NRA want to toll whole M50

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.

causal

I think we're agreeing here DubTony.

The point you make about the traffic leaving the motorway getting stuck at the end of the exit ramp is point (3) in my post above - i.e. I was saying that ideally the traffic on the exit ramp shouldn't have to stop at a junction - but should be able to merge with the carriageway it's joining.
fwiw at Scholarstown there is/was a plan for ac/deceleration lanes for traffic join/leaving the M50.

Opening the toll booths pushing traffic onto the sliproads - I referred to in the last line of my previous post. And mentioned the ideal solution is as per the above paragraph.

Of course ideal # real

causal

DubTony

causal wrote:

I think we're agreeing here DubTony.
causal

I know. Imagine - agreement on the boards. Beats the crap out of banging heads with bikers, I'll tell ya.

You see, I live in Ballycullen so I have to put up with the sh!te every day and this seemed like the perfect time moan about it. And as I can't sleep, I thought it would be a good idea to complicate what you'd just said to see if it wore me out.
It didn't.

unkel

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?

Liam Lawlor, Padraig Flynn, George Redmond and Charles Haughey took bribes from the late Tom Roche, founder of NTR and obviously one shrewd businessman. I hope we will ever find out who else took bribes and the full extent of the corruption

Liam Lawlor was also paid £74,000 in consulting fees for writing up a vague report about the economics of tolling

The government was advised to build a 3 lane motorway with freeflow interchanges but they decided to save the equivalent of €0.02 by only building a 2 lane motorway with retard interchanges :mad:

causal

DubTony wrote:

I know. Imagine - agreement on the boards. Beats the crap out of banging heads with bikers, I'll tell ya.

You see, I live in Ballycullen so I have to put up with the sh!te every day and this seemed like the perfect time moan about it. And as I can't sleep, I thought it would be a good idea to complicate what you'd just said to see if it wore me out.
It didn't.

Just read some of the threads around here and you'll be out like a baby
fwiw I used to bang heads with the traffic there when the M50 ended at Balrothery; and then when it ended at Scholarstown - but I bought a bike and cut a 90 minute journey into a 25 minute journey

causal

Andrew Duffy

The government was advised to build a 3 lane motorway with freeflow interchanges but they decided to save the equivalent of €0.02 by only building a 2 lane motorway with retard interchanges

I think the EU funding would not cover a higher capacity road due to the lack of an existing route to demonstrate demand.

causal

Andrew Duffy wrote:

I think the EU funding would not cover a higher capacity road due to the lack of an existing route to demonstrate demand.

If that was the case then the sensible solution would be to design and build the motorway with 3 lane capability - but only open 2 lanes initially - until the demand is demonstrated and then open the 3rd lane.

Surely the eurbots know from history that any carriageway around a capital city will be in demand :rolleyes:

causal

Andrew Duffy

If that was the case then the sensible solution would be to design and build the motorway with 3 lane capability - but only open 2 lanes initially - until the demand is demonstrated and then open the 3rd lane.

That's pretty much what was done - the alignment was made wide enough for four lanes + shoulder each side, the Liffey Valley bridge was built offset from the mainline and the foundations for the second bridge were accounted for. The junctions could have been designed with upgrading in mind, but we'd probably just get three-level stacked roundabouts if that had been the case, and they are almost as inadequate as the junctions that are there now.

causal

Andrew Duffy wrote:

That's pretty much what was done - the alignment was made wide enough for four lanes + shoulder each side,

Are you sure about that? Often driving along the M50 I look at the support columns for the bridges plus their guard rails and think to myself it was poor design for future expansion
I'll try to give concrete (pardon the pun) examples next time I'm on it.

causal

Andrew Duffy

It will be three lanes plus a (narrow) shoulder through the junctions - the fourth lane between junctions is for weaving. The current median, and the lanes themselves, are very wide for an urban motorway, and if you have a look from the top of the N4 interchange it's striking how much offline the original bridge was - it was always intended to be a four-lane northbound carriageway rather than two two-lane ones.

Edit - attached an aerial from myhome showing the original bridge and the funnelling of the southbound carriageway.

causal

Credit where it's due then since it seems they did plan for extra lanes
But I still have to check some of the bridges (that you pass under) because my memory is that they're a pinch point. Unless the trick is to make the hard shoulder narrower - but that's a compromise on safety imho.

Not to totally go off topic, but hopefully with the addition of the extra lane they'll install proper armco type barriers to separate the two sides of the motorway - rather than the cheese grater post + wires they have now :mad:

btw that's a cool aerial shot - you wouldn't know it was a bridge except for it's shadow. Now I feel like one of those bots that look for enemy targets from recon shots

causal