NRA want to toll whole M50

leahcim

Don't motorists pay enough tax already.

From breakingnews.ie

The National Roads Authority has started talks aimed at introducing an electronic tolling system on Dublin's M50 motorway.

Reports this morning said the NRA was negotiating with the owners of the West-Link toll bridge about a move to replace physical toll booths with an electronic system.


The reports said the NRA wanted to introduce a scheme where motorists would be charged at entry and exit points to the motorway through an electronic system that detects their movements and removes the need for toll barriers.

fletch

Just why do we pay road tax on our cars?

Chalk

entry and exit?
double the money?

so if i wanted to go to tallaght from the airport and stop at blanch along the way,
presuming i use the m50,
i could be charged upto 8 times?

spockety

Other than posting about it here, what are YOU going to do to prevent this from happening?

The answer is NOTHING. You are not going to do anything. Neither am I. Neither are about 99.9999% of people. We will moan and moan and moan, and post and post and post. But nobody gets up off their holes and does anything. Ireland has one of the most lethargic motoring populations in the entire world.

Bend over and take it like we always do.

Nuttzz

I dont mind paying if the traffic moves freely and i can actually do 120km/h from point to point, i do object to paying for the previlege of sitting in a traffic jam...

Nuttzz

Nuttzz wrote:

I dont mind paying if the traffic moves freely and i can actually do 120km/h from point to point, i do object to paying for the previlege of sitting in a traffic jam...

I second this. Perhaps a system similar to the congestion charging in London where they take a snapshot of your licsense plate. A toll plaza on the busiest ring road in the country is lunacy, no matter how many booths there are there will always be delays due to the ripple effect.

kermit_ie

Every other European country that has tolled motorways, has free sections around urban centres. Why are we the opposite?

comanche

may be wrong on this but originally the toll was for the bridge as thats the only bit that the gov didn't build but now the NTA are building the third lane so therefore if you use the motoway you are to be tolled.

Gegerty

People moan that we have a cr*p infrastructure and diabolical road conditions, now people are moaning when the government does something about it. We no longer get the massive EU funds for our roads so these roads have to be built by private companies who obviously are doing it to make a massive profit. As the poster above has mentioned the extra lane is being built by a private company, if you want to use their road you have to pay for it its as simple as that. The price these companies are quoting for buliding the roads is what people should be complaining about.

spockety

How about we only pay if we use the third lane?

Look, 2 lanes would suddenly appear very adequate if the Toll Bridge was wiped out and replaced with a straight through bridge. People are moaning because the Toll Bridge was a f*ck up of monumental proportions, or to be more accurate, the fact that nothing has been done about it for the last 4 years while the prices continued to rise is a f*ck up of monumental proportions.

They need to do the right thing. Buy out the toll bridge contract, and remove the barriers. Watch the M50 flow then.

J.

Ratchet

kermit_ie wrote:

Every other European country that has tolled motorways, has free sections around urban centres. Why are we the opposite?

we are just different:)

ds20prefecture

Most european countries do the ticket at the on-ramp, pay at the off ramp. If Italy/France was anything to go by, the system works very well, with little or no congestion. Our charges are not as high as France's. I would be happy to pay within reason for the M50 if the west link toll booth (and thus the congestion) was gone.

I recently drove about 400 miles in the US between Boston and Maine. Total tolls about $4. It bugs me a bit to pay €1.80 to go from Killiney to the airport, but it bugs me an helluva lot more to face the city centre and the perpetual road works. If this were to rise to €2 or €2.50 for the full length of the M50, I'd probably grin and bear it.

But if it rises AND they keep the west link (most likely scenario) I'll be well p'd off.

impr0v

spockety wrote:

How about we only pay if we use the third lane?

Look, 2 lanes would suddenly appear very adequate if the Toll Bridge was wiped out and replaced with a straight through bridge. People are moaning because the Toll Bridge was a f*ck up of monumental proportions, or to be more accurate, the fact that nothing has been done about it for the last 4 years while the prices continued to rise is a f*ck up of monumental proportions.

They need to do the right thing. Buy out the toll bridge contract, and remove the barriers. Watch the M50 flow then.

J.

The M50 won't flow then. There was evidence given at the oral hearing for the M50 widening that even with a freeflow tolling system in place, and the third lane built, the road will not be able to cope with the amount of traffic that will use it. The eis is available from south dublin county council's website so you can read the detail there, but to grossly simplify the traffic analysis; extra traffic will be generated to fill the excess capacity. There's an ocean of debate about this issue on the commuting/transport board, so it's not worth getting into the argument of how to fix the M50 conundrum, but the solution inevitably involves the words 'adequate' 'public' and 'transport' as well as 'well designed' 'road' and 'network' in some order.

The tolling referred to in this thread aims to spread the toll along the road and to toll per kilometre used. It is also designed to fuction as a deterrent to traffic using the road when they could more effectively use the non-motorway network to get where they are going, thereby leaving one extra car space for the traffic that does need to use it.

DubTony

Chalk wrote:

entry and exit?
double the money?

so if i wanted to go to tallaght from the airport and stop at blanch along the way,
presuming i use the m50,
i could be charged upto 8 times?

You'd pass a booth or gantry on the way onto the motorway which would read your toll tag. Another would register you going off and charge for the distance travelled. So Tallaght to airport via Blanchardstown is 2 journeys and should equal the cost of travelling Tallaght to airport. Ideally.

Victor

Nuttzz wrote:

I dont mind paying if the traffic moves freely and i can actually do 120km/h from point to point, i do object to paying for the previlege of sitting in a traffic jam...

But to the guy behind you, you are part of the jam.

Nuttzz

impr0v wrote:

The M50 won't flow then. There was evidence given at the oral hearing for the M50 widening that even with a freeflow tolling system in place, and the third lane built

tbh this was the NTR's study, the AA's study said it would flow, the simply solution to produce such evidence is to lift the barriers for a week and see the difference, not studys done by "propeller heads"

Imposter

kermit_ie wrote:

Every other European country that has tolled motorways, has free sections around urban centres. Why are we the opposite?

That's not true. Here in Austria people must buy a Vignette every year for driving on the motorways. This sticker costs about 70€ per year, 22 for 2 months or something like 12 for 10 days. The government then use this money to maintain and upgrade the motorway network.

There are a few private motorways but these are generally really long tunnels or long roads on stilts (in and around the mountains). These are pretty costly to use (between 4 and 10€) but there are other slower options available to drivers. The M50 is nothing compared to some of these constructions.

In Ireland other options generally do exist to taking motorways but they take a ridiculous amount of time. In Austria there is always another option and with the exception of in the mountains they don't take *that* much longer, usually.

If Ireland were to implement a similar sticker system (even modernise it with electronic checks entering and exiting the motorway), as well as a similar system for trucks and buses they could pay for the motorways themselves and not have to rely on public-private partnerships. This would bring down the cost of using the motorways for frequent users without impacting on the quality of the road network.

WizZard

But that would be an intelligent way of doing things...

unkel

Imposter wrote:

Here in Austria people must buy a Vignette every year for driving on the motorways. This sticker costs about 70€ per year, 22 for 2 months or something like 12 for 10 days. The government then use this money to maintain and upgrade the motorway network

So for my €1343 per year I expect the governement to maintain and upgrade the motorway network and not to have to pay any further tolls. Is that unreasonable considering more than half of what I pay for fuel goes to the government as well, let alone VAT and VRT on the purchase of a car and parts, services etc. Where the hell does all this money go? Not to roads or even public transport for that matter :rolleyes:

Ratchet

unkel wrote:

So for my €1343 per year I expect the governement to maintain and upgrade the motorway network and not to have to pay any further tolls. Is that unreasonable considering more than half of what I pay for fuel goes to the government as well, let alone VAT and VRT on the purchase of a car and parts, services etc. Where the hell does all this money go? Not to roads or even public transport for that matter :rolleyes:

i agree and think that m50 should be free. it's more like a ring road around the city which should unload some traffic from some areas of Dublin. as it happens more people are trying to avoid M50 which doesn't help

impr0v

Nuttzz wrote:

tbh this was the NTR's study, the AA's study said it would flow, the simply solution to produce such evidence is to lift the barriers for a week and see the difference, not studys done by "propeller heads"

No it wasn't. It was part of the Environmental Impact Statement for the M50 upgrade scheme put together by Arup consulting engineers and paid for by the four local authorities, NTR had nothing to do with it. The evidence at the hearing was given by a specialised traffic consultant and also by the project engineer, in response to questioning by Green Party TD Eamonn Ryan.

The 'lift the barriers' silver bullet is always going to remain a theoretical solution only.

unkel

impr0v wrote:

even with a freeflow tolling system in place, and the third lane built, the road will not be able to cope with the amount of traffic that will use it

They can "prove" all they like, but it doesn't convince me

With a third lane and a fourth weaving lane all along the M50 plus ALL complete freeflow interchanges (not just one :rolleyes:) and NO tolls, obviously it is going to be a hell of a lot better than it is today, even with increased traffic, which is going to increase anyway...

blastman

impr0v wrote:

The 'lift the barriers' silver bullet is always going to remain a theoretical solution only.

Oh yes, it would be very difficult to make the barriers stay up for a week and observe the results, wouldn't it? Science fiction, that kind of talk is....

deadduck

spockety wrote:

Other than posting about it here, what are YOU going to do to prevent this from happening?

The answer is NOTHING. You are not going to do anything. Neither am I. Neither are about 99.9999% of people. We will moan and moan and moan, and post and post and post. But nobody gets up off their holes and does anything. Ireland has one of the most lethargic motoring populations in the entire world.

Bend over and take it like we always do.

and there lies the crux of the problem. they'll charge it cos we'll pay it.

impr0v

blastman wrote:

Oh yes, it would be very difficult to make the barriers stay up for a week and observe the results, wouldn't it? Science fiction, that kind of talk is....

Yes, it would be. What type of commercial enterprise do you think would agree to such a proposition? Not one canny enough to get itself into such a lucrative position in the first place, that's for certain.

Even in the unlikely event that the government agreed to pay the company a shadow toll for the duration of the experiment, I sincerely doubt that NTR would agree to it, as it would serve to propagate the notion that they are all that's standing between the oppressed commuting public and some kind of idyllic speedway around the capital. They are operating in good faith a contract that they tendered for, received and delivered upon. It makes for good political buck passing to paint them as the evil in the M50 equation, but it's not the reality of the situation.

spockety

Did it not emerge that Ray Burke and Liam Lawlor were directly involved in the process which gave NTR the toll bridge contract?

deadduck

impr0v wrote:

serve to propagate the notion

prove?

Gegerty

blastman wrote:

Oh yes, it would be very difficult to make the barriers stay up for a week and observe the results, wouldn't it? Science fiction, that kind of talk is....

Cars will still have to slow down at the toll bridge causing delays. I'm sure there'll be plenty of muppets stopping at them as well, it'll probably be a very dangerous thing to do.

impr0v

unkel wrote:

They can "prove" all they like, but it doesn't convince me

With a third lane and a fourth weaving lane all along the M50 plus ALL complete freeflow interchanges (not just one :rolleyes:) and NO tolls, obviously it is going to be a hell of a lot better than it is today, even with increased traffic, which is going to increase anyway...

All their study are effectively based upon mathematical predictions of the future, so there is always going to be a hit and miss element to it, but they're more qualified than you or I, so personally I would tend to take the predictions seriously. It's your perogative to take them with a pinch of salt, and historical evidence would perhaps suggest that you are right to do so.

I think the argument is that yes, there will of course be an improvement with the added capacity of the extra lanes and freeflow junctions, for a time. Once the carbound public know that they can use the M50 at all times of the day and complete a delay free journey on it, they use it more frequently and in greater numbers as people factor it into decisions about where they can commute to and from and where they shop, etc. Eventually, and you'll have to consult the EIS to see how long this takes as it's December since I've heard this debated, the traffic increases to a level whereby the volume itself is enough to cause obstructions, a phenomenon that people will already be familiar with from other roads where one person braking can cause a concertina effect which turns into start-stop queuing conditions.

spockety

Anyone who actually believes that removing the toll barriers completely will not help traffic flow needs their heads examined.

impr0v

deadduck wrote:

prove?

If it did, it would be a PR disaster. As a shareholder or decision maker in NTR would you take that chance?

Macy

impr0v wrote:

I sincerely doubt that NTR would agree to it, as it would serve to propagate the notion that they are all that's standing between the oppressed commuting public and some kind of idyllic speedway around the capital.

It would either prove or dispell the notion. If they're not willing to do it if asked, then they already know the answer and so will we.

They would still have to be brought out of the ridiculous contract, which this fookin Government renewed ffs (so remember that going to the polls next time or else don't come moaning about it).

spockety

The decision needs to be taken out of the hands of NTR.

We, the people, can do whatever the hell we like really, through our elected representatives. That is democracy.

Remove the toll barriers NOW.

impr0v

spockety wrote:

Did it not emerge that Ray Burke and Liam Lawlor were directly involved in the process which gave NTR the toll bridge contract?

I don't know, did it? If it did and you feel this entitles you to free passage over the liffey valley at 120kph then get your legal team together and clear the lanes for a grateful public.

impr0v

spockety wrote:

The decision needs to be taken out of the hands of NTR.

We, the people, can do whatever the hell we like really, through our elected representatives. That is democracy.

Remove the toll barriers NOW.

You, the people, already did what you liked, you elected representatives who signed this contract which, at least in hindsight, seems to have been a tremendously favorable one for NTR.

The idea that they can just take that contract away now, without adequately recompensing the signatories is a naive nonsense.

impr0v

Macy wrote:

It would either prove or dispell the notion. If they're not willing to do it if asked, then they already know the answer and so will we.

They would still have to be brought out of the ridiculous contract, which this fookin Government renewed ffs (so remember that going to the polls next time or else don't come moaning about it).

I'm not sure it would as, as one of the above posters alluded to, there would still be the requirement for huge amount of traffic to filter through the corral of the toll gates, which are by their nature unsafe to be negotiated at anything more than crawling speed. Also, the announcment that the barriers are lifted for a week is going to have effects on the amount of traffic that uses the road.

I suspect it would have a positive effect on congestion, ignoring the possibility of excess traffic arriving for free passage, as common sense says it would. However, it's not going to remove congestion at the toll bridge and it also ignores the existence of a commercial entity there which has to be reimbursed for the use of their facility.

As you say above, political intervention arising from public pressure is the only thing which will remove the barriers for good, but it will take a massive sum to buy their way out of the contract, a sum that the exchequer will doubly lose upon, as it removes a lucrative stream of revenue for them too.

Nuttzz

impr0v wrote:

No it wasn't. It was part of the Environmental Impact Statement for the M50 upgrade scheme put together by Arup consulting engineers and paid for by the four local authorities, NTR had nothing to do with it. The evidence at the hearing was given by a specialised traffic consultant and also by the project engineer, in response to questioning by Green Party TD Eamonn Ryan.

The 'lift the barriers' silver bullet is always going to remain a theoretical solution only.

my bad.

I would like to see the barriers lifted as an experiment though, I'd rather be proved wrong by lifting the barriers than someone proving me wrong on a spreadsheet, cars should be able to safely go through it at 60km/h, although the government gets about €1.20 out of the toll the financial loss would be more to tha tax payer than NTR but I cant see NTR lifting them either.

Macy

impr0v wrote:

As you say above, political intervention arising from public pressure is the only thing which will remove the barriers for good, but it will take a massive sum to buy their way out of the contract, a sum that the exchequer will doubly lose upon, as it removes a lucrative stream of revenue for them too.

Not necessarily, with a proper tolling system for the whole M50. They'd be collecting the whole toll, so it should be at worst cost neutral.

btw the comment about voting for them was meant as a general comment.

unkel

spockety wrote:

We, the people, can do whatever the hell we like really, through our elected representatives. That is democracy

In theory yes, in Ireland no

Just walked past government buildings and there was a black Maybach parked outside. Full of brown envelopes and no space left for receipts?

spockety

impr0v wrote:

You, the people, already did what you liked, you elected representatives who signed this contract which, at least in hindsight, seems to have been a tremendously favorable one for NTR.

And IN HINDSIGHT (thanks to tribunals) it would appear that we (though not I, as I was too young to vote) elected representatives who were willing to offer favourable deals to companies and individuals in return for large amounts of cash in the form of bribes.

These elected individuals are being dealt with (with jail terms in some cases), let's clean up the rest of the mess by undoing their dirty deeds.

MrPudding

Where do the cars go? If the barriers are removed, in the short term, traffic over the bridge will be faster. More cars will use the road. Where will they go? NTR have said in the past that the toll bridge prevent congestion from happening elsewhere. I think this might actually make some sense. The roads leading off the M50 do not seem to have the capacity to take the traffic from the M50. This does not, of course, justify paying for the privilige of sitting in traffic waiting to cross a ****ty bridge.

MrP

blastman

impr0v wrote:

Yes, it would be. What type of commercial enterprise do you think would agree to such a proposition? Not one canny enough to get itself into such a lucrative position in the first place, that's for certain.

Even in the unlikely event that the government agreed to pay the company a shadow toll for the duration of the experiment, I sincerely doubt that NTR would agree to it, as it would serve to propagate the notion that they are all that's standing between the oppressed commuting public and some kind of idyllic speedway around the capital. They are operating in good faith a contract that they tendered for, received and delivered upon. It makes for good political buck passing to paint them as the evil in the M50 equation, but it's not the reality of the situation.

Very little about the deal to award the contract for the M50 toll bridge could be described as "good faith". I think a more accurate term is "back hander".

It would only serve to propagate the notion you describe IF it turned to be true. In which case the further notion would be propagated that the people who carried out the study that said getting rid of the toll booth wasn't the way to go had vested interests at heart. Finally, the notion that yes, we really are being conned would be proagated even further.

So no, of course NTR/government aren't going to agree to it. No point in being found out while you're still creaming it, is there?

blastman

Gegerty wrote:

Cars will still have to slow down at the toll bridge causing delays. I'm sure there'll be plenty of muppets stopping at them as well, it'll probably be a very dangerous thing to do.

Signs well in advance and block off most of the booths, so there are just the standard two lanes going through the toll booth. You can't go through the booths at full motorway speed, agreed, but getting through at, say, 80kmh has to better than the current situation.

blastman

MrPudding wrote:

Where do the cars go? If the barriers are removed, in the short term, traffic over the bridge will be faster. More cars will use the road. Where will they go? NTR have said in the past that the toll bridge prevent congestion from happening elsewhere. I think this might actually make some sense. The roads leading off the M50 do not seem to have the capacity to take the traffic from the M50. This does not, of course, justify paying for the privilige of sitting in traffic waiting to cross a ****ty bridge.

MrP

More cars will use the road, sure, but people aren't going to drive up and down the M50 for the sake of it, either. I agree that the exit roads from the M50 are poor, with junctions like the M1/M50 and the M4/M50 being particularly badly designed.

DubTony

I think we should all accept that the whole M50 will be tolled sooner or later. Gantries, electronic tolling equipment and toll tags in the car will be the order of the day. The only problem is the outrageous toll charge on the bridge. In order for a complete M50 tolling system to work this will have to be integrated into the equation. I don't see NTR dropping it's prices unless it gets a sweetener from the government, but it must be remembered that the government gets most of the money paid to NTR (including the VAT).
Considering the cost of tolls in other countries it wouldn't be unfair to expect a total M50 toll of about €3 to €4. The €1.80 in the middle would knock that way out of whack.
With the final leg opening any minute it seems that most people using the M50 will never need to pay a toll. Tolling the whole thing is the NRA's way of gaining revenue for future projects and "spreading the load" across all users. But that bridge toll has to go.

AMurphy

unkel wrote:

..... Where the hell does all this money go? Not to roads or even public transport for that matter :rolleyes:

Pet projects like a marina for foreign/tourist sailboats in Westport, spikes in O'Connel st., etc.

Merks for the Gov carpool, corp jets, health and then lawsuits relating to mismanaged health care, draining the Shannon, how many tribunals are currently running or is that witch hunt over and now moved onto better things like snatching up expensive, but untaxed joy rides.... win or loose who pays?.

Macy

MrPudding wrote:

Where do the cars go? If the barriers are removed, in the short term, traffic over the bridge will be faster. More cars will use the road. Where will they go? NTR have said in the past that the toll bridge prevent congestion from happening elsewhere. I think this might actually make some sense. The roads leading off the M50 do not seem to have the capacity to take the traffic from the M50.

Perhaps, but I don't believe reports from vested interests. Which in this case includes the Government and it's agencies, who'll do anything to cover FF's back...

causal

I object in principle to the whole concept of tolling; I've no problem that (as has been said) I pay road tax, tax on petrol, VRT etc. but tolls to me are double taxation.

I've no problem with investors getting a decent ROI (Return On Investement) but the tolls seem to think that ROI means RipOffIreland :rolleyes:
I think it's a joke that fat-cat private investors get rich off the back of motorists.

It's also hugely disappointing that the Government didn't secure cheaper (overall for the public) ways of financing than the PPP.
Perhaps they didn't want to borrow directly (Gov Bonds, Certs, whatever) because it wouldn't look as good for the national debt and balance of payments.

causal

Victor

Nuttzz wrote:

tbh this was the NTR's study, the AA's study said it would flow, the simply solution to produce such evidence is to lift the barriers for a week and see the difference, not studys done by "propeller heads"

It might work for a week, but it won't work for life.

causal

The throughput of a carriageway decreases in proportion to the number of junctions on it.

The type(s) of junction is also hugely significant - a slip-road / merging lane - has much less effect on throughput than a junction governerd by traffic lights.

imho, an ideal solution would be
(1) no toll booths
(2) slip roads for the motorway exits (already in place)
(3) slip roads at the exit/entrance of these motorway exits (i.e. not an exit slip road ending in a traffic-lighted roundabout like the Mad-Cow).

The argument that implementing (1) will push the problem to the slip roads has merit; but not if (3) is implemented.

causal

DubTony

causal wrote:

The throughput of a carriageway decreases in proportion to the number of junctions on it.

The type(s) of junction is also hugely significant - a slip-road / merging lane - has much less effect on throughput than a junction governerd by traffic lights.

imho, an ideal solution would be
(1) no toll booths
(2) slip roads for the motorway exits (already in place)
(3) slip roads at the exit/entrance of these motorway exits (i.e. not an exit slip road ending in a traffic-lighted roundabout like the Mad-Cow).

The argument that implementing (1) will push the problem to the slip roads has merit; but not if (3) is implemented.

causal

The lights were put on the roundabouts because the through road traffic, i.e. the road that's not the motorway, was preventing traffic leaving the motorway. Traffic needs to be carried away from motorways quickly and hassle free and merge with through traffic hundreds of metres from the motorway they've just left.

The Scholarstown Interchange is a perfect example of atrocious planning. The roads leading away from the motorway are both single lane carraigeways that are jammed at peak times This actually causes traffic to have to sit on the motorway. When these roads reach the next junction (in this case a roundabout at Scholarstown Rd. and a roundabout at Ballycullen road), the traffic miraculously disappears. We also have the situation where traffic leaving and then crossing the motorway has to battle / merge with traffic that's leaving the motorway from the other direction. So a lot of the time gridlock is inevitable.

As for lifting the barriers at the toll bridge? Won't make any difference. As we've seen today, when you allow traffic easy access to the motorway i.e. good access roads, it simply allows traffic to get to the jams quicker. Traffic must be allowed leave the motorway without stopping. The toll bridge actually prevents traffic piling up at exits. In fact if the tolls were removed for a week, by the end of the week there'd be so many people "trying ot out" that you can safely bet that the whole thing would grind to a halt.

Electronic tolling is the only answer to tolls combined with free flow or even some type of semi free flow junctions.