M51

Zaph0d

Irish Independent wrote:

A new orbital motorway, further out from the M50, is expected to link Balbriggan on the northside with Wicklow on the southside, it was learned. It will be an even bigger C-ring route around the capital than the current M50, crossing a number of counties.

The new motorway, effectively an admission that the M50 has failed to cope with rocketing traffic volumes, could cost up to €1bn. The new route was quickly dubbed the 'M51' and has been under consideration by the National Roads Authority (NRA), it was also learned.

Admitting that the M50 resembled a "car park" at peak times, the Taoiseach came out in favour of building of an outer link road and revealed that this had already been examined.

€1bn? Is this an underestimate?

Genghis

I read before that the proposal was for an "M40" which would run from Drogheda to Navan and on to Naas. In effect this would be a route for 'Greater Dublin' and would complement the M50, rather than something that demonstrates it to be a failure.

Reads like a misinformed, poorly research piece to me. The Independent is becoming more like the Herlad every day.

jlang

I can only imagine what the environmentalist lobby would say if any new ring was brought through the Wickow mountains to the N11! Maybe some agitation/discussion on this issue might let the M3 get built before Dunshaughlin melts with the amount of traffic going through.

BrianD

An ideal route would be from Drogheda to Navan via the Boyne Valley and then onto Naas (passing through as many stud farms as possible). The southern end should pass through the Wicklow mountains (via the Sally Gap) and taking in Glendalough, Powerscourt and possibly avoca. The entire route should have street lighting. Once this is construction is complete the area between the M50 and the new route should be rezoned for residential and industrial. Progress and development is good.

BrianD

jlang wrote:

I can only imagine what the environmentalist lobby would say if any new ring was brought through the Wickow mountains to the N11! Maybe some agitation/discussion on this issue might let the M3 get built before Dunshaughlin melts with the amount of traffic going through.

The Dunshaughlin bottleneck is easily solved by a bypass. This was planned years ago. In fact, if anybody has had a look at the M3 plans they will notice that the bypass will actually be partially built as part as the M3 project. This road will allow the village to spread out towards the M3.

sceptre

Zaph0d wrote:

€1bn? Is this an underestimate?

I would imagine so.

BrianD is totally wrong. The new route should run around the country entirely (mostly over the sea) and should be supported on stilts across Galway Bay and over the mountains down in Kerry. Toll booths every three miles so those culchies don't get out of paying. An extra roundabout every five miles with a large shopping centre built on each one, including the world's largest McDonald's in case anyone gets hungry on their thousand mile trek to get to work.

comanche

BrianD wrote:

The Dunshaughlin bottleneck is easily solved by a bypass. This was planned years ago. In fact, if anybody has had a look at the M3 plans they will notice that the bypass will actually be partially built as part as the M3 project. This road will allow the village to spread out towards the M3.

I know that this is off topci but a by-pass for sections the N3 is not a full solution. The problem is that side roads and private property has become unsafe because of the volumes of traffice on the road. When travelling that road look out for locals trying to get onto/cross the road and you will see what I mean - would hate to try and cross that road without a few horses behind me. Even during during off peak times there seems to be constant stream of traiffic on that road.

MT

I think that this proposal is of vital importance. The upgrade to the M50 that's going ahead will only free up the motorway for a number of years before it is once again grid locked.

While some might be tempted to say so what plenty of cities in other countries face similar congestion levels they'd be forgetting Dublin's unique situation. Though cities of a similar size in Britain - such as Birmingham - have serious traffic problems, they don't count for anywhere near the same share of the UK's gdp output as Dublin does for Ireland. Suffice to say, Dublin very nearly is the Irish economy. So the country just can't afford to have it grind to a halt.

It has to be recognised that the M50 has been little short of a disaster. A monument to myopic planning. True, without it the city's economy would suffer severely but with greater foresight/competence a far superior orbital motorway could have been put in place to begin with. The current road was built way to close to the city and with urban sprawl has ended up in it. The result is that for many it has become simply a commuter route. It should have at least 4 or 5 lanes in each direction, not 2. All junctions should have been completely free flowing to begin with - preferably four level stack types. If tolling had to be employed it should have been of the photographic method used elsewhere. There would be not delays - just drive through and have your number plate recorded.

The above might have seemed astronomically expensive at the time but it would still have been small change when compared to the final cost of building two orbitals and an upgrade.

Finally, this new route shouldn't even be considered until the critical infrastructure bill has been resurrected. A bill so critical the government were able to quitely bury it. Without new legislation the new route may well take as long to finish as the M50. If that's the case, I'll see you on the road by 2025.

jank

Suffice to say, Dublin very nearly is the Irish economy

Do you have some link to back that up are you just making it up?

MT

I hope no one sees such as a remark as a slight to the rest of Ireland. Yes, it may be an exaggeration, but given some thought anyone would realise the sizeable contribution Dublin makes to the Irish economy. The greater Dublin area accounts for 2 million + people - more than half the Republic's population. GDP per person in the region is much higher than in the west of Ireland. And simple anecdotal evidence would alert anyone to the amount of investment that's been chanelled into the area in recent years. Cork by comparison has lagged behind in the fdi stakes over the past decade. So yes Dublin does account for the lion's share of the country's industrial output - I'd say as much as 75% of annual GDP.

This thread shouldn't be turned into a Dublin versus the rest debate. If I've contributed to that then I apologise. It's important to realise that Dublin doesn't suceed at the expense of elsewhere, but that its growth will spur economic activity in most other parts. It's in all of Ireland's interests - even NI, perish the thought - to see Dublin's traffic problems alleviated.

Victor

The number "51" is already in use for the N51 Drogheda-Navan-Mulligar route. The N51 is almost exclusively in Meath. M40 is the only name I've heard used. I imagine M51 could only come from Meath county council sources and oops, isn't their a by-election coming up.

The idea of the routing comes from what the French saw happening to the M25 in London, so instead of completing building the N186/A86 and A/N104 as ringroads (that would never be finished M25 style), they've instead built a series of roads 100-150km out that don't so much bypass Paris, as just no go near it. Tolls cut down on their use for local travel and encourage some traffic to "stay east of the Rhine".

mackerski

MT wrote:

All junctions should have been completely free flowing to begin with - preferably four level stack types.

Free-flowing was an obvious requirement from the start for certain routes (M1, N4, N7), less so for others, but even those would have required a junction avoidance option for straight-through traffic. But four-level stacks are dreaming. Almost nobody builds those. I think there are only three of them in Britain, and on junctions designed to be very highly trafficed (2 on the M25 and then M4/M5, which dates from the motorway sprees of the '60s).

No, what we want for the M50 is the cheapest freeflow money can buy, just like they did with Spaghetti Junction in Birmingham. Or rather, that's what we'll get.

Dermot

thejollyrodger

If they do decide to go ahead with an outer ring road they better to it properly. I.E 4 or 5 lanes either side with room for easy expansion, all american style flyovers and interchanges etc. The critical infastructure bill is going to be a necesity if we want to see the motorway finish before 2050

weehamster

Can somebody answer me this. What exactly is this M51 or M40 is for. Is it for commuters or is it for the moving of goods and services. If its the latter then fine. This road is perfect and would help the economy.

But if this is for the commuters then this road is a waist of time as would just bring more cars on to ther roads and causung more traffic.

Now rail is a superior form of transport to roads when it comes to commuting. It is very sad to see the government doesnt see this. And they only have to travel to france and germany etc to see this.

More rail not more roads.

Victor

weehamster wrote:

Can somebody answer me this. What exactly is this M51 or M40 is for. Is it for commuters or is it for the moving of goods and services. If its the latter then fine. This road is perfect and would help the economy.

The latter mostly, as it connects the north / north east with the midlands and south, atypical for commuting use. While it might displace some users from long distance train to road, train is ttill likely to have advantages here.

While it would relieve pressure on the M50, the balance would disproportionly be towards benefitting long distance traffic over M50 commutters.

Metrobest

They can build an M51, then an M52, and an M53 and even an M50,000. But the fundamental problem will remain: poor development, and added to this toxic cauldron of bad planning is the lack of a proper, centralised public transport system for Dublin. Peripheral motorways around cities are always congested, that's a fact of life the world over, but the solution is not to copy the mistakes of the past, it's to provide viable options to get people out of their cars.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't Dublin still have the one of the lowest car ownership rates in Europe? So the traffic is going to worsen. There's only one way to prevent further car-dependent sprawling development: that's to build high rise development beside viable public transport facilities. We're talking metropolitan development, and a centralised metro system to support that.

But what are the chances of this happening? Zero. Only this weekend Frank McDonald was telling us County Laois is preparing to festoon TWENTY SEVEN villages with ugly, unsustainable low-density housing. Completely car dependent, these semi detached houses will be filled with Dublin-based commuters, spilling even more traffic onto the clogged M50. I despair.

BrianD

Spot on Metrobest.

Victor

Metrobest wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but doesn't Dublin still have the one of the lowest car ownership rates in Europe?

Ireland has a low(er) ownership rate, but a higher average usage rate (km / capita / year). Dublin **city** has about the lowest ownership rate in the country.

that's to build high rise development beside viable public transport facilities.

High density need not be highrise. Three-storey, terraced, 4-bed houses use about half the land a 3-bed semi-detached.

MT

but even those would have required a junction avoidance option for straight-through traffic.

Yes, all m-way/m-way and m-way/dual-carriageway intersections with a high volume of traffic should provide such an option. All such junctions around Dublin should have been built to this standard. What concerns me is that a 'straight through' option still won't be available for most of the junctions crossing the M50 after the imminent upgrade. Where it is provided for, it appears the carriageways will make use of the existing roundabouts. This really reeks of penny pinching. Surely two new bridges could have been factored in. After all, when a minor road can avail of a flyover on an inter-city route then is it excessive to provide replacements at the busiest junctions in the country?

Should add here that I may not have seen the most recent plans for the upgrade.

But four-level stacks are dreaming. Almost nobody builds those.

Just because they aren't used that much elsewhere doesn't mean they can't be employed in Ireland. Even by international standards a number of intersections on the M50 have a high throughput of traffic. In America, the UK and Europe where these layouts have been used I believe they've been proven to work. It’s true that today it's unlikely there'd either be the room for four level stacks or the possibility of planning approval given the proximity of residential development. But in the light of the huge expense of an entirely new c route around the city the cost and intrusion of building four level stacks would have paled into insignificance. Furthermore, when the present junctions were first built residential nimbys weren't living beside them. And would have been no where near had the original road been built further out from the city.

4 or 5 lanes either side with room for easy expansion

thejollyrodger,

In the short term it’d be best IMO to build three in each direction with a central reservation wide enough to accommodate 2 more each way. Having said that, this is just my estimate. The number of lanes should depend on a study into what the likely traffic volume’s going to be over the next few decades. Preferably, and in light of the congestion on the current route the new motorway should be built to the needs of the uppermost estimate, and then some.

mackerski

MT wrote:

In America, the UK and Europe where these layouts have been used I believe they've been proven to work.

And I'd like a pony ;-). They work all right. They just cost far too much and consume ludicrous amounts of land.

MT wrote:

It’s true that today it's unlikely there'd either be the room for four level stacks or the possibility of planning approval given the proximity of residential development. But in the light of the huge expense of an entirely new c route around the city the cost and intrusion of building four level stacks would have paled into insignificance. Furthermore, when the present junctions were first built residential nimbys weren't living beside them. And would have been no where near had the original road been built further out from the city.

The nimbies where there alright. M1/M50 might have worked, Ballymun too, though even today it'd have been overkill, The N2 didn't have enough space (not without using a partial cloverleaf and putting the ESB station in a loop), the N3 butts right up against residential areas, the canal and the railway, not enough space and no chance of permission. N4 is too close to the bridge, so you'd have had to realign the N4 itself, N7 maybe, N81, overkill and the rest have yet to (dis)prove themselves.

If you look at some of the tight loops and weird layouts they'll be giving us as part of the junction rebuilds, it's clear that they could have delivered something far better from day 1, if they had only spent the money. But it wouldn't have had to be the Rolls Royce.

Dermot

MT

mackerski wrote:

The nimbies where there alright. M1/M50 might have worked, Ballymun too, though even today it'd have been overkill, The N2 didn't have enough space (not without using a partial cloverleaf and putting the ESB station in a loop), the N3 butts right up against residential areas, the canal and the railway, not enough space and no chance of permission. N4 is too close to the bridge, so you'd have had to realign the N4 itself, N7 maybe, N81, overkill and the rest have yet to (dis)prove themselves.

That's why I suggested the road should have been built further from the city. Had the M50 had a greater radius from the city centre there would have been fewer residential sites etc. to fit the junctions in around. Moreover, regardless of whether or not four levels stacks should have been built at certain intersections, the orbital should've been built further out. This would have ensured a greater distance between the junctions - spreading the traffic using the road. On top of this, a more remote city bypass would have diminished the attraction of the route for commuters. It would have come closer to fulfilling its intended role as a proper bypass instead of the surburban 'street' many now treat it as.

Again, the cost of developing elaborate intersections, extra lanes etc. when the thing was originally built would have been considerably less that what will be spent to remedy the situation.

Victor

At the same time one of the objectives of the M50 was economic development, but this was meant to be industrial and warehousing, not retail and commuting.

Lennoxschips

Metrobest is on the money. Traffic is a symptom of the problem, but not the problem. Building more roads only addresses the symptom. If you have a cold and you blow your nose, it will be blocked again in a few minutes. The same applies to building new roads.

Dublin needs to build a a suburban metro over existing lines and corridors, like the RER system in Paris.

Andrew Duffy

Lennoxschips wrote:

Dublin needs to build a a suburban metro over existing lines and corridors, like the RER system in Paris.

If you haven't been following this, Irish Rail has such a plan at an advanced stage, and the Minister is considering it. There is a lobby group campaigning for it to get built: http://www.extendthedart.com. I'm not a member, but I did make a schematic map to send to my TDs about it.

mackerski

Lennoxschips wrote:

If you have a cold and you blow your nose, it will be blocked again in a few minutes. The same applies to building new roads.

Of course, we also know what a mess it makes when you have a cold and don't blow your nose...

Dermot

maxheadroom

mackerski wrote:

Of course, we also know what a mess it makes when you have a cold and don't blow your nose...

Dermot

Yes, but to continue the analagy somewhat, what if you took a decongestant (and loads of Vit C) when you felt the cold coming on? Maybe you'd never have to worry about blowing your nose at all...

mackerski

Rather than a second pair of nostrils, you mean? Always worth a try. Did we try that metaphorical remedy, do you know?

Dermot

sliabh

To add my 2 cents,

Presumably the purpose of the new road would be work mainly as a Dublin bypass, something that was a primary aim of the M50 before bad planning and corruption ruined the concept.

Any new road would have to be tolled to ensure it doesn't becoem another commuter car park. I was thinking that a way to do this would be to have tolls on all on and off ramps within 30km of the city, but nothing beyond that. So if going from Belfast to Roslare you pay nothing. If you go from Rosslare to Dublin you pay once. And a commuter travelling from near Dublin into the city and back out will pay 4 times a day. That sort of financial pain would limit the road use.

Someone mentioned putting the M50 further out from the city. There is a problem with this, the same one that will hit any route that is even further out - the Dublin/Wickow mountains. The M50 now is about as far into these hills as it can go. The environmental and cost implications of trying to go over or under with a new road will be pretty high!

Kaner

Seems to me that most modern European cities with good public transport systems have also seen the need to build major motorway systems.

Dublin needs a new 8 lane motorway from Balbriggan to Naas at least, and a 4 lane dual carrigeway from the N9 to the N11 somewhere to the south of Wicklow (maybe from Carlow through Tullow to north of Arklow).

The problem with the M50 is the design, not the location. If it was not choked up all the time it would be an easy way to get around Dublin.

Even if the proposed Metro system is built and the DART is extended, I would bet we would still have well over 100,000 vehicles per day on the M50 by 2010.

So get the M51 built asap, and save the poor tortured drivers of Dublin from early graves brought on by M50 induced stress.

Thank God that I dont have to drive on it!

murphaph

Kaner wrote:

The problem with the M50 is the design, not the location. If it was not choked up all the time it would be an easy way to get around Dublin.........

.......Even if the proposed Metro system is built and the DART is extended, I would bet we would still have well over 100,000 vehicles per day on the M50 by 2010.

The design, even if altered radicaly (like using half folded clover leaves, four level stacks or even whirlpool junctions and widenning to 4 lanes in each direction) would still fail miserably because it would still be used as a commuter route for Dubs. That's one of the principal failings of the M25-they built too many junctions to allow local access so fewer people would object to it's construction (keep 'em happy planning). Remember the M25 is much further out than the M50. Now it's so easy to access that it's used mostly by commuters, not it's original purpose as a London orbital bypass. The M50 however if upgraded to allow freeflow at major junctions, coupled with a full metro and IE Dublin Rail Plan including reopening to Navan and spur to he airport together with Luas extensions would allow HEAVY congestion charging within the M50 and HEAVY tolling of local M50 users (by tolling the slip roads) which would strongly discourage local use and encourage wholscale changes to publc transport-the only real solution to gridlock.

BrianD

I don't think a congestion charge within the M50 is appropriate at all. No other city the size of Dublin has it and it is not necessary.

Relatively speaking, I don't think the M50 is any further out from the city centre than the M25 is from the centre of London.

The root cause of our problems is our appaling development policies that has seen suburban housing built in villages across Leinster.
No metro, urban rail or tram system is ever going to serve these people in a efficient and cost effective manner. The only way we can try and arrest the situation is for our elected representatives to start making rational but very unpopular decisions. The results of these decisions will not be realised within their political lifespan or possible their natural life!! Do we think we'll see this happen?? At the same time our politicans seem to mysteriously opposed to high rise buildings in Dublin. Very suspicious if you ask me.

I do agree it would be beneficial to see the toll booths removed and electronic tolling along the length of the M50. A special toll could be introduced to accomodate through traffic that uses the route as a bypass of Dublin.

mackerski

murphaph wrote:

would allow HEAVY congestion charging within the M50 and HEAVY tolling of local M50 users (by tolling the slip roads) which would strongly discourage local use and encourage wholscale changes to publc transport-the only real solution to gridlock.

Are you sure you've thought about this one? You want to restrict the impact of the M50 toll to the local users. To do this, you propose to toll the slip roads that get you onto the M50. Now take a man travelling from Cavan to Cork. He's going to drive down the N3, join the M50 be subject to whatever toll the Blanchardstown residents are and then exit at the N7. For all the tolling system knows, he's a Castleknocker off to Texas homecare.

Similarly the bizarre idea of a congestion charge inside the M50. Consider for a split-second the nature of the suburban landscape in this zone. Congestion charges are supposed to be levied on people who had no business using a car. It's unreasonable to apply one to the kind of suburban areas we're talking about here. (unreasonable to consider one for any part of Dublin without putting in place a lot of infrastructural change first.)

Dermot

murphaph

mackerski wrote:

Are you sure you've thought about this one? You want to restrict the impact of the M50 toll to the local users. To do this, you propose to toll the slip roads that get you onto the M50. Now take a man travelling from Cavan to Cork. He's going to drive down the N3, join the M50 be subject to whatever toll the Blanchardstown residents are and then exit at the N7. For all the tolling system knows, he's a Castleknocker off to Texas homecare.

Hi Dermot,
In answer to your question I have thought about it but perhaps didn't explain it too well. BrianD correctly assumed I meant intelligent number plate recognition based tolling-car gets snapped at Blanch and Snapped again as he leaves the M50. The system would need to integrate with the licencing computer in Shannon so that it knows the home place of the car. It's sounds really complicated for sure (it really isn't though) but we need radical solutions here. I don't believe any amount of ring roads and widennings will help.

mackerski wrote:

Similarly the bizarre idea of a congestion charge inside the M50. Consider for a split-second the nature of the suburban landscape in this zone. Congestion charges are supposed to be levied on people who had no business using a car. It's unreasonable to apply one to the kind of suburban areas we're talking about here. (unreasonable to consider one for any part of Dublin without putting in place a lot of infrastructural change first.)

I stated quite clearly that a lot of major PT infrastructure coupled with improved M50 would be required before such a charge could be imposed.

BrianD is correct of course about the horrendous planning, but all we can do is deal with what we've got and be a bit more inventive than building road after clogged road. If the M51 is approved before the DRP I will completely give up on this country.

impr0v

MT wrote:

Again, the cost of developing elaborate intersections, extra lanes etc. when the thing was originally built would have been considerably less that what will be spent to remedy the situation.

Sure, but the government had a lot less money then and even the most pessimistic (or optimistic, depending on your point of view) traffic predictions didn't come anywhere close to justifying elaborate interchanges or anything more than two lanes when the M50 was planned. Any plans to develop the M50 to the scale you are talking about above would have been shot down by lobby groups, or the opposition parties to those in power at the time, as a monumental waste of scarce public money, a claim that all the available facts and figures at the time would have supported.

The two main factors in the M50 arriving at its current chronically over-subscribed state are unpredicted economic growth and bad urban planning, i.e. low density sprawl as opposed to high density development much easier served by public transport, as touched on by previous posters.

mackerski

murphaph wrote:

BrianD correctly assumed I meant intelligent number plate recognition based tolling-car gets snapped at Blanch and Snapped again as he leaves the M50. The system would need to integrate with the licencing computer in Shannon so that it knows the home place of the car.

I'm not sure if you're aware of the Athens approach to road congestion - you can only drive into town every other day, according to whether your car reg is odd or even. Whether or not you've heard of it, you'll see the obvious workaround.

There are plenty of people who manage, undetected, to run foreign-registered cars on our roads. And even with stronger laws to force you to inform the reg office of your home location, there will always be a tolerance built in. Maybe my driver from Cavan (his registered home) actually works in Citywest and commutes daily. When is he abusing the M50 for his daily commute and when is he responsibly avoiding the city centre on his journey to Cork?

For that matter, I live in Blanchardstown. Should I clog up Lucan and Newcastle on my way to Cork to avoid a punitive toll to which my culchie brethern are immune? How about my parents who live near Dunboyne? Are they locals or bone-fide?

murphaph wrote:

I stated quite clearly that a lot of major PT infrastructure coupled with improved M50 would be required before such a charge could be imposed.

You'd need a sod of a lot of Public Transport to make it reasonable to impose a congestion charge to the entire area inside the M50. I don't think there's a city in the world that would be up to that standard. And even then, why would you want to? Of course, by "congestion charge", I'm picturing the London arrangement, where you're charged for simple presence in the zone, all day. It might just theoretically be possible to apply a charge for two hours each morning and evening. To do so, you'd have to work out how to be fair to folks that are not going to be on the commuter streets (granny going round the corner for milk). And it wouldn't work anyway, because commerce would simply shift its opening hours to avoid it.

London can do a congestion charge because it has an inner ring that you don't have to cross unless you're going in-zone. Even a practically-sized "you shouldn't need a car here" zone in Dublin (think "canals", not "M50") would be hard to carve out because you'd have to provide high-capacity urban roads to get through-traffic around it. What should we demolish to make space for them?

Dermot

murphaph

There's always going to be complications and some cheating of any traffic management system we employ, but I believe we will have to employ it at some stage (even if it's the canal rings). The economy cannot suatain Dublin gridlock (as Dublin pretty much is the economy). I simply don't believe that the money spent on an M51 could not be better spent on public transport and all over the world this has proven true. Munich hasn't even got a complete A-bahn ring-road, they have the Mittlerer-Ring which is completely within the city limits and is only a crap dual carriageway. It's very similar to the M50 in many ways actually. They spent most of their money on a top notch heavy rail/metro solution with P&Rs at all lines coming into the city. They are well patronised.Has anyone got a guestimate of the cost of this M51?

mackerski

murphaph wrote:

Munich hasn't even got a complete A-bahn ring-road, they have the Mittlerer-Ring which is completely within the city limits and is only a crap dual carriageway.

In places, it's not even a crap dual carriageway. And it's been causing problems for years. Without the A99, the city would be knacked. Real Soon Now it'll connect all regional Autobahnen except for the Garmischer.

BTW, the German Autobahn network is criss-cross, not radial. If we were prepared to put some high-quality roads in that get you, say, from Carrick on Shannon to Cork via Athlone or whatever, we might reap some benefit.

murphaph wrote:

They spent most of their money on a top notch heavy rail/metro solution with P&Rs at all lines coming into the city. They are well patronised.

It's relevant to note that the genesis of the Munich S-Bahn was the Verbindungsbahn (Interconnector), the earliest planned part of the current Munich network. The outher branches of the S-Bahn were largely (possibly exclusively, the airpot line excepted) existing regional lines.

Dermot

murphaph

Exactly-the Muenchners built their Stammstrecktunnel way before they started a m-way ring road and we have the rail lines running into Dublin too! We should connect them up through the interconnector and watch what it will achieve before even contemplating this crazy road. The interconnector's success will spur real investment in rail.

mackerski

murphaph wrote:

Exactly-the Muenchners built their Stammstrecktunnel way before they started a m-way ring road and we have the rail lines running into Dublin too! We should connect them up through the interconnector and watch what it will achieve before even contemplating this crazy road. The interconnector's success will spur real investment in rail.

Hardly "way before" - The Stammstreckentunnel was opened in May 1972, the first stretch of A99 the following year. The two were planned and realised side-by-side, as complementary projects.

Yes, we should build the interconnector or something very like it. Yes, once built we can expect it to win converts from those people who live along the existing rail lines, and slowly the standard of the services will rise. No, we can't afford to wait all that time only to discover that we need to upgrade our roads too.

Dermot

murphaph

Ok, fair enough the A99 may have started in 73 but it's not even finished yet, they preferred to spend money on the MVV and DB networks and clearly now that you genuinely don't need a car in Munich, that policy was the correct one. Anyone who drives in Munich is doing it out of choice-very few need to.

Kaner

murphaph wrote:

................. would still fail miserably because it would still be used as a commuter route for Dubs.

One of the things that amazes me is that I keep seeing this argument about the "problem" of Dublin commuters using the M50, as though it was an ethical issue. The M50 is an urban motorway. People that live within three miles of it are surely entitled to use it. How else are they supposed to get around the city?

In places with sane motorway planners (and I am not necessarily including the UK here), long distance motorways have extra capacity for local traffic when they are built through or around cities. I know the M50 was planned as a Dublin bypass, but that is down to the incompetence of the planners. There should have been two lanes for long distance traffic and two lanes for local traffic. Did they not know what goes on outside Ireland or the UK?

Another question: what great miracle is the interconnector and IR's other plans going to do for the million or so people that live in Dublin? Looking at Andrew Duffy's map, the plan does not seem to add more than three or four new stations within the city. Yes the DART is extended to Maynooth, Kildare and the airport. It will be good for the towns around the city, as it will increase capacity on existing lines, but is it going to make much of a difference to the people who live in the city?

Are the majority of Dubliners to be left with a traffic choked city, the bus, a couple of trams, and the M50 car park? The M51 needs to be finished by 2010, so at least the M50 will be a reasonable way to get around the city.

As for the metro, we'll be lucky to see a proper system by 2025, the way they are kicking it around at the moment.

murphaph

Kaner wrote:

One of the things that amazes me is that I keep seeing this argument about the "problem" of Dublin commuters using the M50, as though it was an ethical issue. The M50 is an urban motorway. People that live within three miles of it are surely entitled to use it. How else are they supposed to get around the city?

M50 was never supposed to be so. It was constructed as a Dublin bypass. It failed due to a number of reasons which have been covered ad nauseum. I don't blame a single Dub who uses the M50. It's often the only realistic way of getting anywhere in this public transport wasteland.

Kaner wrote:

In places with sane motorway planners (and I am not necessarily including the UK here), long distance motorways have extra capacity for local traffic when they are built through or around cities. I know the M50 was planned as a Dublin bypass, but that is down to the incompetence of the planners. There should have been two lanes for long distance traffic and two lanes for local traffic. Did they not know what goes on outside Ireland or the UK?

Agreed 100%.

Kaner wrote:

Another question: what great miracle is the interconnector and IR's other plans going to do for the million or so people that live in Dublin? Looking at Andrew Duffy's map, the plan does not seem to add more than three or four new stations within the city. Yes the DART is extended to Maynooth, Kildare and the airport. It will be good for the towns around the city, as it will increase capacity on existing lines, but is it going to make much of a difference to the people who live in the city?

Yes. It will improve the citizens' quality of life by reducing dramatically the traffic levels entering our city (remember post Port Tunnel most trucks will already be gone). The heavy rail network has undreamed of capacity. The existing DART has hinted at this, once carrying ~95,000 in one day. The current proposals have set hourly capacity far higher than this. One glimpse of the N3 in the morning and the realisation that a disused railway line parallels that linear car park opens one's eyes. The interconnector will be the spur for further serious rail invstment due to the massive success it will have. As for actual usage by city dwellers, well let's not forget the thousands of people who live in town and commute out to Intel, HP, IBM et al to get to work. They'll all benefit. Imagine I live in Drumcondra. I can now take a 0 change trip to my job in Dun Laoighaire every 7.5 minutes or so. I can take a 1 change trip to parkwest or The airport. The connectivity and metro level frequencies are what makes the proposal so fantastic for Dubs. The capacity is quite astounding, but due to poor connectivity of the existing permanent way, that capacity has yet to be fully realised.

Kaner wrote:

The M51 needs to be finished by 2010, so at least the M50 will be a reasonable way to get around the city

Just how many vehicles on the M50 daily do you really think are not heading to or leaving somewhere in Dublin? You really think it's clogged with people going from Belfast to Rosslare or Navan to Cork? Come on.

Kaner wrote:

As for the metro, we'll be lucky to see a proper system by 2025, the way they are kicking it around at the moment.

Sadly you're right, but metros are big projects that take a long time to deliver. They are wonderful etc. but Dublin needs a solution now and that is the Dublin Rail Plan. It delivers all it's benefits in parallel. We don't have to wait until the tunnel is fully excavated and fitted out before we see a benefit. The quad tracking of the Kildare line, the electrification of said line, the electrification of Maynooth all add to speed and frequency levels. spencer Dock will be open in the medium term so the Maynooth/Northern line can divert plenty of trains there as the tunnel is bored and Luas can be extended to meet Spencer Dock as a stop gap for these commuters, it will serve an important link in the future anyway. Once complete the network's capacity will be realised and we can look at spurs from the Kildare line etc...A metro or high quality tram network with far more road segregation than we got with Red Line should also be built for the areas not served by the DRP.

weehamster

Here one good example what the Dublin Rail plan can do.

The Proposed Kildare to Drogheda DART Line connected by the Interconnector will be able to handle double decker trains up to a max 12 carages in length and having the abaility of moving over 100,000 paggengers per hour (when the population will be bigger. It initally be able to handle nearly 30,000 per hour).
The Naas Dual Carrageway currently has about 56,000 vehicles per day using it.

The current DART line after the platform upgrades will be able to handle over 110,000 a day.

So the Dublin Rail Plan will be able to handle future population figures.

Metrobest

weehamster wrote:

The Proposed Kildare to Drogheda DART Line connected by the Interconnector will be able to handle double decker trains up to a max 12 carages in length and having the abaility of moving over 100,000 paggengers per hour (when the population will be bigger. It initally be able to handle nearly 30,000 per hour).
The Naas Dual Carrageway currently has about 56,000 vehicles per day using it.

The current DART line after the platform upgrades will be able to handle over 110,000 a day.

So the Dublin Rail Plan will be able to handle future population figures.

Yes, the DRP will handle population growth along the corridors it serves, but as Kaner pointed out, three new city centre stations do not an integrated system make.

The Dutch railway network is largely made up of double decker trains. In my experience they do not reach the kind of capacity levels you're talking about. People want high-frequency services, not bigger trains. Have you any statistical data to back up your capacity assertions?

The 8 trains per hour from Drumcondra to Bray will still be constrained by speed restrictions, level crossings, the Connolly bottleneck... That's why only a metro can deliver the passenger numbers you're talking about.

Metro can have a full train every 2/3 minutes, short, fast, frequent. Passengers want that, or else they use the car. Even a ten-minute wait can be a long time when you're waiting in a cold station, exposed to the elements, and late for work. That's why people use cars: the convenience, the self-control. Yes, the Dublin Rail Plan will do some good for those that use the existing service. But you're living a pipe dream if you think that, like waving a magic wand, it will solve Dublin's transport system.

Only a centralised Dublin metro system can do that.

Lennoxschips

The Dutch railway network is largely made up of double decker trains. In my experience they do not reach the kind of capacity levels you're talking about. People want high-frequency services, not bigger trains. Have you any statistical data to back up your capacity assertions?

I was on a 200 metre long double decker train yesterday from Leiden to Schiphol and I had to stand.

I don't think you can compare the DRP proposals to the Dutch train system, as it the Dutch rail system was designed as an InterCity network with little thought towards intra-city commuting. Most of the trains in use are heavy rail and not very useful for stop-start commuting services.

I think the Paris RER system is a better comparison, where the Paris rail corridors were openened up to commuter trains and tunnels were built connecting the main stations (like Gare du Nord and Gare du Lyon). The RER system has been a huge success, making optimal use of existing infrastructure. Once the DRP RER-like system is in place then you can build smaller Metro/LUAS lines leading out from the hub stations towards suburbs. I don't see why building the DRP means there can't be a Metro network in the future, in many ways the DRP will serve as the ideal backbone for any future Metro system, assuming integrated ticketing is implemented.

murphaph

Metrobest wrote:

Yes, the DRP will handle population growth along the corridors it serves, but as Kaner pointed out, three new city centre stations do not an integrated system make.

Oh Metrobest, you know the DRP does far more than add 3 stations. It connects a poorly integrated set of suburban railway lines in a way that unleashes massive capacity by eliminating conflicting movements, particularly around the heavily congested central area. 12 Car double deck trains are indeed being allowed for in the underground stations' plans (forward planning) and the capacity of said train would be perhaps 16 times that of a Luas vehicle.

Metrobest wrote:

People want high-frequency services, not bigger trains.

The DRP gives both.

Metrobest wrote:

The 8 trains per hour from Drumcondra to Bray will still be constrained by speed restrictions, level crossings, the Connolly bottleneck... That's why only a metro can deliver the passenger numbers you're talking about.

The DRP addresses the fairly limited number of very busy LCs on the Maynooth-Bray line by overbridges. The more rural ones are simply automated. The Connolly bottleneck is in a small part being adressed by DASH 2, and completely by the DRP. Connolly is actually 2 separate stations stuck together. With the DRP it is separated in operational terms so the only services using platforms 5 (perhaps), 6 and 7 will be Maynooth-Bray DART ones. Platforms 1-4 (inside the shed ones) will handle Enterprise and Northern outer suburban (Dundalk & Duleek) only. These trains do not need to cross the paths of Maynooth-Bray ones (even today).

Metrobest wrote:

Metro can have a full train every 2/3 minutes, short, fast, frequent. Passengers want that, or else they use the car. Even a ten-minute wait can be a long time when you're waiting in a cold station, exposed to the elements, and late for work

The Munich U-Bahn runs on a 10 minute headway. IE are proposing that at a minimum there will be 8 trains per hour between Maynooth-Bray. The Loop line will actually be signalled for 16 trains per hour and because the Interconnector takes Drogheda originating trains underground, the whole of the Loop line's capacity can be given to Bray-Maynooth trains.

Metrobest wrote:

But you're living a pipe dream if you think that, like waving a magic wand, it will solve Dublin's transport system

Of course it won't solve everything, but it can remove cars from the N1, N2, N3, N4, N7 and N11 from the city's streets. It also provides Dubs with the means to quickly travel between places like Docklands and Ballyfermot or potentially Phibsborough Parkwest with 0 changes. It's the key piece in the heavy rail jigsaw puzzle and future DART expansion hinges on it. It will be extremely successful. IE claim they will need no subvention to cover it's operating costs.

A full metro system takes years to build, 25+. While I thoroughly support the idea of one for the city, I cannot agree that starting a new system before the existing system has been fixed is a good idea. CIE always envisaged the DRP as part of a greater rail based system.

Kaner

Just how many vehicles on the M50 daily do you really think are not heading to or leaving somewhere in Dublin? You really think it's clogged with people going from Belfast to Rosslare or Navan to Cork? Come on.

Thanks for your feedback Murphaph and others.

The M50 is filled way beyond capacity with Dubliners trying to get to and from work. My argument for the M51, is that by the time the upgrade is finished the upgraded M50 will be at or above capacity. Motorways need to operate at around 75% capacity to be reliable. Unless someting is done to relieve the M50, we will end up in the same situation after spending probably 700 million. The M51 will take a lot of outlying Dublin traffic (which is rapidly increasing) if it is built within 15 or 20 miles of the M50, leaving the M50 to handle the more central part of the city.

I do think the interconnector is a great idea, and it should be built asap. I am just questioning the assumption that it will be a huge boon for the 1 million residents of Dublin itself. The other million living around Dublin can drive to their local station and take the train into the city, great for them, but if I want to get from Walkinstown (pop ~50,000) to Finglas (pop ~60,000) Irish Rail is not going to help much. The same for other sizeable chunks of the city. The M50 is the only sane way to get around for most Dubliners, but it is bearing long distance, local Dublin and outlying Dublin traffic, all at the same time. The quickest way to relieve this is to build the M51. Of course the Metro would be the ideal solution, but I'm not going to hold my breath for that.

Planners did not think the M25 around London would be used much, being a fair distance from the city, but it was at capacity as soon as it was opened. I think the same will go for an M51, it just needs to be done right first time.

Another benefit is that people in outlying towns could use the M51 to get to the extended DART.

murphaph

Kaner wrote:

I do think the interconnector is a great idea, and it should be built asap. I am just questioning the assumption that it will be a huge boon for the 1 million residents of Dublin itself. The other million living around Dublin can drive to their local station and take the train into the city, great for them, but if I want to get from Walkinstown (pop ~50,000) to Finglas (pop ~60,000) Irish Rail is not going to help much. The same for other sizeable chunks of the city. The M50 is the only sane way to get around for most Dubliners, but it is bearing long distance, local Dublin and outlying Dublin traffic, all at the same time. The quickest way to relieve this is to build the M51. Of course the Metro would be the ideal solution, but I'm not going to hold my breath for that.

If you're making that journey then I understand your frustration. I must reiterate that the DRP is the key piece of the puzzle that will allow future coherent and integrated rail development as well as providing an immediate solution for hundreds of thousands of commuters . Let me throw out a scenario for the meantime though.....it could be possible to add a bus lane (on both sides I reckon) between the Walkinstown roundabout along the Kylemore Rd. to the railway line just there beyond Homebase. A frequent shuttle could run between. You could board an outer suburban train to Phibsborough and take another bus. Yes it sounds and is long winded and would be far far from ideal, but as a medium term solution might work with good integration. I know most people will be shaking their heads as they read but these bus corridors would in time be replaced by metro (though I hate using the term because we can call it Dublin Area apid Transit, or DART which I prefer) or Luas where appropriate. I really can't agree that the M51 would be constructed with the haste with which you believe it would. I look to an incomplete M50 as a reason for my thinking. I think the DRP coupled with a metro line or two could easily be completed before any M51 as they would be bored tunnel requiring no CPOs and are far less intrusive on the landscape.

Kaner

The National Pensions Reserve Fund could finance and toll the M51 (I think it should be called the M60). They have the cash to build it and it could be done in one big project. Then the toll could be based on a reasonable rate of return to the fund (as opposed to the NTR way of ripping motorists off).

If it was made a priority the road could be finished by 2010. As they say: where there's a will, there's a relative

thejollyrodger

What are the plans for the M-51 anyway ? If they do decide to go ahead with an outer road (as the case in a lot of other European capitals) what kind of motorway will it be ?

A simple 2 lane either side isnt going to solve much. It has to be 4 lanes either side with room for another lane or two. Are there that kind of plans in place ?

A fast, rail commuting service around the city is going to be needed too. Either Metro or DART. Metro might take too long to develop so the case for DART in the meantime might be a good idea.

As for motorway names , I would go with M 2000 or something like that.

murphaph

It seems I'm in the minority on this one. I do agree the National Pensions Reserve Fund could most definitely be used to fund toll roads (and profitable rail schemes) but the tolls should be comensurate with the going rates, otherwise taxpayers (who contribute to the fund) who are non-motorists are indirectly subsidising motorists. This isn't fair on those taxpayers who would have to pay regular fares for similarly funded public transport schemes or taxpayers who don't use either. A small point but an important one in an equitable society like ours :rolleyes:
If the M51 is ever built it should include clearance under bridges and beside the carriageway for a railway line. I'm not saying build it at the same time, but a reservation should be made.