M50 madness , Outer Ring needed

Roadhawk

This link was posts on another thread that is very relevant to this one. Some great ideas on urbanisation...

http://nigeldugdale.ie/2016/10/10/no-one-shouted-stop-growth-cars-suburbia/

Carawaystick

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Well when you scatter an "urban" population as thinly as possible and then try to push them all into the city every day on a few lanes of tarmac this kind of thing happens.

If Dublin had more, properly designed higher density housing options and proper public transport it would actually function.

The road network will always be a problem if we keep failing to do anything about planning housing.

This is a political issue and clearly people support the status quo as any suggestion of high-rise or high density causes minor outrage. So clearly unsustainable is popular.

Monument has figures calculated that Dublin city has a higher population density than Amsterdam.
It just doesn't have proper public transport

NiallBoo

Carawaystick wrote: »

Monument has figures calculated that Dublin city has a higher population density than Amsterdam.
It just doesn't have proper public transport

While it's shown in the figures that they are the same on average (and that this proves that rail-based PT is viable) - it is worth mentioning that they're still very different.

Their development style leaves a lot more public space, wider streets and generally room for people to use the city (and indeed, more room to build public transit).

Although the buildings in Amsterdam or Copenhagen are taller, the whole place feels a lot less closed-in.

Dardania

Roadhawk wrote: »

This link was posts on another thread that is very relevant to this one. Some great ideas on urbanisation...

http://nigeldugdale.ie/2016/10/10/no-one-shouted-stop-growth-cars-suburbia/

Great article - I'd say the talk and discussion after was great.

BoatMad

GreenFolder2 wrote: »

Well when you scatter an "urban" population as thinly as possible and then try to push them all into the city every day on a few lanes of tarmac this kind of thing happens.

If Dublin had more, properly designed higher density housing options and proper public transport it would actually function.

The road network will always be a problem if we keep failing to do anything about planning housing.

This is a political issue and clearly people support the status quo as any suggestion of high-rise or high density causes minor outrage. So clearly unsustainable is popular.

Irelands rural areas are incredibly sparsely populated by European standards, hence there is no reason to house everyone cheek by jowl, like many european cities where rural densities are orders of magnitude higher. Therefore people , in a basically free and capitalistic economy will use their money to seek better housing in the rural l hinterlands.


Thats why it happens here and not in Amsterdam, where the only place to go as an alternative is to live in the sea

its all about what people want , not what "you" want them to do

monument

NiallBoo wrote: »

While it's shown in the figures that they are the same on average (and that this proves that rail-based PT is viable) - it is worth mentioning that they're still very different.

Their development style leaves a lot more public space, wider streets and generally room for people to use the city (and indeed, more room to build public transit).

Although the buildings in Amsterdam or Copenhagen are taller, the whole place feels a lot less closed-in.

You'll fit the basic footpath - cycle path - car lane - tram lanes - car lane - cycle path - footpath layout in Amsterdam into as many arterial roads as you can in Dublin. Where there isn't space one is the issues in Dublin is that we retain excessive car acces and/or car parking on routes which would cut that out in Dutch cities.

The centre of Amsterdam is very "closed in" and has very narrow streets -- possibly overall more narrow than Dublin's central streets overall! And most of the suburbs in Dublin and Amsterdam are comperable in height.

Copenhagen Has significantly high density than both Dublin and Amsterdam in the centre, but that does not continue too far out.

BoatMad wrote: »

Irelands rural areas are incredibly sparsely populated by European standards, hence there is no reason to house everyone cheek by jowl, like many european cities where rural densities are orders of magnitude higher. Therefore people , in a basically free and capitalistic economy will use their money to seek better housing in the rural l hinterlands.


Thats why it happens here and not in Amsterdam, where the only place to go as an alternative is to live in the sea

its all about what people want , not what "you" want them to do

That's quite frankly nonsense. Rural areas were continued to be developed for housing on a large scale until the Dutch implemented the bans or part bans on such housing and implemented proper planning. Nothing to do with them running out of space in rural area. We're already following the same policy as they did, although too late for many areas.

It's about planning and enforcement, not letting thing run away until there's a bubble and burst. We know from planning mistakes

Anyway, getting back to Dublin -- Dublin can support metro lines and more tram lines under the current population and current density.

salonfire

Why isn't elevated monorail ever mentioned as a solution to Dublin transport rather that DART / Luas / DU

These take up far less road space compared to Luas and car traffic can still drive beneath and around the support structures.

They could be built on existing roads and have outbound and inbound tracks run in separate routes if side by side takes up too much space

magicbastarder

An elevated metro was originally considered on the ballymun road afaik but abandoned for cost reasons. And the locals were none too enthused with the idea.

Muahahaha

I feel a song coming on :pac:

jd

magicbastarder wrote:

An elevated metro was originally considered on the ballymun road afaik but abandoned for cost reasons. And the locals were none too enthused with the idea.

It was not abandoned for cost reasons, it was because of local objections. Tunnelling is a lot more expensive. It's possible that if they had decided on the elevated route it would be under construction/completed now.

magicbastarder

Metro north would be nearly completed now were it not for the Ballymun road objectors?

NLC1072

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Ok, so we build this at a cost of probably a billion euro, then as with every road in the history of roads, it becomes congested too, what do we do then? Another ring road outside that?
Sure let's just concrete over the whole country.

That is progress.

jd

magicbastarder wrote: »

Metro north would be nearly completed now were it not for the Ballymun road objectors?

Possibly, as it is not as expensive as tunneling, and maybe it would have started with the reduced cost. Might have meant the N11 and M17/18 schemes would not have gone ahead.

The main point is that tunneling is more expensive than an elevated track.

coolbeans

NLC1072 wrote: »

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Ok, so we build this at a cost of probably a billion euro, then as with every road in the history of roads, it becomes congested too, what do we do then? Another ring road outside that?
Sure let's just concrete over the whole country.

That is progress.

No it's not. It's reimplementing the mistakes of the past. That's stupidity. Progress!

Andrewf20

There already a bit of a ring road that links the n4 to the n81. Its 2 lanes in both direction for roughly 50% of it. Also the n2 has a bit of a link towards the n3 that wasn't there a few years ago.

I think a full outer ring road would help a little but I believe there's simply to many people trying to cram into the city. The m50 is a victim of its own success.

monument

salonfire wrote: »

Why isn't elevated monorail ever mentioned as a solution to Dublin transport rather that DART / Luas / DU

These take up far less road space compared to Luas and car traffic can still drive beneath and around the support structures.

They could be built on existing roads and have outbound and inbound tracks run in separate routes if side by side takes up too much space

If you play with the sound on you'll hear a point where residents say that they are surprised the intrist interest from tourists because, among locals, "everybody hates the monorail".

Becauses issues like the ugliness of it, how do you think a two-station monorail would be notablly helpful to Dublin's transport issues?

salonfire

monument wrote: »

If you play with the sound on you'll hear a point where residents say that they are surprised the intrist interest from tourists because, among locals, "everybody hates the monorail".

Becauses issues like the ugliness of it, how do you think a two-station monorail would be notablly helpful to Dublin's transport issues?

Are you suggesting Dublin as a whole would rather people sit on a congested M50 rather than have an alternative because it is 'ugly' ? I would doubt that myself tbh. Of course, there would be local objections - there always is NIMBYism with any new development.

Why would it need to be two stations? There could be multiple stops along its course

dixiefly

It's really difficult to envisage any expansion of the M50 that could be any way feasible ref cost and efficiency to do. So we have to look at other ways to deal with the problem.

If we were to provide better park and ride facilities at, say, Santry, Red Cow, Blanchardstown, Finglas and Tallaght and provide subsidised, regular high quality bus transport to major bus hubs, luas stops, industrial parks. Buses to provide good quality wifi etc.

Is there any way that a Luas connection between say the Red Cow and Dundrum could be considered?

Improvement of on and off links from the M50, try and prevent these arteries from clogging up.

How about point tolling going on and off the M50 and make it prohibitively expensive to go for just one section where there are other alternatives using other roads?

monument

salonfire wrote: »

Are you suggesting Dublin as a whole would rather people sit on a congested M50 rather than have an alternative because it is 'ugly' ? I would doubt that myself tbh. Of course, there would be local objections - there always is NIMBYism with any new development.

Why would it need to be two stations? There could be multiple stops along its course

The example you are giving in that video just has two stations -- it's not a central bit of Seattle's transport system and as others have suggested, monorail systems are a joke -- not just ugly bus costly, ineffective, unattractive and have serious safety issues.

Even beyond monorails, expect for limited exceptions, overhead urban railways just aren't being build by cities any more and were never enthusiasticly adopted by cities of Dublin's size and scale.

A mix of underground and surface light and heavy rail and a high-quality cycle network is very much so posable in Dublin -- it's only a lack of political will and vision holding these things back.

salonfire

monument wrote: »

The example you are giving in that video just has two stations -- it's not a central bit of Seattle's transport system and as others have suggested, monorail systems are a joke -- not just ugly bus costly, ineffective, unattractive and have serious safety issues.

Even beyond monorails, expect for limited exceptions, overhead urban railways just aren't being build by cities any more and were never enthusiasticly adopted by cities of Dublin's size and scale.

A mix of underground and surface light and heavy rail and a high-quality cycle network is very much so posable in Dublin -- it's only a lack of political will and vision holding these things back.

OK fair enough. I just used Seattle for an example of how the rail can be elevated from the road.

I agree all those things you mentioned are required as well. My thinking is that an elevated rail could also be used to connect the nearby suburbs of the City Centre at least - without removing too much of the existing road infrastructure.

BoatMad

How about point tolling going on and off the M50 and make it prohibitively expensive to go for just one section where there are other alternatives using other roads?

people would just rat run into housing estates and side roads

andekwarhola

Better public transport in Dublin would definitely be a big factor in alleviating congestion.

I moved jobs and had to start driving as it took 35 minutes to drive as opposed to around 1 hour 45 minutes by public transport.

Roadhawk

On days like today an alternative to the M50 is desperately needed to deal with the motoring capacity...either throw another tier on the current M50 and have one go northbound and the other southbound or have an outer ring road to the M50.

Seth Brundle

Roadhawk wrote: »

...either throw another tier on the current M50 and have one go northbound and the other southbound or have an outer ring road to the M50.

At what cost?
And as we would be making the M50 more attractive to use, what do we do when it gets full again?

Roadhawk

kbannon wrote: »

At what cost?
And as we would be making the M50 more attractive to use, what do we do when it gets full again?

Em...keep building...thats how cities grow.

Check out the ring roads of Beijing - https://www.google.ie/maps/@39.9515074,116.4265503,9.82z

maninasia

Plenty of cities in Asia have elevated rail and subway lines and continue to build them at an incredible rate , they work very well and are far cheaper and faster to build than underground lines.

Note: these are proper rail lines and light rail lines, not monorails.

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/region/asia/

90% of new investment should go into rail based transportation , more roads just encourages more cars and then you'll get bottlenecks at crunch points which will defeat the purpose of efficient transportation. Buses cannot handle the anything like the same number of commuters as trains and it's obvious that they don't serve the population well in Dublin.

P_1

Would a new bridge (or 2) over the Liffey between Chappo and Lucan do much to calm things down? Seems to me a lot of the congestion is caused by people trying to get from the western suburbs to the business parks in the south west.

LeinsterDub

magicbastarder wrote: »

Metro north would be nearly completed now were it not for the Ballymun road objectors?

Nope nothing to do with objectors . Government pulled the plug (aka never intended to build it)

magicbastarder

yeah, i happen to know one of the people used to do the research for the objections. hence the question - his attitude was 'thankfully the plans were dropped' rather than 'we made them change their plans'.

NiallBoo

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Nope nothing to do with objectors . Government pulled the plug (aka never intended to build it)

So...same reason Ballymum struggled in the first place? Government say they'll build everything needed for a community but bugger off when the houses are built? great.