M50 traffic tops boom

Idbatterim

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/traffic-tops-boomtime-levels-as-120000-motorists-a-day-use-m50-30640715.html

TRAFFIC volumes on sections of the country's busiest road are now 30pc above boom-time levels, prompting fears of widespread congestion. - See more at: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/traffic-tops-boomtime-levels-as-120000-motorists-a-day-use-m50-30640715.html#sthash.aVzRoUp2.dpuf

Road bosses have revealed that almost 120,000 motorists a day are now paying the toll on Dublin's M50 motorway - a 29pc increase since the road was upgraded. And sections of the motorway are now carrying more traffic than at the height of the Celtic Tiger. The growth in traffic is linked to the economic recovery, but has prompted fears that unless demand is managed, there could be a return to the daily gridlock which caused widespread disruption across the capital's ring road before the upgrade. "It's a significant indicator that economic activity has improved, and with that traffic levels are increasing," said a spokesman for the National Roads Authority (NRA) said. "One would assume that this level of traffic will be maintained, but it may increase further in the coming years. "We don't want to go back to the past. The taxpayer spent €1bn upgrading the M50 and it's a critical economic corridor. If it doesn't function, it's detrimental to the entire country." Last year, the NRA published an analysis of traffic volumes on the motorway, which was upgraded in 2010. The study was required by An Bord Pleanala, which granted permission for the upgrade in 2008. It found that "safe operational capacity" was being exceeded at peak times on some sections, including the connection with the M1 to the north, the N4 to Lucan and the West and the M7 to Cork and Kildare. It recommended that five tolling points be introduced across the road, which runs for a total of 45kms. The decision of additional tolling points could 'split' the fee, which ranges from €2.10 to €3.10, along the sections travelled. This would mean that those who travel the entire length of the motorway would not be penalised. In addition, tolls could be higher at peak times, and reduced at off-peak, or waived in periods with little or no traffic. Other measures include lowering the speed limits at some points, or using demand-management systems, including timing traffic signals at key junctions to restrict the number of vehicles allowed onto the road. The NRA said installing multi-point tolling would be a government decision, and it would take three years to install the technology. The spokesman said it was important to plan now to prevent a return to the gridlock which existed prior to the upgrade. More capacity cannot be added to the motorway, as there is no land available along the route which would allow additional lanes to be installed. "Once the level of service goes beyond a certain threshold, it has economic implications. We're an export-led economy, and need consistency in journey times to get goods to and from locations," he said. The Department of Transport said there were no plans "at present" to introduce multi-point tolling on the M50, amid concerns that it would push traffic onto local roads. The closing date for submissions to the Strategic Framework for investment in Land Transport is October 16. - See more at: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/traffic-tops-boomtime-levels-as-120000-motorists-a-day-use-m50-30640715.html#sthash.aVzRoUp2.dpuf

So nearly immediately after this upgrade and a just coming out of a huge recession, we are back to square one. At least one other lane should have been added, I don't buy the "there is no more room crap" I drive along it frequently, there is plenty more room... Too late now, I do appreciate at the more road you build, the more cars will come, at this stage Dublin needs a proper rail transport network and then possibly start congestion charging, maybe one toll to go from outside m50 to inside m50 and then another when entering canals...

L1011

Room isn't the issue, cost was. The structures were by and large built for four lanes, so it was much cheaper that way

Idbatterim

More capacity cannot be added to the motorway, as there is no land available along the route which would allow additional lanes to be installed.

that is what I am calling BS on, as you say MYOB, I get that some or all of the original bridges were built for four lanes, but it is not a space issue, it is a money one as you say... Go to LA etc the motorways use every available inch, from boundary wall to boundary wall...

Caliden

This work should've been started 2 years ago because it was clear even then that traffic was bad during the school months.

Now, 2 years on, it's worse and the m50 is akin to a carpark at times. 1 incident blocking northbound at junction 6 almost shut down the entire city.

If anyone wants to cause havoc it would very easily be done.

MrDerp

I do think an outer bypass would be useful here, and it could be built in stages. The trick would be to toll it by stage, and to keep it reasonably close to Dublin to ensure traffic would use it.

I only use the m50 once each way per week, but I'd use an N7 to N3 link without doubt instead on my route, even if it were a euro more expensive.

However, it would need to be closer to the city than the LOOR proposal was.

Iwannahurl

Idbatterim wrote: »

So nearly immediately after this upgrade and a just coming out of a huge recession, we are back to square one. At least one other lane should have been added, I don't buy the "there is no more room crap" I drive along it frequently, there is plenty more room... Too late now, I do appreciate at the more road you build, the more cars will come, at this stage Dublin needs a proper rail transport network and then possibly start congestion charging, maybe one toll to go from outside m50 to inside m50 and then another when entering canals...

An entirely predictable occurrence. Increasing road capacity, for private cars especially, does not reduce congestion in the medium to long term.

The DTTAS, NRA et al will eventually have no choice but to introduce a range of Transportation Demand Management measures.

What infrastructure other than roads increases use? If you massively increase sewage treatment capacity, people won't start urinating and defecating more often. However, if you provide more road space, and make no attempt to control usage, you can be certain that motorised traffic will increase sooner or later.

SeanW

Two things need to happen here IMHO:

1. Public transport needs to be improved. Massively. As I understand it, some commuter services are still at or above capacity, Heuston remains connected to the city centre only by a tram line, and good sensible plans to improve PT have been put on ice. This needs to be rectified, with the Dart Underground being Priority 1, followed by Metro and more Luas.
2. Planning for a regional bypass motorway should begin after Point 1 has been addressed. It should be far enough out that it does not impact the planning of Dublin City, nor take up the M50s current role as a half-bypass half-regional road with blue signs.

An entirely predictable occurrence. Increasing road capacity, for private cars especially, does not reduce congestion in the medium to long term.

It does if the traffic potential is small enough or the capacity increase is large enough.

Case in point: Longford town. The town used to be absolutely choked with traffic, a lot of it long haul HGV, even with an N4 bypass from the '90s.

Then they built the N5 bypass, a massive increase in road capacity. That traffic is gone now and it hasn't been replaced. And it most likely will not be either. The same is true of towns up and down this country, such as Moate (toll free bypass) as just one example. So that renders your argument false.

However, if you provide more road space, and make no attempt to control usage, you can be certain that motorised traffic will increase sooner or later.

If "motor traffic increases" it's because people are going places and having an improved quality of life presumably in doing so. Motor traffic on motorways has the least impact, because it's grade separated from pedestrians, housing etc and generally moves at a consistent speed and is thus more efficient.

veryangryman

3 words. "Enforced Lane Disclipline"

Even 2 garda cars running up and down M50 and pulling motorists who take the p1ss over would sort this out.

Subpopulus

SeanW wrote: »

"An entirely predictable occurrence. Increasing road capacity, for private cars especially, does not reduce congestion in the medium to long term."

Case in point: Longford town. The town used to be absolutely choked with traffic, a lot of it long haul HGV, even with an N4 bypass from the '90s.

Then they built the N5 bypass, a massive increase in road capacity. That traffic is gone now and it hasn't been replaced. And it most likely will not be either. The same is true of towns up and down this country, such as Moate (toll free bypass) as just one example. So that renders your argument false.

No it doesn't. There's a difference between bypassing something and increasing the capacity of a road. The Longford Bypass moved traffic to a new road. Because the town was bypassed, then there was greater capacity on the road itself, therefore it's probable that more people now travel on the new N5 because the bottleneck at Longford is removed and driving conditions have improved.

The M50 upgrade is different, because it didn't bypass anything, it just made it far easier to travel on it. Once people know that they aren't going to spend an hour going from Tallaght to Lucan they'll be more likely to use the road. I used to travel fairly often from Cork to Blanchardstown and before the M50 upgrade I took the backroads through Clonsilla and Lucan to avoid the traffic. Now I just use the M50 because the extreme congestion isn't there any more.

It's called Induced Demand and it's well documented in traffic engineering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

veryangryman

One other point of note is that Dublin is a capital city. Of course it's going to have huge traffic regardless of how good you make the roads/public transport. London, Glasgow, Cardiff all have the same problems. The M25, 20 miles north of London is always bumper to bumper even with 12 lane sections and countless quality public transport options.

AugustusMinimus

veryangryman wrote: »

3 words. "Enforced Lane Disclipline"

Even 2 garda cars running up and down M50 and pulling motorists who take the p1ss over would sort this out.

People constantly driving in the middle lane is essentially reducing the capacity of a 3 lane motorway to 2 lanes.

This simple concept is usually completely ignored for some reason. Widening Naas to the M9 turnoff on the M7 will be pointless unless lane discipline is enforced.

SeanW

Or they could stop laying out roads in ways that encourage middle lane hogging. For example:

1. Many motorway junctions have two lanes entering where it becomes one lane just before entering a(nother) motorway, and the driving lane must yield to the overtaking lane which then becomes the driving lane after the merge just before entry. This is one such example and this is another but there are almost surely others.
2. Similar to the above, there are other places where the driving lane must yield merge to continue, like on the main road N4 leaving Dublin just beyond Palmerstown - a bus lane starts in the driving lane and you have to yield and merge into the overtaking lane.
3. Wherever a lane is added to a motorway/DC, it should not come online with a new junction, nor the reverse, be lost with the exit. Instead, an overtaking lane should be created/lost on the inside. J5 on the N4 where it becomes a motorway is a demon for both: Coming into the city, a new lane is added with the entry from J5, a motorist would have to change lanes to join it and thus continue driving legally. Leaving town, the driving lane becomes the exit lane and you have to merge out of it to stay on - I've found that the further back you are when you do this, the better.
4. Heavy merges. When I lived in Cork, going North on the N25 (now N40) I found that as you passed the N27 junction there was such a heavy merge that if you were going fast enough to justify being in Lane 3, it was better for everyone. Heavy merges like that should be looked at IMO.

SeanW

Subpopulus wrote: »

No it doesn't. There's a difference between bypassing something and increasing the capacity of a road. The Longford Bypass moved traffic to a new road. Because the town was bypassed, then there was greater capacity on the road itself, therefore it's probable that more people now travel on the new N5 because the bottleneck at Longford is removed and driving conditions have improved.

Re-read the post I quoted. IWH stated flatly that providing capacity for private cars DOES NOT REDUCE CONGESTION. There was no equivocation - it was presented as absolute, universal fact. So clearly, expanding the M50 should have no more of a long term impact than building an HQDC in the middle of nowhere to replace boreens.

IWHs argument is transparently specious because it has 3 key failings:

1. It assumes that all road building induces demand rather than follows it. Longford, Moate etc. would all prove otherwise, because these were towns completely choked to the point of non-functionality by EXISTING traffic, not some fairy tale of "induced demand" and there would have been no other way to resolve these bar some Stalinist nightmare. Simply, many congestion problems are caused by inadequate infrastructure, long distance roads going through town centres and the like. Yet IWH claims that these roads will not reduce congestion.
2. It assumes as it states flatly that all capacity will eventually be taken ... this may be true in very large cities, but is not necessarily the case in smaller towns, villages etc. Comparing London vs. Longford town or Moate for example would be idiotic, but IWH does not equivocate. Yet, Dublin is somewhere in between, as is Galway BTW more towards the latter.
3. It implies that "induced demand" is necessarily a bad thing. It could be argued we'd have a lot less car use if the road network is still the way it was in the 1920s, but I dare say people have a better quality of life now than they did back in '21.

Now I just use the M50 because the extreme congestion isn't there any more.

Which has probably made things a lot easier for people along the back roads no longer used. Win-win.

RichardoKhan

or is just simple smoke & mirrors to justify multi point tolling? So what they grabbed a couple of instances when it exceeded Boom period. However there is no context here & how do we know like for like is being used. For example maybe they have pulled specific occurrences against previous averages?

L1011

RichardoKhan wrote: »

or is just simple smoke & mirrors to justify multi point tolling? So what they grabbed a couple of instances when it exceeded Boom period. However there is no context here & how do we know like for like is being used. For example maybe they have pulled specific occurrences against previous averages?

The figures are all public if you want to do your own comparison, its the Indo so who knows - they're not the most reliable media source.

Sheldons Brain

veryangryman wrote: »

3 words. "Enforced Lane Disclipline"

Even 2 garda cars running up and down M50 and pulling motorists who take the p1ss over would sort this out.

This may be true to some extent, but it doesn't really make much difference to the peak discussed as all lanes are in queues.

MYOB wrote:

The figures are all public if you want to do your own comparison, its the Indo so who knows - they're not the most reliable media source.

Conspiracy theories are easier than research to refute the point.

beauf

I would be interesting to see the flow of this traffic amd what are the journey types. Is 50% of it commuter, through traffic, peak, off peak, etc.

Iwannahurl

veryangryman wrote: »

Even 2 garda cars running up and down M50 and pulling motorists who take the p1ss over would sort this out.

Two members of AGS running up and down might help a little. Or maybe cycling up and down. Or in a helicopter with a loudspeaker and searchlights...

L1011

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

TConspiracy theories are easier than research to refute the point.

Bingo, I don't think its the case but I also can't be bothered to check :pac:

In my own driving I've noticed a significant increase in cars as a % of total traffic during the day - whereas there should also be a major uptick in commercial traffic if its solely economy related. I suspect that a lot of people are finding public transport unreliable, unavailable or too crowded to actually use with the cuts over the past few years but there's no real way to prove that.

Personally, its really 50/50 as to whether being forced in to someone's armpit on a completely unsuitable three car inter-city train forced on a busy commuter service is better or worse than nearly losing use of my left leg from the clutch driving in but one is significantly cheaper...

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Two members of AGS running up and down might help a little. Or maybe cycling up and down. Or in a helicopter with a loudspeaker and searchlights...

The first two are illegal on a motorway. Not sure how they'd "help" at any rate.

As to the idea of a helicopter with searchlights. In the context of that picture, the problem is clearly not middle lane hogging but general traffic conditions. What would a garda helicopter with searchlights accomplish exactly? (Except to harass the stuck motorists of course).

AugustusMinimus

Lane discipline is still an important part of improving flow on a motorway.

Middle lane and overtaking lane hoggers along with drivers who weave in and out of traffic constantly to get ahead are also prime reasons why phantom traffic jams develop.

Other reasons include vehicles moving much too slowly for conditions (causing a braking wave effect) and people driving too fast in heavy traffic. 80kph speed limits at certain hours on the M50 might help a lot.

beauf

What would be the point. Speed limits on the M50 are largely ignored.

n0brain3r

Implement average speed cameras for use during peak hours only when restricted speed limits are in place and put 4 or 5 bike cops on the M50 during peak times too enforcing lane discipline and road markings. They could start by repositioning the one who hides with his speed camera at the Cherrywood exit during peak hours.
I think merge restrictions should be added where possible too kind of like the N4 westbound from the M50 you can't cross from the centre lane to left most for a couple of hundred meters . e.g. I'd some idiot stop in the aux lane today when merging from the N4 to M50 nothing in front of him but he had to get to the inside lane asap so just stopped rather than continuing with the flow of traffic. If he wasn't allowed merge for a 100 meters or so he might of got up to speed and found a gap.

paulbok

We all seen last week when the load of hay went on fire on the M50 N (can't believe there wasn't a thread on it on AfterHours how dependent the city is on a functioning M50. Pretty much the entire city came to a standstill for the evening, barring the coastal routes which were still bad. And that was just for a blockage in one direction. If that was between the Lucan and Blanch exits Northbound it would have been even worse, with no viable alternative route over the Liffey. If something was to ever happen both the Westlink bridges, you may as well close the city until they are repaired.

There needs to be an alternative to the M50 put in place. Don't know if it needs to be out as far as the LOOR, but Balbriggan/Swords -Ashbourne- Dunsaughlin/Dunboyne - Maynooth - Naas or M9 would surely do, this may have been proposed before as the inner route, LIOR. This would still be near enough to Dublin to handle an overflow from such events as last week.

WicklowTiger

Maybe I'm missing the point here but was the M50 not a traffic choked construction site from 2006 to 2010 while the upgrade works were in progress? Hardly a surprise then that traffic volumes are now higher...

loyatemu

If the motorway is "at capacity" at peak hours then it's not middle-lane drivers or phantom traffic jams that are the problem (they may be issues at other times though).

Outer bypass wouldn't make a lot of difference either - most of the traffic is coming from or going to destinations close to the M50.

Iwannahurl

loyatemu wrote: »

most of the traffic is coming from or going to destinations close to the M50.

Is there any analysis of trip lengths, origins/destinations etc?

SpaceTime

Lane discipline is hard to enforce when you've a situation where about 80% of the drivers haven't a bulls notion about what the term even means.

It was never covered in driver education here and unless there's a very big public information campaign, the behaviour won't change.

You can't expect people to just learn these things by magic.

L1011

Having to drive in two days in a row - one for a site visit in Artane on the way, the other to move equipment - I've noticed a few things with traffic flows

Most of the motorways that are slow don't seem to be at actual mainline capacity; but are instead unable to take the volumes merging at certain interchanges while at normal speed. Ramp metering might help here, although it could just cause gridlock in the surrounding areas instead... internationally, ramp metering usually is coupled to extremely long sliproads to try stop traffic backups.

A significant slowdown on the N4 is caused by traffic queuing in to Liffey Valley/Clondalkin - this was never as bad previously. Has there been a large increase in employment or a reduction in public transport, or both? The same happens with the Coolock exist on the M50/M1 towards the Port Tunnel.

At the moment I don't think an extra lane would help anything, there needs to be efforts put in to identifying where new traffic patterns have developed and why.

Carawaystick

MYOB wrote: »

Most of the motorways that are slow don't seem to be at actual mainline capacity; but are instead unable to take the volumes merging at certain interchanges while at normal speed. Ramp metering might help here, although it could just cause gridlock in the surrounding areas instead... internationally, ramp metering usually is coupled to extremely long sliproads to try stop traffic backups.

We seem to have taken the opposite view here with extremely short sliproads, where traffic forces its way onto the mainline....

omicron

Carawaystick wrote: »

We seem to have taken the opposite view here with extremely short sliproads, where traffic forces its way onto the mainline....

Except we have extremely long auxiliary lanes that no one uses to merge, instead just forcing their way into the main flow regardless of speed or space to merge.