Meeting tonight Jan. 26th re: M50 tolls (Shane Ross)

antoinolachtnai

Remarks about other participants' ability to grasp your point of view and bald comparisons to thievery are not really very helpful. Asking us to accept at the outset what you are trying to argue doesn't help very much either.

Strictly speaking, it's more of a congestion tax than a carbon tax, since it only applies in one congested area, not to the whole country. I know you think that the M50 would have much greater capacity if the tolls were removed, and that congestion wouldn't arise. But I don't agree with you, because I don't think the capacity of the M50 of a whole is really all that large. The reason I think that is because there are queues at the interchanges as well as at the toll plaza.

What really galls me is that the people who work/live along the M50 have no alternative to using their cars. There is next-to-no bus service along the route. It simply isn't the case that there is no way of setting up a public transport service quite rapidly in the area. A very good service could be provided with a relatively small initial investment and a fairly small subsidy.

ishmael whale

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Remarks about other participants' ability to grasp your point of view and bald comparisons to thievery are not really very helpful. Asking us to accept at the outset what you are trying to argue doesn't help very much either.

I am most certainly not expecting anyone to accept my points without debate. It's simply that the opposing points - such as that the bridge assists traffic flow (a quite bizarre statement when you think on it), that it is a useful way of collecting revenue (as if the government has no alternative to erecting roadblocks), that NTR took on a risky investment (reversal of reality), that the toll is related to usage (although the charge nets a multiple of the cost of the bridge) and that the toll is an anti-pollution measure (pure irrelevance) have been debated and refuted. Leaving, to my mind, only one conclusion. If the toll remains its really just because its politically difficult to stop.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Strictly speaking, it's more of a congestion tax than a carbon tax, since it only applies in one congested area, not to the whole country.

Debating whether the toll is a congestion tax or a carbon tax is a red herring. The toll is just a legacy or a botched business arrangement.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

There is next-to-no bus service along the route. It simply isn't the case that there is no way of setting up a public transport service quite rapidly in the area.

I have no problem with the development of public transport. I just don't see a need to canonise the framers of the Westlink bridge.

mackerski

Metrobest wrote:

Cars pollute the atmosphere. The polluter should pay.

#include <standard points about excise duties on petrol>
#include <wry observation about cost of road tax>

#ifdef ROAD_TAX_SYSTEM_SILLY
printf("Hey! Why don't dirtier cars cost more in road tax???");
#endif

Victor

mackerski wrote:

#include <standard points about excise duties on petrol>
#include <wry observation about cost of road tax> #ifdef ROAD_TAX_SYSTEM_SILLY printf("Hey! Why don't dirtier cars cost more in road tax???"); #endif

Excise duties and road tax (etc.) are considered insufficient to cover the true impact of motoring.

ishmael whale, removing the toll removes one of the disincentives to motoring (in this particular case using the bridge). Anything that is free will be oversubscribed (/me looks at attempts to contol the amount of water people use) and will be abused.

So "bored housewife from Malahide with large credit card limit" will look in the Pavillions, Blanchardstown, Liffey Valley (may not go to the Square, but would really like to check out Dundrum when it opens) instead of just going to Pavillions and maybe Blanchardstown. All to look at what are essentially the same clothes in the same shops at much the same price. This contributes little to the local economy as the money spent goes on (a) car (b) fuel (c) widening the M50 when it needn't be otherwise.

Likewise, an abnormal amount of people seem to live on the wrong side of the river to where they work. Why? (Yes, stamp duty used to be a factor, but snobbery is a bigger one)

All the while, the people who need to use the bridge for business (i.e. creating wealth) are stuck behind "bored from Malahide" because she insists on driving at 30mph in the overtaking lane.

DubTony

I guess this thread needs lightening up a little. Just for a few minutes though. Here's how one citizen of Massachusetts handles tolls on the Mass. Pike.

http://www.zug.com/pranks/turnpike/


Tony

DubTony

While on the subjest of the Mass Pike, here's an interesting fact.
The Massachusetts Turnpike is 138 miles (approx. 220km long). The tolls are paid at various stages along the route, and the cost to travel from one end to the other is $5.60 or $8.60 depending on which way you travel. (A tunnel in Boston has a westbound-only toll of $3.00.)

Taking the $8.60 figure, this works out at €6.60 using todays conversion rate. That's a cost of 4 U.S. cents (€0.03) per kilometre.

I believe the part of the M50 the Westlink bridge is on is 3.2 kilometres. At €1.80 per trip that's a cost of €0.56 per kilometre travelled.

If there was the same difference in the price of petrol, a litre in the states costs approx. €0.40, a 50 litre fill up would cost us here in Ireland about €375.

Bet we wouldn't stand for that !!!!! ... or would we?

Tony

ishmael whale

Victor wrote:

Excise duties and road tax (etc.) are considered insufficient to cover the true impact of motoring.

By whom? Any figures I've seen suggest motorist make a healthy contribution to public finances.

Victor wrote:

ishmael whale, removing the toll removes one of the disincentives to motoring (in this particular case using the bridge). Anything that is free will be oversubscribed (/me looks at attempts to contol the amount of water people use) and will be abused.

If the queues at the toll plaza didn’t regularly get so incredibly long, if the business arrangement behind it was not so fatally flawed, if the idea that a reasonable alternative to simply ending the toll was that the northside and southside should organise a large scale exchange of population was not so bizarre, if the suggestion that snobbery had something to do with the issue was not so irrelevant, you might actually have a point.

But, unfortunately, you are simply falling into the same trap of assuming the toll must be rational at some level. Its not. It belongs in Ripley’s Belief It Or Not Odditorium. To my ears attempts at defending it sound like that guy hung up in the cell in the ‘Life of Brian’ announcing that ‘Crucifixion is the best thing the Romans ever did for us. If it wasn’t for crucifixion this country’d be in a right bloody mess.’

DubTony

Simple fact, and there are no tests or comparisons or studies needed. If the toll booths go, traffic will back up at the junctions.

When NTR built the first "new" set of toll booths on the bridge, there was a marked decrease in the amount of time spent waiting to pay when heading south. Immediately however, junction 9 (N7) backed up to the point where there were cars waiting in the hard shoulder of the motorway. This was instantaneous.

We don't need to "get rid of tolls" on the M50, we need to toll the whole damned thing. It seems that when the M50 is completed to the M11, about 80% of cars on it won't use the toll bridge at all. Surely a fairer system of tolling could be introduced. Using a toll road should be easy and automatic, with a standard per kilometre price attached. As a vehicle enters the M50 it could be scanned (technology is available) and scanned as it exits. This can't be done, however, until the junctions and roads joining the motorway are upgraded.

The cost of the toll would be on a per km basis and could be set to reflect the current toll. This should actually make travelling from Tallaght to Ballymun cheaper than it is today as those travelling from the M11 to the N7 would be paying a portion of that toll. And it would reduce the number of people using the road to get to "the next exit". A bit like turning the lights off when you leave a room ... "have you seen this months toll bill?

Although, realistically, it couldn't be that simple. Some of the decisions already made are truly stranger than fiction.

Tolling a road that was originally designed to keep people out of a gridlocked city ...

Only two lanes on each side of a motorway circling a major city ...

Roundabouts at junctions on a motorway ...

Building shopping centres at almost every junction of what is basically a massive relief road ... (seems Dundrum will be the biggest in Europe :eek:)

Allowing developers to build housing estates "within easy reach", without upgrading infrastructure to and from a motorway ... (anyone been in Sandyford and Stepaside lately?)

etc., etc., etc...

The M50 is a nightmare, and whether tolls stay or go, or whether we wait in line or zip through, and if it's widened to 10 lanes someday, it won't make a damned bit of difference. Traffic is here to stay. What's really needed are some radical new ideas.

... holding my breath ...

Tony

Zaph0d

Mr Whale

Do you accept that

• However poor the toll arrangement now looks, that there is no way out of this contract with NTR that does not involve a huge spend of general taxpayers money plus a huge loss of future government revenue to pay for costs that would otherwise be born specifically by the people gaining benefit from the M50?
• The toll bridge reduces demand for M50 journeys due to delay and price?
• If the toll is removed or the toll plaza delay is removed that this will cause increase in demand for M50 journeys?
• That although demand for roadspace is not limitless, that it is proportional to road capacity?
• That a road capacity increase, where latent journey demand exists, is then followed by a traffic demand increase to the point where average traffic speeds remain unchanged

I don't like paying the toll and I don't like having to queue but I like the alternative less.

For the same reasons, the M50 upgrade won't ease congestion it wil just generate more peak hour journeys at the same average speed. If anyone wants to bet on this let me know.

Tomorrow I'm going to see if I can buy shares in NTR.

ishmael whale

Zaphod,
If you read back over the thread I think you’ll find, in fairness, that I’ve already answered most of your questions.
• However poor the toll arrangement now looks, that there is no way out of this contract with NTR that does not involve a huge spend of general taxpayers money plus a huge loss of future government revenue to pay for costs that would otherwise be born specifically by the people gaining benefit from the M50?
I’ve already addressed this point several times. NTR’s share of the toll has to be paid by the public one way or the other. The only decision is whether it be paid in dribs and drabs by people using the bridge, hence causing congestion, or whether it should be paid out of general taxation in one lump sum. Government does not have to erect a roadblock on the M50 to collect tax, and collecting tax in this manner is hardly efficient. Efficient transport in Dublin benefits the country, so the idea that the Westlink is a benefit enjoyed only by the people using it is not sustainable.
• The toll bridge reduces demand for M50 journeys due to delay and price?
I don’t doubt that it does, and acknowledged earlier that removing the toll increases the capacity of the M50.
• If the toll is removed or the toll plaza delay is removed that this will cause increase in demand for M50 journeys?
Yes indeedy.
• That although demand for roadspace is not limitless, that it is proportional to road capacity?
True, but we have to keep this debate within reason. Following this logic to extremes would suggest that a great way of keeping traffic off the M50 would be to reduce it to one lane in each direction.
• That a road capacity increase, where latent journey demand exists, is then followed by a traffic demand increase to the point where average traffic speeds remain unchanged
As per above, we have to be careful with extremes here. Yes, if road becomes quicker then more people will use it and potentially bid away the time advantage gained (although we’ll clearly be moving more people than before). But following this logic blindly would suggest that, as above, that we reduce the M50 to one lane. My own read is the amount of traffic queuing at the bridge simply reflects the fact that there aren’t too many real alternatives for many people and they have to use the road. To that extent the result of the toll is to fleece a captive audience as much as reduce traffic flow.

I’ve only one question from earlier which crystalises the issue for me.

If there was no toll on the Westlink bridge would we be saying the way to get the M50 moving is to slap a toll plaza on the northside of the bridge that slows the traffic enough so that it queues back for miles?

Zaph0d

ishmael whale wrote:

I’ve already addressed this point several times. NTR’s share of the toll has to be paid by the public one way or the other. The only decision is whether it be paid in dribs and drabs by people using the bridge, hence causing congestion, or whether it should be paid out of general taxation in one lump sum. Government does not have to erect a roadblock on the M50 to collect tax, and collecting tax in this manner is hardly efficient. Efficient transport in Dublin benefits the country, so the idea that the Westlink is a benefit enjoyed only by the people using it is not sustainable.

I think it is a fair argument that the roadblock on the motorway is a bad way of collecting tax. However I don't think high demand roadspace should be paid for entirely out of general taxation rather than by those who use it, according to how much they use it. I think this is where we differ. I prefer tolling to having to queue as a means of limiting road space demand because I value my time more highly than the cost of the tolls. If we remove the toll then people who value their time at less than the cost of the toll will be encouraged to carry out journeys they otherwise would not. Result: a reduction in average traffic speeds. Imagine the roadblock delay being replaced with sitting in traffic surrounded by time-rich people on frivolous peak hour journeys.

• That a road capacity increase, where latent journey demand exists, is then followed by a traffic demand increase to the point where average traffic speeds remain unchanged
As per above, we have to be careful with extremes here. Yes, if road becomes quicker then more people will use it and potentially bid away the time advantage gained (although we’ll clearly be moving more people than before). But following this logic blindly would suggest that, as above, that we reduce the M50 to one lane.

As the road capacity along the route of the M50 was increased, housing was built to be dependent on that road space. (eg 30,000 people living on 5,000 acres in Lucan with no train). I would guess that reducing the journey capacity would hinder the economies of sprawling Tallaght, Clondalkin and Blanch when people found that many journeys had become unfeasible.

I’ve only one question from earlier which crystalises the issue for me.

If there was no toll on the Westlink bridge would we be saying the way to get the M50 moving is to slap a toll plaza on the northside of the bridge that slows the traffic enough so that it queues back for miles?

In a hypothetical situation where the m50 is not tolled, you could say that we wouldn't build the toll plaza, but this is not an argument for dismantling it now that we have granted a contractual concession to NTR to run it.

I think we can all agree that changing to a more high-tech means of collecting the toll that doesn't involve a delay will increase the capacity of the M50 but not the average traffic speed. From the individual motorist's point of view, the journey will take the same time but there will be more cars being carried during peak hours.

It is in NTR's interest to switch to electronic tolling as it will generate more revenue for them and may be cheaper to collect. According to the NRA's web site, NTR and the NRA are working on this.

ishmael whale

Zaph0d wrote:

I prefer tolling to having to queue as a means of limiting road space demand because I value my time more highly than the cost of the tolls.

I have no particular problem with the idea of efficiently collected tolls on public roads, with the proceeds used for some public benefit. I simply don't think the Westlink toll fits into this category.

Zaph0d wrote:

In a hypothetical situation where the m50 is not tolled, you could say that we wouldn't build the toll plaza, but this is not an argument for dismantling it now that we have granted a contractual concession to NTR to run it.

At the same time, if we agree that we wouldn’t build it, then we are acknowledging that the world would be a happier place if it was dismantled.

There might be great difficulties in dismantling it, and even a big up front cash hit. Those difficulties might mean the toll stays for the foreseeable. But I have a (probably insane) belief that if the reality of the situation is recognised, rather than pretending that the toll forms part of some clever and subtle strategy, some mitigation might take place.

For those interested, this is on RTE’s site today:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0202/tollbridge.html

No buy-out of toll bridge says Ahern

02 February 2005 13:49
The Taoiseach had told the Dáil that buying out the Westlink Toll Bridge is not an option.

Answering questions from the Labour leader, Pat Rabbitte, on traffic congestion in west Dublin, Bertie Ahern said the Government was not considering buying out the contract operated by National Toll Roads.
He said the solution to the problem was the implementation of the M50 upgrade and the introduction of barrier free tolling….

LFCFan

Zaph0d wrote:

It is in NTR's interest to switch to electronic tolling as it will generate more revenue for them and may be cheaper to collect. According to the NRA's web site, NTR and the NRA are working on this.

Why should it be taking so long though? It is already a reality in other countries and it's not like NTR are short of a few bob to get it sorted. The also own Irish Broadband so the ways and means of transmitting the data is at hand if needed!

Zaph0d

ishmael whale wrote:

But I have a (probably insane) belief that if the reality of the situation is recognised, rather than pretending that the toll forms part of some clever and subtle strategy, some mitigation might take place.

What do you mean? What kind of mitigation might take place? A reduction in the toll? A reduction in the average M50 journey time?

ishmael whale

Mitigation in the sense of relief of the congestion on the bridge.

Now, bear in mind you are talking to someone who reckons just buying them out is probably worthwhile, whatever about the optics. But other ideas that seem to be out there include negotiating an arrangement whereby the barriers are lifted at peak times/when queues get too long. These would likely also involve the State making a direct payment to NTR in respect of the lost income, but shelling out in this manner might catch less headlines than a straight buyout.

Zaph0d

ishmael whale wrote:

Mitigation in the sense of relief of the congestion on the bridge.

Relief of congestion means higher average speeds/lower average journey times. When this happens more journeys will be undertaken at peak hour on the M50 until the congestion returns to the balance point it was at before. Unless you increase the M50 capacity beyond the point where all the latent demand for peak hour journeys can be met, the road will remain congested. You will not go any faster. If you want relief, I advise you to get air conditioning, leather seats, a good CD sound system and just chill out.

ishmael whale

In fairness, I don’t think the readjustment is quite as simple and mechanical as this. Yes, more people will use the M50, but that’s going to happen anyway with the growth of the city. It’s a question of balancing increasing demand against reasonable facilities.

In terms of a sanity check, there is nothing particularly excessive about Dublin having an unobstructed two lane ring road to provide some reasonable ability to drive north to south without going through town. There is something strange about putting a toll bridge halfway along and pretending the resultant queues are a public benefit.

antoinolachtnai

How would opening the barriers at peak help? All you would do is create a bigger tailback at the junctions of the M50.

It is easy enough to find out if I am wrong. Check if there are tailbacks at the junctions already at peak times. If there are, it seems reasonable to suggest that the tailbacks will be even bigger if traffic reaches them faster.

Expanding the junctions won't help that much either. the roads into the city just can't hold any more traffic. The traffic on roads outwards will swell to fill any capacity you build, as people live further away from the city.

The only real way out of the mess is to use the roadspace more efficiently, i.e., have decent public transport.

Metrobest

ishmael whale wrote:

It has indeed been stated and acknowledged by me. As I have already said, the state does not need to erect a roadblock on the M50 to raise tax. They could achieve much the same result by sending teams of pickpockets down Henry Street. If that's your idea of sensible revenue gathering then fair play to you.

If you just accept that the Westlink is an example of an complete hames, you'll find life gets a lot simpler.

I'm all in favour of tax being deducted at source. And I like choice. Driving along the M50 is a choice. People who choose to do it, and contribute to the gridlock, must pay. There are other roads, other options if one hates paying the small €1.80 charge. People can share cars, take the bus, change jobs. The toll is not the root of all traffic evil you like to think it is. Far from being a "hames" the Westlink is actually keeping a lid on things. Profit being made (fairly) by NTR is completely irrelevent.

Here is my main criticism of the M50 upgrade project. There is no provision for a cycle lane. Installing a lane between certain junctions would do wonders to take cars off the road. A lot of people only travel between two junctions along the motorway; a cycle lane (sealed off from road traffic, obviously!) would do wonders to get folk out of their cars. Such cycle lanes run alongside most of the Dutch motorways (and even train lines!) and they're just brilliant for commuters.

antoinolachtnai

Well, to be fair, the public transport is pretty ropey. Travelling from Palmerstown to Sandyford, which is a pretty typical commute these days is difficult using the bus. It's that bit too far to cycle. With the price of houses and everything else, people can't just give up their jobs or move somewhere different.

Commuters need real choices.

ishmael whale

Yes, properly applied tolls probably can do something to help traffic management. No, the Westlink toll does not fit into that category because its just a legacy from a botched business arrangement. If it wasn’t there we wouldn’t build it. If we wanted to use tolls to regulate the M50 we’d do it differently.

The queues are long enough from the bridge at present to obstruct traffic using the M50 but not using the bridge. That’s an indication that its screwing up traffic generally, rather than aiding it. If this contention is really so controversial (and I don’t believe it is) then lets have our experimental week of barrier lifting to see what happens.

Alternatively, if you see the key to increase efficiency as hamstringing the M50 lets close one lane in each direction for a week and see what that does.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Well, to be fair, the public transport is pretty ropey. Travelling from Palmerstown to Sandyford, which is a pretty typical commute these days is difficult using the bus. It's that bit too far to cycle. With the price of houses and everything else, people can't just give up their jobs or move somewhere different.

Commuters need real choices.

I totally agree with this last statement.

Metrobest

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Well, to be fair, the public transport is pretty ropey. Travelling from Palmerstown to Sandyford, which is a pretty typical commute these days is difficult using the bus. It's that bit too far to cycle. With the price of houses and everything else, people can't just give up their jobs or move somewhere different.

Commuters need real choices.

I agree in principle. Commuters need choices. But public transport cannot chase bad development and poor planning. The horse has to come before the cart.

For a lot of M50 commuters there is a certain element of lifestyle choice involved. Nobody is forced to run a car, or buy a house, or work in an industrial park off a congested peripheral motorway. There are other options.

antoinolachtnai

For a lot of them, maybe, but for most of them, there aren't actually that many choices. If you want to get married, have babies and have a reasonable amount of money to pay the bills, and aren't in a position where you can earn a very large amount of money, then you are pretty short on choices.

We have to accept the development that's been done already. We can't undo it now.

The comments about closing one carriageway of the M50 don't serve any purpose that I can see.

Zaph0d

ishmael whale wrote:

In fairness, I don’t think the readjustment is quite as simple and mechanical as this. Yes, more people will use the M50, but that’s going to happen anyway with the growth of the city. It’s a question of balancing increasing demand against reasonable facilities.

So you believe that more people will use the M50 during peak hours if capacity is increased by road widening or removing toll delays. However, you don't believe that increased usage will result in the traffic moving at the same average speed as before.

One way to look at the balance between congestion, road capacity and demand is to see an analogy with a consumer market for goods. In this case the consumers are the motorists, the goods are the use of the roadspace and the price is paid in time plus a fixed toll. Amongst the consumers the use of the roadspace brings them different benefits depending on the type of journey being undertaken (from going to a friend's funeral to buying a bar of chocolate). The consumers value their time at different rates throughout the day. A journey is attempted on the road when a consumer judges that the journey is worthwhile compared to other options (other roads, public transport, bike, not doing the journey at all, doing the journey later). A balance point (like the price of a product that balances supply and demand) is reached when no more consumers will attempt to use the road, given the current average road speed.

When capacity is increased more people can use the road. For a while things run faster (supply increased for constant demand) but soon people start to switch from other means of transport and buy cars, new housing and offices are zoned for the surrounds of the road, and journeys previously not worth attempting are now carried out. The minimum acceptable peak hour road speed remains constant, however and once sufficient cars have been added to the road this point is reached again.

As DubTony says: traffic is here to stay.

Shane Ross can't help you.

Victor

http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/0202/ntr.html

Ahern rules out West Link bridge buy
February 02, 2005 16:03

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern admitted in the Dail today that the M50 motorway in Dublin looks like a 'car park' during peak times. But he said a buy-out of the West Link toll bridge is not being considered by the Government.

Instead, he said there are plans to widen the M50 and introduce 'barrier free tolling' to speed up the traffic.

He also admitted that traffic volumes meant that long term the M50 itself would not solve West Dublin's traffic problems.


Mr Ahern said efforts will be made to try and prevent mass disruption when the M50 is being widened, and he will consult with the Environment Minister about this. This work is due to begin this summer.

ishmael whale

Zaph0d wrote:

So you believe that more people will use the M50 during peak hours if capacity is increased by road widening or removing toll delays. However, you don't believe that increased usage will result in the traffic moving at the same average speed as before.

I think we're going round the mulberry bush a bit. Now, I can repeat all that stuff again if its really necessary, but you might just reflect on the thought that if additional roads simply cause an increase in otherwise unneeded traffic, why not simply close the M50 altogether? Surely building it at all was a mistake.

Zaph0d

ishmael whale wrote:

but you might just reflect on the thought that if additional roads simply cause an increase in otherwise unneeded traffic, why not simply close the M50 altogether?

I think you're trying to disprove my argument by showing an absurd corollary which is fair enough.

We are straying off topic which is what should we do about the M50 toll bridge but in any case...

Reducing the capacity of a busy road would be devastating to those whose lifestyles are predicated on that road. In the case of the M50, housing for 300,000 people has been built in the last 25 years at a density of around 25 people/hectare. This density cannot support public transport.

CityWest, ParkWest, Blanch centre, Liffey Valley and the Square were all built to mop up the excess supply on the M50. Already a new warehouse retail/office park is planned for the Carrickmines exit of the unbuilt remaining section of the M50.

So this vast edge city has been built in response to the M50. but the process does not work in reverse: reducing the capacity of the M50 would not immediately get rid of the low density housing estates or retail warehouses. The demand cannot be reduced as easily as it can be increased.

Surely building it at all was a mistake.

It was a mistake to build such a vast car-dependent area West of the city. It was a waste of land and a cruel joke at the expense of many of the poor residents who were housed there against their will despite not being able to afford cars.

Andrew Duffy

Dunphy had the CEO of NTR's road division on this morning. Basically, the toll gates can handle 7,800 vehicles per hour, and a two-lane motorway can deliver 7,200, but the M50 isn't delivering that much due to the weaving at junctions. When the road is widened and the junctions improved, the toll gates will have to be removed to avoid them becoming the bottleneck.
All from the horse's mouth. I found it amusing that Dunphy barked about "experts" like Conor Faughnan of the AA (a journalist) to someone whose only business is running a busy road - surely a genuine expert? The conclusion I drew was that this campaign is indeed a self-serving publicity stunt.

Mayshine

Would people agree that the toll shoud vary at different times of the day. If the bridge is an aid to keeping congestion under control (!!) surely I shouldn't have to pay much to travel over it a 2am as opposed to 8:30am

I would love to see a more flexible way of tolling - maybe it can happen when electronic tolling happends

DW

ishmael whale

Zaph0d wrote:

It was a mistake to build such a vast car-dependent area West of the city.

Certainly and, indeed, a policy for Dublin transportation that consisted in simply increasing road capacity to take more cars is not sustainable. All I’m pointing out is the situation is a trade-off – some additional road capacity is justified as the city grows. An unobstructed two lane ring road in Dublin does not see excessive.

Andrew Duffy wrote:

The conclusion I drew was that this campaign is indeed a self-serving publicity stunt.

The campaign is undoubtably a self serving publicity stunt, but at the same time NTR are stakeholders in the situation rather than independent experts. They have to justify the fact that they will end up collecting a multiple of the cost of building the bridge, so suggestions that the toll assists traffic flow and/or that the problem is caused elsewhere help their case.

It might be noted that NTR’s position as you describe it, that the toll gates have the capacity but the road can’t deliver it, is not entirely consistent with the earlier reported statement that lifting the toll would move the congestion at junctions.

More likely, NTR’s position is a ball of smoke. It’s not the situation that toll booth operators are sitting idle, impatiently waiting for the M50 to deliver them a customer. It is the situation that a queue builds up from the booth and reaches back miles, obstructing traffic that doesn’t even need to use the bridge.

The idea that the toll gates have adequate capacity but the M50 can’t deliver it just doesn’t hold water.