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.

Carawaystick

R108 to M50 E
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4094802,-6.2586196,3a,75y,87.61h,86.51t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s1STVrJIEsn5mdJCcowNvwQ!2e0?hl=en

R108 to M50W
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4086445,-6.2729707,3a,75y,251.52h,94.55t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sCBgAvfyL-uPzMEzkq-tjDw!2e0?hl=en

N2 to M50S
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.4016696,-6.3181092,3a,75y,261.24h,80.76t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sOF6MDgLcPBJeiUUe3HObAQ!2e0?hl=en

N3 to M50S
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3794373,-6.3662665,3a,75y,196.71h,73.68t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1smkVB32nG_9bXyJQ1DgabMw!2e0?hl=en

N4 to M50S
https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3557498,-6.384113,3a,75y,232.35h,76.29t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sFuir5ilYO_mBM-6zelw9Kg!2e0?hl=en

All those short sliplanes are a bigger issue than the poor usage of aux lanes.

omicron

Thats exactly what I'm talking about, if people stayed in the auxiliary lane when merging there until its safe to merge properly instead of immediately trying to get into the main flow it would eliminate the issue altogether.

KevR

Our inter-urban motorway network is generally great. Unfortunately, we really don't have a good record when it comes to building high capacity, future proofed urban roads. M50, N4 (outer Dublin), N6 (Galway City) and the N40 (Cork) being some really bad examples that spring immediately to mind.

In my opinion, no new road should need capacity improvements for at least 40 - 50 years after opening, urban roads included. It's simply bad design and/or cheapness.

The M50 was effectively at capacity when it first opened. An expensive upgrade later, there has been a drastic improvement in traffic flow, however, it appears that it might be short lived.

N6 in Galway City - reached capacity far too quickly after opening. Designed to carry approx. 25K per day. Some sections are currently carrying almost double that. Grade separation and perhaps an extra lane in each direction would have been easy when it was initially built through green fields. All but impossible to upgrade now given that surrounding land is heavily developed.

The Athlone Bypass is one of the few urban roads that was really built right. 23+ years after opening, it is carrying roughly 33K per day. It can probably comfortably carry another 10K or so. It should hit the 40 year mark without any major congestion issues. They could have easily cheaped out and built a 1 + 1 at-grade bypass (something like the Nenagh Bypass) - it would have been a big improvement on driving through the town centre and capacity would have been ok for the first few years. Luckily, that didn't happen.

Aard

KevR wrote: »

In my opinion, no new road should need capacity improvements for at least 40 - 50 years after opening, urban roads included. It's simply bad design and/or cheapness.

I don't think that's fair. When the Western Parkway was designed, do you think the engineers would have been able to predict the huge expansion of peripheral residential areas in Dublin and the satellite towns? Most of the M50 had been built by 2001, before the real craziness took off in housing construction. Most of the shopping centres along the M50 wouldn't have been taken into account either - Charlestown, Dundrum, Carrickmines. Even Liffey Valley and Blanch were built after the first M50 section. Road engineers can only design for current circumstances and the immediately predictable future.

At any rate, it is the nature of urban roads that they facilitate latent demand. The move in transport planning atm is not constant capacity improvements, but demand management.

KevR

Aard wrote: »

I don't think that's fair. When the Western Parkway was designed, do you think the engineers would have been able to predict the huge expansion of peripheral residential areas in Dublin and the satellite towns? Most of the M50 had been built by 2001, before the real craziness took off in housing construction. Most of the shopping centres along the M50 wouldn't have been taken into account either - Charlestown, Dundrum, Carrickmines. Even Liffey Valley and Blanch were built after the first M50 section. Road engineers can only design for current circumstances and the immediately predictable future.

At any rate, it is the nature of urban roads that they facilitate latent demand. The move in transport planning atm is not constant capacity improvements, but demand management.

I am almost sure that I read on here a while back that consultants were brought over from the UK when the M50 was being planned initially. Apparently, they strongly advised putting in a 3rd lane from the get-go and advised on free-flowing junctions (as opposed to the signalised roundabouts which were put in). If true, it means the cheap option was deliberately taken.

I completely disagree with "Road engineers can only design for current circumstances and the immediately predictable future". Our inter-urban motorway network has generally been designed for the very long term. Hundreds of kilometers of the new inter-urban could have been built to a lower spec and it would have been fine in the short to medium term. Going very long term, a lower spec would have been a disaster (trying to do capacity upgrades is a lot more difficult and expensive than doing it right the first time). The same long term view should have been taken for strategic high capacity urban roads such as the M50. Arguably, a long term view is even more critical for routes which are in or are very close to urban areas - they are a nightmare to upgrade if surrounding land gets developed.

Some people are calling for the M17/18 to be scaled down because a D2M will not be needed in the short or medium term. A road that won't need capacity improvements for 50 years or more - excellent design and planning, just like the rest of the inter-urbans.

Aard

Regarding your second paragraph - I was referring to urban roads. I should have been more specific. And yes, it would have made sense to buy a wider strip of land than necessary. That's easier said in retrospect, however. At the time it may have added significantly to the costs. Remember too that car ownership and use increased dramatically in the 1990s - something else that was difficult to predict.

Sheldons Brain

Aard wrote: »

Regarding your second paragraph - I was referring to urban roads. I should have been more specific. And yes, it would have made sense to buy a wider strip of land than necessary. That's easier said in retrospect, however. At the time it may have added significantly to the costs. Remember too that car ownership and use increased dramatically in the 1990s - something else that was difficult to predict.

It isn't rocket science to buy some land at the side of the road, if this was going to cost a lot it was because of providing planning permission for it and then buying it at inflated prices.

Predicting car ownership isn't rocket science either, other countries had such traffic and once Irish living standards reached that level we would too.

The reality is that the technocrats did predict these things, but those above them ignored this as they wouldn't be still be there when the crisis arose.

veryangryman

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The reality is that the technocrats did predict these things, but those above them ignored this as they wouldn't be still be there when the crisis arose.

The reality of irish politics. 5 year plans (at the most) due to 5 year terms.

AugustusMinimus

KevR wrote: »

I am almost sure that I read on here a while back that consultants were brought over from the UK when the M50 was being planned initially. Apparently, they strongly advised putting in a 3rd lane from the get-go and advised on free-flowing junctions (as opposed to the signalised roundabouts which were put in). If true, it means the cheap option was deliberately taken.

I completely disagree with "Road engineers can only design for current circumstances and the immediately predictable future". Our inter-urban motorway network has generally been designed for the very long term. Hundreds of kilometers of the new inter-urban could have been built to a lower spec and it would have been fine in the short to medium term. Going very long term, a lower spec would have been a disaster (trying to do capacity upgrades is a lot more difficult and expensive than doing it right the first time). The same long term view should have been taken for strategic high capacity urban roads such as the M50. Arguably, a long term view is even more critical for routes which are in or are very close to urban areas - they are a nightmare to upgrade if surrounding land gets developed.

Some people are calling for the M17/18 to be scaled down because a D2M will not be needed in the short or medium term. A road that won't need capacity improvements for 50 years or more - excellent design and planning, just like the rest of the inter-urbans.

I have no doubt in my mind that the cheap option was chosen for the M50 originally with disregard given to all good advice. The choice of junction (roundabouts) was absolute insanity at the time given the fact that freeflow junctions built from scratch wouldn't have cost much more.


You mention the M17/M18 I see. I'm afraid to say that again, we have gone for the cheap option here too. Instead of a free flow junction at the meeting of the M17/M18/M6, we are instead getting a 3 stack roundabout. It is literally absolute insanity what they are doing. Madness.

Idbatterim

there is far more money to be made getting it wrong than right the first time!

Deedsie

Would the Dublin Outer Orbital Route not ease traffic on the M50? Would that not be a viable option? Think of all the traffic from South of Dublin that uses the M50 just to get to Dublin Airport?

If a link from the DOOR to the airport was included you would def remove some traffic from the M50

veryangryman

Not much though.

Most of these people are coming to/from work in Dublin (where the jobs are). Lets say 10% are not going anywhere within the city, its still not enough to significantly change traffic picture.

Lucan/Rathcoole/Balbriggan/Bray etc don't really have much pull jobswise so not many out there who avoid Dublin city to get to their destination. They are simply using the M50 to get from one end of town to another. Sandyford to Swords, Airport to Dun Laoighre etc.

Idbatterim

would the eastern bypass take a lot of the pressure off the current M50?

L1011

Idbatterim wrote: »

would the eastern bypass take a lot of the pressure off the current M50?

Not really - the issue isn't traffic doing the full ring, as there's not much of it.

It would take a fair bit of traffic off the N11 and maybe through Dundrum etc though.

Carawaystick

omicron wrote: »

Thats exactly what I'm talking about, if people stayed in the auxiliary lane when merging there until its safe to merge properly instead of immediately trying to get into the main flow it would eliminate the issue altogether.

I think we're both agreeing here, but it is unreasonable to expect people to not use the short onslips, as they're there. If they were removed/blocked, then we could see if there's an improvement.

KevR

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

You mention the M17/M18 I see. I'm afraid to say that again, we have gone for the cheap option here too. Instead of a free flow junction at the meeting of the M17/M18/M6, we are instead getting a 3 stack roundabout. It is literally absolute insanity what they are doing. Madness.

Yes, the stacked roundabout is far from ideal. I seriously doubt that it will be cheaper than a free-flow though, that's the annoying thing. I suspect the roundabout was chosen on the grounds that they wanted to tack on a service area, the planning for which was rejected.

Rathmorrissey aside, the scheme is well spec'd.

patrickbrophy18

While the increase in journeys on the M50 is undoubtedly a very positive sign of improved economic activity, I do think that further widening of the M50 for an ever increasing number of car journeys could prove unsustainable as per many of the assertions of posters on this and similar threads. In my opinion, it is now a major opportunity for the relevant transport bodies to plan an orbital rail or BRT network. The M50 is obviously there in part to accommodate those who would otherwise be traveling upwards of 90 minutes each way by public transport as a result of v-shaped (i.e. indirect) commutes. Given the multitude of major business parks within a 2 mile buffer radius either side of the M50, there must be a business case for an orbital rail or BRT network.

However, speed must be a major factor if it is to be a true incentive for use by current motorists. Think of an M50 for BRT/Rail(Heavy/Light) services with DART like speeds. Plus, any more widening of the M50 would more than likely require a huge amount of PSOs as it is bursting at the seems in many parts. An orbital BRT/Rail network would ideally take up the slack of the increase in M50 users as well as current users to curb increases in unsustainable travel. That isn't to say that there won't be an upward trend in cars on the M50. But, if we plan more sustainable ways of reaching destinations within it's vicinity, it should help to keep the increase of our carbon footprint in check. Together with a honeycomb of cycle ways radiating outward from each of the hypothetical stations, it should be a good start.

Jayuu

Before any further work should be carried out we need to understand why the M50 is so busy. There has been no analysis of who is using it, where they get on, get off, why they use it and how busy are individual entrances and exits. There is also an increased amount of traffic from the Port Tunnel on to the road which wasn't there during the previous boom time. Also when we say the road is at capacity how is that determined. Is it a daily figure? Are their particular times when the road hits peak capacity? All of that needs to be done to see if there are particular pinch points which could be addressed.

I use the M50 every day as part of my commute from Coolock to Maynooth. In the morning I get on at Junction 3 (R132) and get off at Junction 7 (N4). In the evenings in order to avoid the toll I tend to come across the back roads to Blanchardstown and join at Juncton 6 and get off again at Junction 3.

One thing I've noticed is that barring accidents the main problem with the M50 is the southbound route from 8:15-9:30. Around this time the road seems to be full and there are constant tailbacks. While this can be explained by commuter traffic the strange thing is that the northbound route doesn't seem to experience the same problem in the evening from what I can tell. Hard for me to say exactly if this is the case because I'm coming home at around 6:30 to 6:45pm so traffic might have eased by that time. But the northbound route doesn't seem to experience the same congestion issues in the evening. One has to ask if the same traffic is using the road both ways why this is the case.

Personally I think it because the exits on the northside are better. The N4, N2, M1 exits are all freeflow exits which means tailbacks don't generally happen on the exits taking traffic off the M50 quicker and keeping it flowing. None of the southside exits are freeflow bar the N7 (and we still have Newlands holding that up). Also many of the exits on the southside lead directly into the places where people work so congestion builds on those exits very quickly in the morning which may have an effect back onto the mainline.

I should also note that the current congestion has only really happened since this autumn. Previous to that I could get from Coolock to Maynooth in around 25-35 minutes on my morning commute. Now it takes around 45-55 minutes at the same time. In the last while I've reversed my travel options so in the morning I leave the M50 at Junction5 (Finglas) and use the N2-M3 link to Blanchardstown and on to Maynooth via the back roads and the use the M50 from Junction 7 (Lucan) back to Junction 3 (M1) in the evenings.

But I think we need to avoid proposing simplistic solutions before doing proper analysis of the problem causes.

Aard

Jayuu wrote: »

But I think we need to avoid proposing simplistic solutions before doing proper analysis of the problem causes.

The first part of that sentence is so relevant, not only for discussion of M50 congestion problems, but pretty much any intervention be it roads, railways, or public transport networks. And as for the second half of the sentence, I completely agree that it is important to identify the root cause rather than treating more cosmetic issues. The problem there, however, is that dealing with the root problem is usually more time-consuming and labour-intensive, and doesn't lend itself to quick-fix projects that people can readily identify with (for example, adding an extra lane).

Carawaystick

Maybe we could build something like a Metro, on the West of the city...