nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

M50 Congestion

First Up

I had to go from Dalkey to just off the N81 towards Blessington yesterday at about 5pm. The obvious (only?) route was via Cherrywood to the M50 and off at Firhouse. I expected it to be busy but nothing could prepare me for the experience.

No problems getting to the M50 but as I approached the Carrickmines junction the signs were flashing about delays and I could already see the tailback ahead. It then took well over an hour to cover the few miles to Firhouse. There was no sign of any accidents and the traffic programme on Dublin City FM just casually mentioned it was slow but it sounded like they considered this normal.

Is this normal? The motorway on that section is at least 2 and mostly 3 lanes and the only "complications" are a couple of exit and entry points. Is that all it takes to reduce traffic to 5k an hour in first gear? (It seemed to be equally bad further on.)

Do regular users have to put up with this every day?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

LeinsterDub

Thargor wrote: »

I genuinely think ebikes are going to solve a big chunk of the problem, they're the absolute ideal solution and the technology improves every couple of months nevermind years. The only thing holding back mass adoption is people don't know how good they are, anyone who tries one is addicted straight away. The government should be incentivising the crap out of them.

I still commute on my roadbike because it keeps me thin and fit and Bray is just one big traffic disaster at peak times that I can cruise past but I'll be straight onto an ebike in a couple of decades when I start getting too old for manual.

The thing that holds them back is the same thing holding back regular bike and other PEV. Lack of infrastructure. The roads can be a horrible place to cycle

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

The thing that holds them back is the same thing holding back regular bike and other PEV. Lack of infrastructure. The roads can be a horrible place to cycle

The other thing holding them back is they are illegal on motorways

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

The other thing holding them back is they are illegal on motorways

I'm sure very few people want to cycle on a motorway

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

I'm sure very few people want to cycle on a motorway

So the suggestion that e bikes are the solution to M50 congestion might be flawed?

Thargor

M50 congestion is just a symptom of the ridiculous amount of single occupancy cars on our roads in Dublin, if we had cycling adoption even a fraction of our EU neighbors in the city centre it would solve the M50 problem at the same time, its the congestion at the exits and the destinations that backs up onto the motorway.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

So the suggestion that e bikes are the solution to M50 congestion might be flawed?

That majority of cars on the M50 are single occupancy transporting just themselves. Each person who takes up an e bike instead of driving is part of the solution

First Up

Thargor wrote:

M50 congestion is just a symptom of the ridiculous amount of single occupancy cars on our roads in Dublin, if we had cycling adoption even a fraction of our EU neighbors in the city centre it would solve the M50 problem at the same time, its the congestion at the exits and the destinations that backs up onto the motorway.

I'm all in favour of anything that reduces single occupancy car traffic in the city centre. I'd need a more detailed explanation as to how that helps reduce congestion at junctions on an orbital motorway like the M50.

ELM327

First Up wrote: »

The other thing holding them back is they are illegal on motorways

Some are illegal anyway.
Similar to the ridiculous e scooters

Illegal without tax, insurance, NCT, license

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

I'm all in favour of anything that reduces single occupancy car traffic in the city centre. I'd need a more detailed explanation as to how that helps reduce congestion at junctions on an orbital motorway like the M50.

OK make sure you're sitting down because this is very complicated and involves lots of higher order maths.

More people cycling means less people driving . Less people driving means less congestion.

Wow what do you know it's actually not complicated at all and there was no maths.

[Deleted User]

LeinsterDub wrote: »

OK may sure you're sitting down because this is very complicated and involves lots of higher order maths.

More people cycling means less people driving . Less people driving means less congestion. Less congestion means that driving becomes more attractive, which means more people driving.

Wow what do you know it's actually not complicated at all and there was no maths.

Fixed.

Lets not kid ourselves here, the vast majority of those who drive in/out of work are all for reducing congestion so that they can continue driving without there being as much traffic in their way.

MJohnston

First Up wrote: »

I'm all in favour of anything that reduces single occupancy car traffic in the city centre. I'd need a more detailed explanation as to how that helps reduce congestion at junctions on an orbital motorway like the M50.

It's pretty simple - a vast amount of cars on the M50 are not making orbital-only journeys.

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

More people cycling means less people driving . Less people driving means less congestion.

Thanks. Now can you apply that equation to the M50, where cycling is not allowed?

First Up

MJohnston wrote:

It's pretty simple - a vast amount of cars on the M50 are not making orbital-only journeys.

Probably, but they still need alternatives to using it, even if for only one or two junctions. Moving cars and trucks off the M50 ( a road designed to cater for them) onto suburban roads (which are not) is not solving the problem.

The M50 exists and is used for valid reasons and nobody need apologise for doing so. I'm just asking them to use it properly.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

Thanks. Now can you apply that equation to the M50, where cycling is not allowed?

Because if someone is on their bike they aren't on the m50 in their car now are they?

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

Probably, but they still need alternatives to using it, even if for only one or two junctions. Moving cars and trucks off the M50 ( a road designed to cater for them) onto suburban roads (which are not) is not solving the problem.

The M50 exists and is used for valid reasons and nobody need apologise for doing so. I'm just asking them to use it properly.

Perhaps moving these one or two junction users on to some form on 2 wheeled transport?

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

Because if someone is on their bike they aren't on the m50 in their car now are they?

They could avoid the M50 by staying in bed too but that has its drawbacks.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

They could avoid the M50 by staying in bed too but that has its drawbacks.

So does using the M50 , everything has benefits and drawbacks.

What exactly is you're objection, no one is saying you'll have to cycle. What we are saying is if you make cycling safer more people will cycle which will help congestion with a near 0 impact on you.

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

Perhaps moving these one or two junction users on to some form on 2 wheeled transport?

Fine, if those two junctions are a big part of the overall journey. Not so fine if it isn't.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

Fine, if those two junctions are a big part of the overall journey. Not so fine if it isn't.

When people talk about driving imagine how moronic it would be to say "well you can't drive to Australia can you! Ha ha."

We are talking about horses for courses, no one is saying cycling is for everyone , no one is saying you have to cycle everywhere .

What they are saying is that people are avoiding cycling because they don't feel safe and this is adding to congestion

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

What exactly is you're objection, no one is saying you'll have to cycle. What we are saying is if you make cycling safer more people will cycle which will help congestion with a near 0 impact on you.

I'm all in favour of people cycling but I'm not convinced it is the solution to congestion on a road where cycling is not allowed. Nor am I convinced cycling is a realistic alternative for many people using an orbital motorway.

MJohnston

First Up wrote: »

Probably, but they still need alternatives to using it, even if for only one or two junctions. Moving cars and trucks off the M50 ( a road designed to cater for them) onto suburban roads (which are not) is not solving the problem.

The M50 exists and is used for valid reasons and nobody need apologise for doing so. I'm just asking them to use it properly.

The main problem with trying to "solve" M50 congestion is that induced demand means that every car you remove from the road will just be replaced with another one. So there is no solution to that congestion.

What you can solve instead is the root problem - people are trying to make orbital journeys.

So we can start by adding lots of orbital bus routes that try to provide viable alternative options to driving in cars. Something BusConnects will start to do. Once those routes are in place, then you need to start removing road space from cars, and giving it to more sustainable and efficient modes.

In the meantime, encouraging people to adopt alternative means of transport like e-Bikes is a very valid approach. I saw today that a company called Moby Move is launching a stationless e-Bike rental scheme in the city. The councils of Dublin should be encouraging and stimulating more and more of those, to distances much further out from the city than schemes like Dublin Bikes currently provide. And they should be providing more cycling infrastructure to enable these schemes to become more useful to all.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

I'm all in favour of people cycling but I'm not convinced it is the solution to congestion on a road where cycling is not allowed. Nor am I convinced cycling is a realistic alternative for many people using an orbital motorway.

It's a realistic alternative for some people as such it would reduce congestion .
It's a realistic alternative for some people using the roads the M50 feeds into it and as such it would reduce congestion.
It's a realistic alternative for some people's children to get to school so they could take a bus as such it would reduce congestion .
It's a realistic alternative for some people currently taking a packed bus, this would allow people in cars to take the bus.

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

It's a realistic alternative for some people as such it would reduce congestion . It's a realistic alternative for some people using the roads the M50 feeds into it and as such it would reduce congestion. It's a realistic alternative for some people's children to get to school so they could take a bus as such it would reduce congestion . It's a realistic alternative for some people currently taking a packed bus, this would allow people in cars to take the bus.

All probably true but by enough to make much difference? The M50 traverses (and serves) outer suburbs, industrial estates and shopping centres as well as linking the main routes in/out of the city. None of those are areas designed or attractive for cycling.

The benefits of cycling are obvious but offering it as an M50 solution is hobby horsing.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

All probably true but by enough to make much difference? The M50 traverses (and serves) outer suburbs, industrial estates and shopping centres as well as linking the main routes in/out of the city. None of those are areas designed or attractive for cycling.

The benefits of cycling are obvious but offering it as an M50 solution is hobby horsing.

It's part of the solution , I didn't say it was the whole solution. To be honest the M50 is a case study in induced demand. It's congestion may never be solved , it might just get less congested.

MJohnston

So what are your alternatives?

Rubberchikken

maybe planners will need/be able to design roads with a lane only for vehicles with more than 1 occupant.

the number if single occupant cars is a symptom of of dire public transport/unwillingness of many to engage with the one we already have/and a desire to seal ourselves away from the world behind our car doors.

Elmer Blooker

Seve OB wrote: »

we are at the stage now where we need a new motorway, not in 10 years time, but now!
It needs to link M7 from Naas, through M4 @ Maynooth, M3 @ Dunboyne, M2 @ Ashbourne & M1 @ Balbriggan.

In theory a good idea if only those junctions were on this 'new M50' but in no time a local TD would be lobbying for an exit/entry in their constituency and the town centres with their gigantic car parks and multiplex cinemas would follow .... you know the rest!
This happened before when the Lissenhall junction at Swords wasn't in the original M1 plans but after lobbying Irish style the single occupant commuters got their way. Also the Irish are particularly good at trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

LeinsterDub

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

In theory a good idea if only those junctions were on this 'new M50' but in no time a local TD would be lobbying for an exit/entry in their constituency and the town centres with their gigantic car parks and multiplex cinemas would follow .... you know the rest!
This happened before when the Lissenhall junction at Swords wasn't in the original M1 plans but after lobbying Irish style the single occupant commuters got their way. Also the Irish are particularly good at trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Expecting more roads to solve congestion won't work

LeinsterDub

Rubberchikken wrote: »

maybe planners will need/be able to design roads with a lane only for vehicles with more than 1 occupant.

the number if single occupant cars is a symptom of of dire public transport/unwillingness of many to engage with the one we already have/and a desire to seal ourselves away from the world behind our car doors.

What if we took this idea one step further and they designed roads for large cars with many occupants we could call it a bus lane

ELM327

First Up wrote: »

They could avoid the M50 by staying in bed too but that has its drawbacks.

They could, but I don't think their employers would be too happy