

Shedite27

Just to be clear, the purpose of multi point tolling isn't to send people back to local roads, it's to share the burden more fairly.

Say you live in Castleknock, you work in Tallaght and your housemate works in Swords. Is it fair that you pay €4 a day for using less of the road than your housemate who pays nothing?

The toll money goes to improving roads nationwide, not just maintaining one bridge over the Liffey!

Cookie_Monster

Shedite27 wrote: »

Just to be clear, the purpose of multi point tolling isn't to send people back to local roads, it's to share the burden more fairly.

true, but this does not translate so well in the real world where people will just actively avoid them.
Saw perfect example of this a couple of months ago cycling the old road alongside the M6, dozens of trucks using the N6 (or RXXX now) to avoid the tolls. Unintended consequences...

testarossa40

I would suggest instead that enforcing the illegality of Provisional/Learner drivers using the M50 (or any motorway) would have a significant - albeit less lucrative - effect on peak time congestion and not to mention accident rates.

But I agree there appear to be too many "short-hop" journeys that could reasonably & effectively take alternative routes - eg Red Cow (Clondalkin catchment) to Tallaght, Tallaght to Dundrum, Ballymount to Red Cow, and others.

n97 mini

Victor wrote: »

I've not seen this. While I only use the N4-N7 section, what I see is a single line of traffic from the canal towards Liffey Valley. The right hand lane at Liffey Valley goes to the city center, so I don't see how there is any cutting in.

The cutting in is by drivers who opt not to join the exit lane at the back of the queue, but rather choose to join the queue by barging in in the last couple of hundred metres.

A half mile of plastic bollards like outside the Foxhunter, separating the main M50 from the exit lane, would solve the problem.

Carawaystick

Victor wrote: »

There are auxiliary lanes for much of the length - you have hte whole distance to the next junction to merge.

If you come from Finglas up the north road ( was n2 may be rSomethingUnmemorable now) and want to get on the m50 clockwise to get to the M1, you have a very short merge, and no aux lane.
Same at many other junctions

spank_inferno

Dublin Planners have a lot to answer for this.

They approved the construction of tens of thousands of housing units and millions of square feet of retail along what is supposed to be a ring road.

The M50 has the curiosity of being Irelands busiest shopping street (sorry Grafton St & Henry St) as well as Irelands biggest housing estate road.

Neither were its original purpose, so it becoming clogged is inevitable & predictable.

Macy0161

Shedite27 wrote: »

Just to be clear, the purpose of multi point tolling isn't to send people back to local roads, it's to share the burden more fairly.

Say you live in Castleknock, you work in Tallaght and your housemate works in Swords. Is it fair that you pay €4 a day for using less of the road than your housemate who pays nothing?

The toll money goes to improving roads nationwide, not just maintaining one bridge over the Liffey!

But the "M50" toll was for the bridge. It was the westlink toll, but has successfully been turned into the M50 toll to justify multi point tolling.

n97 mini wrote:

The cutting in is by drivers who opt not to join the exit lane at the back of the queue, but rather choose to join the queue by barging in in the last couple of hundred metres.

A half mile of plastic bollards like outside the Foxhunter, separating the main M50 from the exit lane, would solve the problem.

Or a free flow junction that is actually free flowing! People cutting in is a symptom of the poorly designed junction rather than a cause imo.

Shedite27

Macy0161 wrote: »

But the "M50" toll was for the bridge. It was the westlink toll, but has successfully been turned into the M50 toll to justify multi point tolling.

I don't agree. You're paying for the entire motorway system, not just that 500m stretch of bridge. The bridge has obviously paid for itself at this stage, now they are using the money for other roads around the country. The "M50 toll" is only called that because it's where the toll booth is located, not because that's where the revenue goes to.

the groutch

Shedite27 wrote: »

Just to be clear, the purpose of multi point tolling isn't to send people back to local roads, it's to share the burden more fairly.

it's a money-grabbing exercise marquerading as burden sharing.
there is no need to increase the total cost of using the full length of the M50, as the revenue from those using the new toll points will easily cover the savings those using only part of the M50 including the west link will make.

Idbatterim

I use the m50 frequently enough and their 3+1 lanes arent enough at peak times. Should have been 5 lanes... Also coming on at the ballymun interchange, why the f**k am I always waiting at lights at the roundabout when they vast majority of the time there are no cars oncoming!!!

Shedite27

the groutch wrote: »

it's a money-grabbing exercise marquerading as burden sharing. there is no need to increase the total cost of using the full length of the M50, as the revenue from those using the new toll points will easily cover the savings those using only part of the M50 including the west link will make.

Well obviously we'd all prefer to pay less, but it's been well documented the govenment want more income and that's a whole other issue. But if the choices are multi point (burden sharing) or increasing prices on the current toll point (targeting certain people), it's obvious to see what the fairest choice is.

foggy_lad

n97 mini wrote: »

The N4 exit tails back because of people skipping the queue and forcing in near the top of the exit lane. It happens so much that the traffic further back in the queue barely moves. It's a daily occurrence at rush hour, and it is people taking the p1ss in most instances.

It is not an excess of traffic that is the problem, it's an excess of queue skipping, and I'm disappointed this hasn't been recognised.

Heavy traffic on Saturdays is people heading to anywhere between Galway and Donegal. Traffic bottle necks again and slows to a crawl where 3 lanes become 2 at Leixlip. Same as the M7.

Also affecting the west bound traffic at the N4 junction is the bus stop at the liffey valley footbridge, so many Dublin bus and Bus Éireann buses stop here that it is not only a bottleneck it is lethal at most times as the M50 traffic is trying to merge out onto the N4 before ending up in the bus lane while the buses are slowing down on the N4 preparing to cut across the slip road to get to the stop and other N4 traffic is trying to pull across to join the slip road for the Fonthill road.

n97 mini wrote: »

The cutting in is by drivers who opt not to join the exit lane at the back of the queue, but rather choose to join the queue by barging in in the last couple of hundred metres.

A half mile of plastic bollards like outside the Foxhunter, separating the main M50 from the exit lane, would solve the problem.

As long as the segregated lane is only for traffic going "West" it might work, traffic for the city should stay in the main lane until much closer to the junction.

markpb

Shedite27 wrote: »

I don't agree. You're paying for the entire motorway system, not just that 500m stretch of bridge. The bridge has obviously paid for itself at this stage, now they are using the money for other roads around the country.

This is patently untrue. NTR built the bridge under contract with the government that they could toll it for 30 years and would continue to receive toll revenue for a few years if the government broke the tolling contract prematurely.

In 2008, the government did just that which means that each year, €60m is paid by the state to NTR. It doesn't matter if NTR recouped the construction and annual maintenance costs of the bridge, what you're paying for now is the contract between the state and NTR. The construction costs of the bridge are totally irrelevant because we didn't build it, a private company did.

The upgrade of the M50 cost €1bn and there are annual service contracts with M50CL to maintain the road, with Kellys to provide a breakdown and tow-away service (who, interestingly enough answered 18-20 calls a day back in 2009), with Energia to light the motorway (€0.75m a year), with eFlow to cover the tolling costs and probably quite a few more. It's naive to assume the M50 toll is paying for much beyond the M50.

Shedite27

markpb wrote: »

This is patently untrue. NTR built the bridge under contract with the government that they could toll it for 30 years and would continue to receive toll revenue for a few years if the government broke the tolling contract prematurely.

In 2008, the government did just that which means that each year, €60m is paid by the state to NTR. It doesn't matter if NTR recouped the construction and annual maintenance costs of the bridge, what you're paying for now is the contract between the state and NTR. The construction costs of the bridge are totally irrelevant because we didn't build it, a private company did.

The upgrade of the M50 cost €1bn and there are annual service contracts with M50CL to maintain the road, with Kellys to provide a breakdown and tow-away service (who, interestingly enough answered 18-20 calls a day back in 2009), with Energia to light the motorway (€0.75m a year), with eFlow to cover the tolling costs and probably quite a few more. It's naive to assume the M50 toll is paying for much beyond the M50.

You seem to know more than me on it, point I'm making is that it's fairer that everyone pay for the bit of road they use rather than just charging those that use that particular stretch

K.Flyer

The biggest problem with the M50 are the roads you join onto when you leave the motorway.
A lot of the run-offs are short and straight into a set of traffic lights or lights a bit further along which cause the tail back.
E.G. Leaving the M50 onto the N7 heading towards Kildare there are always massive tailbacks during peak caused by the lights at Newlands Cross.
When they were "upgrading" the M50 to what it is today, following the advise given to them during initial construction, they still could not get it right.
Its the layout of some of the minor roads that cause the problems and heavy tolling will push people to create heavier conjestion through areas than cannot handle it.
They tried this in Spain on a new motorway with high tolls and nobidy used it and now they cannot afford to maintain it properly due to the lack if income.

asdfg!

The logic of increasing tolls to discourage traffic is badly flawed. It won't actually put off the occasional user. It will badly effect the daily user. Those who need to use the M50 and for whom the only alternative is a series of rat runs through the city.

I also don't understand why it's considered too busy. Why is that a bad thing? If the motorway is busy then it's because it holds all the traffic that otherwise would be clogging up the streets of the city. Driving traffic off the motorway won't decrease the number of journeys just move them elsewhere.

It seems to me that there is an anti car mentality at work here. You see it all over. Tax cars off the road and force people onto public transport or God help us bicycles. That would be fine if there was any coherent policy on public transport. But we all know how inadequate that is. As for bikes, well their fans need to get over it. There will never be a mass move onto bikes even if you gave one to every person in the country.

There is a complete lack of joined up thinking on this subject.

Scortho

On the tolls issue it's not fair that I can go from Liffey valley to bray without meeting a toll yet someone can go from blancharddtown to Liffey valley and have to pay a toll. I'm one of those who drive from the n4 towards bray, at least 3 times a week.
My gripe is with the suggested cost. At €6.50 for an entire trip it is significantly more expensive than what it is currently.
Would it not make sense to split the current rate into say 5 segments (one at the start, one at blanchardstown, one at ballycoolin, one at tallaght and one at the end) and maybe increase the overall rate by 10%?
The reason why I suggested those 3 at blanchardstown, ballycoolin and tallaght is because they're the ones with the highest volume of traffic on it daily.
On the issue of congestion at rush hour, I think the biggest issue with the congestion is due to people not using the lanes properly. I've lost count of the amount of times traffic in the two overtaking lanes is moving slower than traffic in the left hand lane. It's as if the whole keep left unless overtaking rule (or to allow traffic merge) is ignored by many Irish motorists.

Victor

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

true, but this does not translate so well in the real world where people will just actively avoid them.
Saw perfect example of this a couple of months ago cycling the old road alongside the M6, dozens of trucks using the N6 (or RXXX now) to avoid the tolls. Unintended consequences...

The problem there is that the M6 uses single-point tolling. Implement multi-point tolling and the toll becomes less worthwhile in avoiding - and harder to avoid.

K.Flyer wrote: »

The biggest problem with the M50 are the roads you join onto when you leave the motorway. A lot of the run-offs are short and straight into a set of traffic lights or lights a bit further along which cause the tail back. E.G. Leaving the M50 onto the N7 heading towards Kildare there are always massive tailbacks during peak caused by the lights at Newlands Cross. When they were "upgrading" the M50 to what it is today, following the advise given to them during initial construction, they still could not get it right. Its the layout of some of the minor roads that cause the problems and heavy tolling will push people to create heavier conjestion through areas than cannot handle it.

Newlands Cross is being addressed over the next two years. On many of the exits, you are straight into suburbia, so you can expect roundabouts and traffic lights.

asdfg! wrote: »

The logic of increasing tolls to discourage traffic is badly flawed. It won't actually put off the occasional user. It will badly effect the daily user. Those who need to use the M50 and for whom the only alternative is a series of rat runs through the city.

So, let's give the addicts more drugs?

The number of people who use the M50 is greater thant he number of people who absolutely need to use it.

I also don't understand why it's considered too busy. Why is that a bad thing? If the motorway is busy then it's because it holds all the traffic that otherwise would be clogging up the streets of the city. Driving traffic off the motorway won't decrease the number of journeys just move them elsewhere.

Two problems:

1. Too much congestion makes it more difficult to do business - deliver goods and services. Having no spare capacity means inward investment won't happen.

2. The city streets have a limited capacity. Removing traffic from the motorway won't create the same increase on other roads - people will stop using resources wastefully.

It seems to me that there is an anti car mentality at work here.

Well, cars are the problem.

hfallada

The biggest cause of congestion is poor planning as result of not allowing high density housing the city. If people could live in the city they would. But lack of supply causing high prices making them move to cheaper places out side the city.

Also builders should have had to contribute to the building of public transport like they had to for the luas in South County Dublin.

Jumboman

As I said on another thread 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.

I cant believe people are dumb enough to accept tolls its a complete Scam.


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

Victor

Jumboman wrote: »

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

Has the government just spent €1 billion on footpaths?

Jumboman

Victor wrote: »

Has the government just spent €1 billion on footpaths?

I dont see what point you are trying to make ? We have already more than paid for these roads, what do you think road tax is for ? Tolling is a form of quadruply taxation. What will be the next Scam charging a toll based on the size of the car ? They will always come up with new ways to screw us.

monument

Jumboman wrote: »

I dont see what point you are trying to make ? We have already more than paid for these roads, what do you think road tax is for ? Tolling is a form of quadruply taxation. What will be the next Scam charging a toll based on the size of the car ? They will always come up with new ways to screw us.

Who do you pay road tax to? The Irish government don't collect any such tax, nor do they in the UK.