M50 - apalling gridlock

Seth Brundle

metricspaces wrote: »

LeinsterDub wrote: »

No one said the only way.

They did.

My statement (bold as it was) was a response to your proposal to reduce traffic volumes by remote working and other ideas which have been looked before at but have failed to either take off or have any noticeable impact.
The core problem is that people refuse to get out of their cars and this has been supported by government policy for decades.
To transport people from A to B quickly and sustainably we need to reduce car numbers by replacing it with public transport. Public transport can be improved in the short term by purchasing more vehicles and hiring new drivers.
People have been remote working for years now and it hasnt solved the traffic problem. My kids schools have adjusted their hours but again it could easily be said that the impact on traffic is negligible (If anything more parents are dropping their kids off nowadays). These ideas are welcomed but they won't make a dent in the overall daily car trip numbers. How many jobs can be done remotely?

So to get back to the subject at hand: how do we solve the problem of traffic congestion? PT is the solution!

bk

Tell me how wrote: »

Maybe so as you are already based in the city centre. But if you were looking for a job would you rule out such a company if it was based in Leixlip or would you just accept that as a reality.

Yes, many of the best and brightest would rule out not being city center based.

That is why all the top IT and financial firms base themselves in the most attractive city center locations. It allows them to attract the best talent.

This certainly isn't unique to Ireland or Dublin. It is happening world wide. Similar business tend to cluster around one another in the same location. This makes it much easier for them to head hunt skilled staff from one another and also tends to be better for the employees too (easier to network and move companies without uprooting kids, etc.).

Tell me how wrote: »

Change is not easy, look it the decentralisation fiasco. But where new businesses are considering location, they should be directed to alternative locations where possible.

You can't direct these sort of large companies to set up where they don't want to! You can try and give tax breaks to set up somewhere else, but you can't force them. Because if you try, they will just shrug their shoulders and open in downtime Amsterdam or Frankfurt instead, since we are competing on an international stage.

Lumen

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So to get back to the subject at hand: how do we solve the problem of traffic congestion? PT is the solution!

No.

What causes traffic congestion is people tolerating traffic congestion. Traffic will always tend to increase to the point where people are right on the brink of taking buses (where there are bus lanes), moving house, moving job, cycling, giving up work altogether, buying a motorbike, emigrating....

Demand is elastic! Think about what that means. If you improve traffic flows that just sucks a bunch more people on to the roads who previously considered it just slightly too inconvenient, until the gridlock returns and equilibrium is restored.

The only time we have respite is during temporary changes in volumes, like over the summer when the schools are off. If you banned all parents from using cars that would give only temporary reprieve, and then you'd have 51 weeks of gridlock rather than 39, because a load of people would start commuting from Arklow and Cavan.

The solution to traffic congestion is making car use unpleasant in ways other than it being slow. Like massive taxes/congestion charges. Which end up giving over the roads to rich people.

Tell me how

bk wrote: »

Yes, many of the best and brightest would rule out not being city center based.

That is why all the top IT and financial firms base themselves in the most attractive city center locations. It allows them to attract the best talent.

This certainly isn't unique to Ireland or Dublin. It is happening world wide. Similar business tend to cluster around one another in the same location. This makes it much easier for them to head hunt skilled staff from one another and also tends to be better for the employees too (easier to network and move companies without uprooting kids, etc.).

You can't direct these sort of large companies to set up where they don't want to! You can try and give tax breaks to set up somewhere else, but you can't force them. Because if you try, they will just shrug their shoulders and open in downtime Amsterdam or Frankfurt instead, since we are competing on an international stage.

As others have pointed out, Apple seem to be ok in Cork, Dell spent long enough in Limerick.

I seriously doubt that many people would rule out a role because of not being in the city centre. As I've posted before, I've gone to shows in Dublin and been back in Ennis by just after 01:00 am. Ireland is a small country. Dublin is a small city. This idea that not being in the middle of it equates to missing out is unreasonable.

I do appreciate it is a nice city, environment (at times) but not so much that national policy should facilitate trying to squeeze more and more in there.

Yes, some business types will want to be located there, but many won't be pushed if they have access to their needs elsewhere.

Irish Steve

Having read through this thread, when will all involved realise that until there is a massive increase in public transport services that does not include buses (Yes, I mean rail, regardless of if it's heavy rail or Luas type rail) that serves areas like Sandyford, Citywest, Parkwest, Red Cow, Blanchardstown Industrial areas (to name just a few) instead of just the Eastern side of the city centre, the public transport system will not be capable or suitable to provide any meaningful service to a significant percentage of the people that commute on a daily basis.

Buses on their own cannot provide mass transit, which is what is needed at peak periods to move the numbers involved, and that means using heavy rail (and maybe Luas) in conjunction with integrated local feeder bus services from both outlying stations and other stations within the M50 ring, and those buses need to provide regular local services on a high frequency, not go wandering across the city on long distance routes. Given how the city has developed, much of the required rail would now have to be underground, as the land to provide surface routes is not available,

The other major issue is that the M50 is the only viable crossing point over the Liffey between Inchicore and Leixlip, and neither of those places are capable or suitable for high traffic volumes, so that adds a significant pressure to an already poor design road.

The M50 route had already been outlined by the mid 80s, long before the massive increase in urban sprawl to the west of Dublin, and was eventually built much later without any consideration for the increases in volumes that have happened, and by the time it was realised that "free flow" junctions were needed, the land needed to make that possible had been sold off to developers, so the solutions were half assed and don't work, and in some cases are downright dangerous. If that were not enough, we then were forced to deal with issues caused by the planning lunacy of putting the LUAS through the middle of the busiest junction (Red Cow) in Ireland. There are other equally bad designs, (Blanchardstown area comes to mind) that could have been built in a different and more appropriate way, but someone clearly thought that a motorway interchange with a canal and railway line through the middle of it all was a good engineering challenge.

Rail is needed to provide numbers, the problem with buses are twofold. The first is that there's not the will to deal with making sure they can move, so while bus lanes are in theory available, they are (a) abused and (b) not throughout the route, which slows things down significantly. Then there's the problem of dwell times, if a bus stops at an intermediate stop, there's a good chance that every bus behind it will have to stop, as there's not the space to allow them to pass. One Dart carries the equivalent of about 15 buses, and that's why the rail is needed, to move the numbers over significant distances, with the buses then providing the local feeds to and from the rail to the places that people want to go to.

It's only when the relevant politicians and state services recognise this fact that things might begin to change, but having seen how Dublin has been developed over the last 30 years, I'm not expecting to see any significant changes in my lifetime, the will to make it happen is not there, and won't be, as politicians don't see any value in facing issues that are beyond the next election.

And yes, driver attitude (especially on the M50) is an issue, maybe if the enforcement was more visible, and active, things might improve, but that's another subject that is not on the agenda, as it doesn't win votes. Some changes to the way that lanes on the M50 are managed might help, it works well in places like Orlando, where barriers are placed between lanes to prevent last second lane hopping, we need similar here, as well as at joins, to prevent the same thing where people hop from the slip to the right hand lane at inappropriate speeds.

In the longer term, an Eastern by pass would help., as would moving all of Dublin Port, and making that whole area into a high density residential area, with an appropriate commercial mix in that redevelopment, but I don't fancy the job of getting that through "the system", there are just too many hurdles in the way of making that happen

rn

The idea of banning traffic is two fold. First it reduces traffic jams for public transport, which vastly improves flow and capacity on the route. Second it forces people to find alternative transport.

We're used to the easy life the car gives us. But reality is we can't keep squashing stuff into Dublin, as people do seem to want, and have car access.

Irish life has grown around the availability of the car... We commute crazy distances because we can just about tolerate it.

Ban the car in city centre. Congestion charge the m50. People will find alternative

ligerdub

The M50 is a glorified car park, but it's park of a bigger problem. The whole city of Dublin is in crisis mode. Getting around Dublin is a near total disaster. If you live near enough to the city (say about 5 miles) then trying to even get on a bus is a bit of a lottery, plenty of places where you'll be watching full buses pass you by.

All well and good telling people to get the bus or other public transport. In reality most people don't have the Luas or Dart on their doorstep, and the buses are miserable and overcrowded (when you can get on them). I can only assume that Dublin Bus must have significantly fuller coffers than a few years back. Traffic has become noticeably worse in the last 2 or 3 years, particularly if you have to make your way through College Green, which has been absolutely butchered in recent times. Dublin is a lot less enjoyable place to live and work than it used to be.

Of course all this is happening in a culture of "well if you can't afford to live in [xxxx] then move to [yyyy] and stop complaining". It's this sort of thinking which creates the problem and let's those with the remit to overlook this situation to totally get away with it.

There seems to be no real method to tackle this issue. The govt gets away with all this because they get a nice celebratory outing every couple of years with some referendum result, sure aren't they great? Smashing job lads! Shane Ross is the Minister for Transport, Eoghan Murphy is the Minister for Housing, what exactly are these 2 up to? Murphy seems more interested in his next triathlon and Ross seems more interested in his next photo op.

jamesbondings

amcalester wrote: »

What improvements can you suggest?

Arctics and all "work" vehicles to be banned from roads between 7 and 9. Port tunnel price to be reduced to 2 quid for all traffic between this time. Bus lanes to be reduced in areas with a left turn to help ease congestion (ie let the lane fill up on the left).

Money to be earmarked for cycle ways in and out of the city (cyclists on the road to be fined and penalty points on their car licence).

Stagger school times to get parents off the roads (school to start at 8.30 finish half an hour earlier).

Bonkers that the whole country and their dogs need to be in a specific place for between 8 & 9. And mostly in high density areas!

Nermal

Tell me how wrote: »

I do appreciate it is a nice city, environment (at times) but not so much that national policy should facilitate trying to squeeze more and more in there.

It has been shown to you that national policy is in fact exactly the opposite, i.e. to starve Dublin of capital investment and spend the revenue it generates elsewhere.

Despite that, companies still choose to locate there.

So how about we change national policy to reflect reality? To stop trying to handicap the one globally visible city we have, and to support its further growth?

Hurrache

Idbatterim wrote: »

That golf course beside the red cow luas should be CPO'd and used for high density apartments and the same with many of the old business parks etc on 'high quality' transport corridors!.

There is no golf course beside the Luas park and ride at the Red Cow?

AdrianII

Then the port tunnel will be full and the traffic is just passed to another location. The tunnel is 10 at that time for a reason. That is not a solution.

ozzy jr

I drove from Dundrum to Belfast today. I left the house at 8.30am.

The first 15km took 1 hour exactly.

It took 1 hour and 40 minutes to get to the airport junction.

I got from the airport to Belfast quicker than from my house to the airport.

Thankfully I seldom have to use the road at that time.

Seth Brundle

jamesbondings wrote: »

Money to be earmarked for cycle ways in and out of the city (cyclists on the road to be fined and penalty points on their car licence).

1. All roads?
2. What if they've no driver's licence?
3. Why should sustainable transport be punished for using a public road when unsustainable transport is not?

Tell me how

Nermal wrote: »

It has been shown to you that national policy is in fact exactly the opposite, i.e. to starve Dublin of capital investment and spend the revenue it generates elsewhere.

Despite that, companies still choose to locate there.

So how about we change national policy to reflect reality? To stop trying to handicap the one globally visible city we have, and to support its further growth?

Hey, feel free. If the purpose of a government and a society is all about growth. Then yes. Go for it.

Seth Brundle

Hurrache wrote: »

There is no golf course beside the Luas park and ride at the Red Cow?

Newlands GC is nearby

RayCun

Tell me how wrote: »

Maybe so as you are already based in the city centre. But if you were looking for a job would you rule out such a company if it was based in Leixlip or would you just accept that as a reality.

Change is not easy, look it the decentralisation fiasco. But where new businesses are considering location, they should be directed to alternative locations where possible.

True story, I had a phone interview with a company last year, and one of the reasons they gave for not proceeding was where I lived relative to them. They knew the commute would have me looking for another job sooner or later.

Think of it like this. If you base a company on O'Connell street, there are thousands and thousands of people who are within walking distance of your workplace, tens of thousands of people who are within half an hour of you, and literally hundreds of thousands of people who can commute to you in under an hour. That is your pool of potential employees, more or less.

The bus connects site has/had an interactive map, where you pick a spot on the map and it shows you how far you can get in 30 minutes or 60 minutes. That kind of thing is a major factor in company location - how many people can get to us in a reasonable period of time? Will we be able to hire the people we need to?

Hurrache

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Newlands GC is nearby

Yes, but that's not the Red Cow.

RayCun

The purpose of transport policy should be to make it possible for most people to get where they need to go in the shortest and easiest way. And it is impossible to do that with a car-centric policy. The space we have available for transport should be used for high capacity modes of transport - bikes and public transport, with cars as the lowest priority.

tomplate

RayCun wrote: »

The space we have available for transport should be used for high capacity modes of transport - bikes

ok

rn

RayCun wrote: »

The space we have available for transport should be used for high capacity modes of transport - bikes and public transport, with cars as the lowest priority.

Could not agree more. Build a large no of multi story just off the m50. Bus, luas or Bike it in from there.

Mike3549

jamesbondings wrote: »

Arctics and all "work" vehicles to be banned from roads between 7 and 9. Port tunnel price to be reduced to 2 quid for all traffic between this time.

What do you mean "all traffic" when you ban all "work" vehicles?
Does bus also count as "work" vehicle?
Should postmen also be banned during this hour?

LeinsterDub

Effects wrote: »

There's no rain in either of those videos. That's what puts me off cycling in bad weather. But then I'd rather take the bus than drive in rush hour.

But wasn't there a report a few years ago that Copenhagen gets more rain each year than Dublin?

You may get wet 1 in 20 trips in Dublin. And if you have gear you'll be fine. More chance being soaked walking to the bus

metricspaces

Seth Brundle wrote: »

My statement (bold as it was)

It wasn't bold. It was just wrong.

jamesbondings

Seth Brundle wrote: »

1. All roads?
2. What if they've no driver's licence?
3. Why should sustainable transport be punished for using a public road when unsustainable transport is not?

Should have been clearer.
If there is space for a cycle path, then pave it. I meant anyone cycling on a road instead of a cycle path (typically located a half a meter away) obviously if there is no cycle path then no worries. Cycle patches to be cordoned off from footpaths and road.
If no drivers licence points can be pre loaded or a bigger fine issued.

jamesbondings

AdrianII wrote: »

Then the port tunnel will be full and the traffic is just passed to another location. The tunnel is 10 at that time for a reason. That is not a solution.

Hardly.... Traffic going to the southside from M1 may use it, but removes traffic from Collins Ave junction. But for arguements sake let's say a 5er.
They would need to widen the southbound exit to allow better flow of traffic

robindch

gflood wrote: »

I wonder how much wasted fuel happens every morning with the Dublin commute due to crap infrastructure. Not to mention peoples time. Until we improve situations like this carbon taxes should be postponed.

The point of carbon taxes is to incentivize carbon-light transport schemes - that means that people might try to get out of their single-person cars, use public transport, ride-share, work closer to home, use a bike and so on.

A lot of the infrastructure is fine. What's wrong is that everybody thinks it's fine to buy a car and contribute to blocking the road on a regular basis.

con___manx1

ED E wrote: »

Why? Dublin doesn't have much more jobs than other cities, say Copenhagen.

Having a central business district is normal. Just not everyone can drive to it.

Iv never been to copenhahen so cant say much about it. Im sure the traffic cant be half as bad as dublin. Iv lived in 3 citys much bigger than dublin. All of them have much better public transport and roads. Iv been to amsterdam twice. Its not built for cars. Bikes are the only option really.

RayCun

Bikes and public transport are the only options because the Dutch people made that decision. It wasn't an accident

Victor

....... wrote: »

Why not build another M50 on top of the M50? Remove the meridian and allow all lower deck traffic to travel South and all upper deck to travel North. In a stroke you would more than double the capacity of the road without having to use up more land for it. Elevated highways work fine in other countries.

Existing M50 has cost more than €3.5 billion to build, not including the roads feeding it. Add inflation, the cost of working around existing traffic and building it a height and your elevated highway would cost in the order of €10 billion to build.

greenwaving

jamesbondings wrote: »

Should have been clearer.
If there is space for a cycle path, then pave it. I meant anyone cycling on a road instead of a cycle path (typically located a half a meter away) obviously if there is no cycle path then no worries. Cycle patches to be cordoned off from footpaths and road.
If no drivers licence points can be pre loaded or a bigger fine issued.

Apart from the logistical and ethical nightmare of preloading points or issuing massive fines to road users who are using sustainable methods of transport and actually reducing the gridlock it is completely unworkable. On several sections of my journey using the cycle path is either impossible (due to parked car/vans) or too dangerous (due to debris, poor paving etc) to use. There are also several instances where using the cycle lane located on the left would then require me to cross two/three lanes of traffic for a right turn so again using it is actually dangerous. The cycle paths definitely require an upgrade but even then enforcing their use is never going to be workable and will do frig all to help reduce gridlock - might even increase it by discouraging cycling.