M50 again an example of more roads = more traffic?

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.

Jumboman

monument wrote: »

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

Road Tax = Car Tax.

the groutch

Shedite27 wrote: »

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.

they've done both though, the only people who can end up paying less are those using the West Link and none of the 4 new tolls, which would be very few.

doolox

If the govt toll the M50 then I am effectively unemployed.
I rely totally on the M50 to get where I need to be on a self - employed provider of services which includes a large area including Bray, Stillorgan, Crumlin, Drimnagh, Kimmage, Templeogue and Tallaght all from a base in Lucan.

Without free access to the M50 my business plan is finished.

I do very little business North of the M50 because of having to charge extra to cover the extortionate toll on the M50 bridge.

It looks like the Government will have to bankroll me again once my money runs out in a few weeks and I cannot continue doing my work in the face of increased costs.

Well done lads. As if road tax, house tax etc is not enough.

We BADLY need a revolution.

I will not go on the dole again.

Once was enough for that travesty.

The government need to be kicked out as soon as possible and replaced with something less expensive.

dowlingm

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

If a tolling concession is sold, then money goes back to the Exchequer in effect paying off the road cost which will allow for more public spending/providing for public pensions/reduced taxes... oh. Right. Then money goes back to the Exchequer to pay off the IMF et al. Yeah okay I see the problem now. :rolleyes:

That said Jumboman, you pay taxes to central government into general revenue. Nobody asked you to sign a cheque the proceeds of which were to go directly to the M6 or any other motorway. You paid taxes and the government did stuff not necessarily connected to the taxes. Even then, notwithstanding the capital cost, these roads must be maintained.

Jamie2k9

doolox wrote: »

The government need to be kicked out as soon as possible and replaced with something less expensive.

Sure why not replace them with Fine Fail who will do a wonderful job next time round.

dowlingm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Sure why not replace them with Fine Fail who will do a wonderful job next time round.

Don't forget the bangup job the Greens did either :rolleyes:

Cookie_Monster

Jumboman wrote: »

Road Tax = Car Tax.

:rolleyes:
what's car tax then?

It's motor tax FFS, and it goes into the general tax pool like all other taxes and is not restricted to nor designated for funding roads.

SeanW

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

:rolleyes:
what's car tax then?

It's motor tax FFS, and it goes into the general tax pool like all other taxes and is not restricted to nor designated for funding roads.

Given that road tax is just one of many taxes taken from motorists (along with VRT, fuel taxes, VAT, regulatory costs and so on) it is not reasonable for a motorist to think they've paid enough for the roads?

monument wrote: »

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

If you want to know why someone pedantically corrects someone for the use of the term "ROAD TAX" the answer can be found on the cycling forum here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056834608
It seems that the use of the term "Road Tax" "sends the wrong cultural signals" and "gives motorists a sense of entitlement" and blah blah blah, blah blah blah.

Cookie_Monster

SeanW wrote: »

Very true; but given that it's (just one of many) taxes taken from motorists (along with VRT, fuel taxes, VAT, regulatory costs and so on) it is not reasonable for a motorist to think they've paid enough for the roads?

No, not really. There has been massive road development over the last decade or two, it's easy to see a return. I'd be more concerned as a non-motorist (if I were one) at the excessive levels of funds put into roads, often for excessive capacity and often at the expense of other transport forms and infrastructure.

And given the damage private cars do to the environment and society in general it's fair price to pay IMO.

SeanW

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

No, not really.

Our road tax and VRT systems are almost totally unprecedented in their severity.

There has been massive road development over the last decade or two, it's easy to see a return.

True, but motorists have well paid for it. And more.

I'd be more concerned as a non-motorist (if I were one) at the excessive levels of funds put into roads, often for excessive capacity and often at the expense of other transport forms and infrastructure.

The last part I sort of agree with but I think that we were behind the rest of the developed world in terms of road provision and are still behind in terms of public transport. I agree that there should be more spending on public transport etc and I have no objection to building cycle lanes and the like.

And given the damage private cars do to the environment

Much overrated I think, especially considering the hypocrasy of the environmental movement that's key in the scaremongering about things like carbon dioxide.

and society in general it's fair price to pay IMO.

The car has given the individual unprecedented abilities to travel heretofore unknown. The ability to get individuals, personal luggage and goods from any one place to any other far outweights the "damage" to society in general.