M50 Demand Management - Multi-point tolling

marno21

As severe congestion continues on the M50, the prospect of multipoint tolling is in the news again

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/m50-drivers-facing-more-toll-points-in-bid-to-tackle-traffic-congestion-36592474.html

IMO this would be viable if Dublin had a functioning mass transit system. It doesn't. There is no alternative to the M50 for most people on it. They aren't spending so much time commuting because its enjoyable or beneficial to them.

Cart before the horse once again.

lawred2

marno21 wrote: »

As severe congestion continues on the M50, the prospect of multipoint tolling is in the news again

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/m50-drivers-facing-more-toll-points-in-bid-to-tackle-traffic-congestion-36592474.html

IMO this would be viable if Dublin had a functioning mass transit system. It doesn't. There is no alternative to the M50 for most people on it. They aren't spending so much time commuting because its enjoyable or beneficial to them.

Cart before the horse once again.

Gas isn't it?

Is there a mindset out there that thinks people are on the M50 between 6 and 10 every morning for the craic?

Charles Babbage

If they do introduce such tolls, it should be in conjunction with new bus routes whose fare is less than the toll.

Reati

Yeah, I'm sure it's all about making the traffic situation better...

FTA - "Documents show more than €1bn will have been collected in tolls since 2008"

marno21

Reati wrote: »

Yeah, I'm sure it's all about making the traffic situation better...

FTA - "Documents show more than €1bn will have been collected in tolls since 2008"

A lot of that went towards paying off the cost of buying the West Link bridge from NTR

GavMan

Looking beyond the sensational headline for clicks, TFI do say it is not in the plan to introduce it but its included in the tender to provision for it should they wish to in the future. Go planning on their part.

But I totally agree, unless they figure out an alternative then it's very poor form to introduce something like this.

Until there's a way to get from the likes of Tallaght to Blanch directly, reliably and in a timely manner then multi point tolling is out of order.

It probably costs a bomb and I dunno how to route it but really whats needed to to run an orbital rail line of some description close to the M50 that connects Cherrywood luas > Tallaght > Clondalkin > Adamstown Rail Station > Lucan > Blanch > Finglas > Airport > Swords

Pete_Cavan

Why should only a small proportion of users pay to use the M50? Additional toll points doesn't mean it has to cost more to use, something like four toll points with €1 for the first and 50c for each thereafter would make sense. Collecting a small amount from each user would generate a lot of revenue which could put back into public transport initiatives.

It would be great if this was introduced along with average speed cameras and variable speed limits.

blanch152

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Why should only a small proportion of users pay to use the M50? Additional toll points doesn't mean it has to cost more to use, something like four toll points with €1 for the first and 50c for each thereafter would make sense. Collecting a small amount from each user would generate a lot of revenue which could put back into public transport initiatives.

It would be great if this was introduced along with average speed cameras and variable speed limits.

Completely agree. Living in Blanchardstown, I have to pay the toll much more often than someone living in Dundrum for the same amount of usage of the M50.

With the take-up of e-tolling being so high, introducing variable tolling as well as multiple tolling should help with demand management. If tolls were to drop after 10.00 in the morning, some of the traffic might shift later etc.

marno21

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Why should only a small proportion of users pay to use the M50? Additional toll points doesn't mean it has to cost more to use, something like four toll points with €1 for the first and 50c for each thereafter would make sense. Collecting a small amount from each user would generate a lot of revenue which could put back into public transport initiatives.

It would be great if this was introduced along with average speed cameras and variable speed limits.

Variable speed limits are being introduced in 2019 independently of multi point tolling

MayoSalmon

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Why should only a small proportion of users pay to use the M50?

Are you not paying specifically to use the bridge?

godtabh

marno21 wrote: »

As severe congestion continues on the M50, the prospect of multipoint tolling is in the news again

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/m50-drivers-facing-more-toll-points-in-bid-to-tackle-traffic-congestion-36592474.html

IMO this would be viable if Dublin had a functioning mass transit system. It doesn't. There is no alternative to the M50 for most people on it. They aren't spending so much time commuting because its enjoyable or beneficial to them.

Cart before the horse once again.

I worked on this for a company 10 years ago. No political will then dont see it now.

Must see if I can dig out my notes to see what the rates were. Several were tested. The big issue was that it drove most of the traffic inside the M50 which is a bigger issue.

beauf

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Are you not paying specifically to use the bridge?

You have a point.

However, some users will use the bridge a lot more than others.

Just a fact of life due to location. I guess...

Billgirlylegs

I think the bridge has been paid for - someone mentioned € 1 billion has been collected.
It's just a tax now.

Pete_Cavan

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Are you not paying specifically to use the bridge?

That was the theory at one time but it is not relevant now. The M50 is a single piece of infrastructure, you can't look at it in the context of just the bridge. A fortune has been spent upgrading all parts of the road, grade separating junctions, adding lanes, etc. all for the benefit of the overall road.

If you want to look at it that way, there could be a case to be made, in the future or perhaps already, that bridge users have paid for their section and that others should pay for the section that they use.

Carawaystick

Where I work now I can either go by westlink and pay a toll or go backroads via Clonee if I see there's a bit of traffic and the backroads would take me a short while more.
If I had to pay no matter what on the m50, I'd use the less safe backroads more, as would others and so the safety of all road users would reduce.

Irish rail say its 73 mins by train and it took me 45 mins driving this morning...

Cookiemunster

Deedsie wrote: »

Out of curiosity have you ever calculated what savings you could make over a year taking the train versus the car?

My weekly commute is €120 by car including M7 toll.

€39.50 per week by bus.

And what are the time differences? My commute from Limerick to Shannon through the tunnel takes about 20mins. To get the bus would take over an hour. The cost difference is only around €5, so not worth getting the bus. Public transport across the country is pretty poor, and doesn't suit most people.

Pete_Cavan

Carawaystick wrote: »

Where I work now I can either go by westlink and pay a toll or go backroads via Clonee if I see there's a bit of traffic and the backroads would take me a short while more.
If I had to pay no matter what on the m50, I'd use the less safe backroads more, as would others and so the safety of all road users would reduce.

That is nonsense, you have to drive in a safe manner, suitable for the road you are driving on. If you do this (and I'm not saying that you don't), then safety on roads does not reduce. If you choose to use back roads, you have to adjust your driving accordingly, this has no relevance to M50 tolls.

Secondly, as I explained earlier, more toll points doesn't necessarily mean more cost. The existing toll could be reduced, compensated by the other toll points. Regular westlink users should be in favour of this.

SC024

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

That is nonsense, you have to drive in a safe manner, suitable for the road you are driving on. If you do this (and I'm not saying that you don't), then safety on roads does not reduce. If you choose to use back roads, you have to adjust your driving accordingly, this has no relevance to M50 tolls.

Secondly, as I explained earlier, more toll points doesn't necessarily mean more cost. The existing toll could be reduced, compensated by the other toll points. Regular westlink users should be in favour of this.

No, More people on narrow, ****ty windy back roads is of course gonna mean more accidents. simples really

Pete_Cavan

SC024 wrote: »

No, More people on narrow, ****ty windy back roads is of course gonna mean more accidents. simples really

It's one person saying that they might switch to the ****ty windy back roads because of multi point tolls which could actually reduce the cost of their journey on the M50. Its the usual ridiculous overreaction we get whenever a change is proposed. We can't have more than one toll, sure other roads will only become death traps! Maybe wait for a proposal on multi point tolling before deciding that it will cause accidents on some back road.

And going off topic but more people doesn't necessarily mean more accidents, one person sending a text while driving is more likely to cause an accident than 10 focused drivers obeying the rules of the road.

beauf

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

...And going off topic but more people doesn't necessarily ....

Kinda does if nothing else changes.. for example low enforcement says the same.

dr.fuzzenstein

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

It's one person saying that they might switch to the ****ty windy back roads because of multi point tolls which could actually reduce the cost of their journey on the M50. Its the usual ridiculous overreaction we get whenever a change is proposed. We can't have more than one toll, sure other roads will only become death traps! Maybe wait for a proposal on multi point tolling before deciding that it will cause accidents on some back road.

And going off topic but more people doesn't necessarily mean more accidents, one person sending a text while driving is more likely to cause an accident than 10 focused drivers obeying the rules of the road.

It's a well proven fact that motorways are inherently safer than backroads.
Introducing a toll will always encourage some road users to divert from the mtorway and use the backroads.
More traffic on backroads = more accidents with the risk of more fatalities.
I think that is a reasonable argument to make.

Pete_Cavan

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

It's a well proven fact that motorways are inherently safer than backroads.
Introducing a toll will always encourage some road users to divert from the mtorway and use the backroads.
More traffic on backroads = more accidents with the risk of more fatalities.
I think that is a reasonable argument to make.

In the context of the M50, there aren't many alternative routes which could be considered back roads. The R136, R131, R121, the roads inside the M50, etc. aren't back roads. We don't know what form multi point tolling will take, it could reduce the cost for some users (particularly those using the westlink who have no other alternatives bar back roads).

I think it is far from reasonable to say that multi point tolling will reduce safety (even if there are sets of circumstances where it would). It is the worst case scenario that people throw out based on little information but can become the accepted truth (MN is a billion euro project just to bring tourists from the airport into Dublin City centre anyone?). Multi point tolling could be a positive. Let's not jump to conclusions yet.

Idbatterim

if they do this, it should be peak times only!

Carawaystick

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

In the context of the M50, there aren't many alternative routes which could be considered back roads. The R136, R131, R121, the roads inside the M50, etc. aren't back roads. We don't know what form multi point tolling will take, it could reduce the cost for some users (particularly those using the westlink who have no other alternatives bar back roads).

I think it is far from reasonable to say that multi point tolling will reduce safety (even if there are sets of circumstances where it would). It is the worst case scenario that people throw out based on little information but can become the accepted truth (MN is a billion euro project just to bring tourists from the airport into Dublin City centre anyone?). Multi point tolling could be a positive. Let's not jump to conclusions yet.

If you don't think making people pay to use a safer route would cause some proportion of motorists to use less safe alternatives, I think there is no point continuing this discussion.
Do you accept that motorways are inherently safer than single carriageway all purpose roads? The risk of head on collisions is almost eliminated, motorists can't crash into people walking or driving as easy etc.

There are plenty of back roads which would be used to bypass the m50:
Kilshane cross
The road from Bracetown to Kilbride
Kellystown bridge road
r120 across the grand canal
Harolds grange road

Pete_Cavan

Carawaystick wrote: »

If you don't think making people pay to use a safer route would cause some proportion of motorists to use less safe alternatives, I think there is no point continuing this discussion.
Do you accept that motorways are inherently safer than single carriageway all purpose roads? The risk of head on collisions is almost eliminated, motorists can't crash into people walking or driving as easy etc.

Of course motorways are safer, I didn't say otherwise. I said if you are driving on a lesser road then you drive in a manner suitable to the conditions. I was making a broad point that road safety is also linked to driver behaviour and the safety, particularly on a back road, increases by simply driving appropriately. The M50 seems to have multiple accidents daily, despite being of generally safe design (some elements of it aren't great), due to driver behaviour.

My main point is that we don't yet know what form multi point tolling will take. I seriously doubt that it will take a form that will cause huge numbers of motorists to switch to alternative routes. If you have to pay 50c to get from the M1 junction to Blanch, or N7 to Sandyford, some may take an alternative route but that's their choice - it will just take longer and they have to drive slower. This reduced safety thing just seems like the usual overreaction people jump to when a change is proposed, despite not even knowing what the change will be!

What's wrong with making people pay to use a safer route? It happens all over the world and in several cases here in this country including on the very road being discussed!

beauf

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

...The M50 seems to have multiple accidents daily, despite being of generally safe design (some elements of it aren't great), due to driver behaviour. ...!

Definitely an issue with driver behavior and lack of enforcement, and not simply on the M50 its country wide and that feeds into poor driving generally.

I'd also say there's lots of poor design decisions with road design here, and often the off ramps/exit are not intuitive, and people unfamiliar with the junctions often drive erratically trying to exit.

For example having the Malahide exit from the overtaking lane on the M50 which then backs up the over taking lane, a long way back is a horrendous design. There's lot of examples of this.

I'd like to seem some stats of the accidents on the M50, I'd say a most of them are rear shunts in exit lanes.

MJohnston

I think this is a great idea and am a little puzzled by the objections I'm reading here. Where do people get the idea that there are no alternative routes to the M50? The only parts of the M50 that don't have high quality (even DC in most cases) alternative routes are the parts around the foothills of the Dublin mountains, and the one part of the M50 that's already tolled!

Talking purely about outside the M50, between the N81 and the N4 there are arguably 3 different alternative routes, there's a web of link roads between the N3 and the N2, and while the Airport rather prevents a more direct route, there are good quality roads that connect the N2 and the N1. Meanwhile on that section around the Dublin Mountains, there are still plenty of connecting roads inside the M50, and of course there's the N11 as an alternative route in the southeast. That just leaves the section between the N4 and the N3, and perhaps because of the existence of the M50 toll bridge, there's never been a viable alternative route built there, and the Phoenix Park precludes any alternative closer to the city.

So, ironically, the existing single-point toll actually does exactly what posters here say they want to avoid. Whereas, the multi-point tolling would be a real help to people travelling between N3 and N4, or lets say Clonee and Lucan, with any great regularity as their toll would be lower than it is now. Meanwhile people travelling say from Lucan to south Citywest would still be able to use the alternative, high quality link roads to complete their journeys.

Ultimately, roads are tolled (aside from when it's to recoup construction costs) in order to provide a balance between fast, direct routes and congestion. Which is why it makes so little sense that the M50 continues to retain a single-point toll at literally the only part of the entire route that cannot be avoided.

Carawaystick

We're probably getting cross for the wrong reasons. My main issue is if people who could use a motorway don't use it for issues of tolling.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Of course motorways are safer, I didn't say otherwise. I said if you are driving on a lesser road then you drive in a manner suitable to the conditions. I was making a broad point that road safety is also linked to driver behaviour and the safety, particularly on a back road, increases by simply driving appropriately. The M50 seems to have multiple accidents daily, despite being of generally safe design (some elements of it aren't great), due to driver behaviour.

All people driving will have a range of abilities and behaviours. If more people use back roads, a certain amount of them will be driving unsafely where their unsafe behaviour will impact on other road users. You can only compare the amount of incidents on the m50 with a selection of roads with the same amount of traffic, not a single road with much less traffic.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

My main point is that we don't yet know what form multi point tolling will take. I seriously doubt that it will take a form that will cause huge numbers of motorists to switch to alternative routes. If you have to pay 50c to get from the M1 junction to Blanch, or N7 to Sandyford, some may take an alternative route but that's their choice - it will just take longer and they have to drive slower. This reduced safety thing just seems like the usual overreaction people jump to when a change is proposed, despite not even knowing what the change will be!

But we do know multipoint tolling will cause more than zero drivers to switch. This will impact on users who can't use the m50.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

What's wrong with making people pay to use a safer route? It happens all over the world and in several cases here in this country including on the very road being discussed!

What's wrong with making people pay to use a safer route is that their decision to use a less safe route impacts on the users of the other route, a proportion of whom can't use the safe motorway route.



My entire point isn't about me being less safe taking backroads, it's about the other users of the backroads who would be using the roads whether the m50 was tolled or not

Chris_5339762

Anyone else think scrapping the M50 tolls altogether would be a win for any politician that suggested it? I know it would increase the traffic levels as the backroads (especially Lucan) would become less busy with toll-dodgers but I'm always wondering why no-one has ever even suggested it.