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

Something , something cameras!

https://twitter.com/VirginMediaNews/status/1199749731691507712

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

Something , something cameras!

Beats a magic wand and wishful thinking.

Increasing traffic on the M50 is a reason to improve driving standards, not an excuse not to.

cdaly_

First Up wrote: »

I'm not arguing the relative importance of my journeys but a road with over 140,000 daily users deserves attention. Delays on the M50 affect more people than any others and unlike commuter routes into and out of the city, people caught up in them have few other options.

Or not.

According to this post, the Luas green line carries more people than the entire M50 and that's just one tram line. Add the Red line, Dart, commuter rail, and thousands* of buses and the M50 congestion is just an annoyance.

* Maybe only hundreds, one bus can manage a lot of people in a day.

First Up

cdaly_ wrote:

, the Luas green line carries more people than the entire M50 and that's just one tram line. Add the Red line, Dart, and thousands* of buses and the M50 congestion is just an annoyance.

Thank you for making my point for me. Almost anyone going into or across central Dublin has public transport available as an alternative to their car.

Nobody starts or completes their journey on the M50; it is designed to distribute people across a wide area by connecting the spokes of a large wheel. That's all it can ever do.

Replicating that with public transport is logistically and financially impossible. Expecting M50 users to go into the city and out again via public transport or on bicycles is just nonsense.

We need the M50; we just need to use it properly. It won't be perfect but it could be a lot better.

As a footnote; I had to get from Stillorgan to Clondalkin for 19.15 last evening - the height of rush hour. I used the M50 between Sandyford and the N81, then Belgard Rd. No accidents; traffic flowed freely and I completed the entire journey in 25 minutes.

Google Maps showed my alternatives on public transport at two and a half hours

markpb

First Up wrote: »

As a footnote; I had to get from Stillorgan to Clondalkin for 19.15 last evening - the height of rush hour. I used the M50 between Sandyford and the N81, then Belgard Rd. No accidents; traffic flowed freely and I completed the entire journey in 25 minutes.

Google Maps showed my alternatives on public transport at two and a half hours

If we took the billion euro spent upgrading the M50 and spent it on public transport instead, a lot of those journeys would be a whole lot more viable by public transport. Instead, we've thrown money into a black hole.

LeinsterDub

First Up wrote: »

Replicating that with public transport is logistically and financially impossible. Expecting M50 users to go into the city and out again via public transport or on bicycles is just nonsense.

Metro West would easily replicate the trip

First Up

LeinsterDub wrote:

Metro West would easily replicate the trip

Great. Where do I get it?

First Up

markpb wrote:

If we took the billion euro spent upgrading the M50 and spent it on public transport instead, a lot of those journeys would be a whole lot more viable by public transport. Instead, we've thrown money into a black hole.

140,000 cars a day isn't a black hole - or a white elephant. Of course there are possible alternatives but the M50 exists, serves a purpose and does it well when used properly.

If we are spending billions on metros because people don't know how to use a motorway, we might need to reflect on our priorities

Nijmegen

Interestingly, my company is now opening a consultation on a more flexible and formal working from home policy (as distinct to local and ad hoc arrangements in place today) in response to the pretty marked uptick in requests from staff who are just finding it miserable out of proportion to how it was in prior years getting to and from the place (and the office, incidentally, is quite near a major bus route focal point on the southside).

Again I reckon a small tip from government could push more companies to do this, taking a few thousand cars off the roads and easing pressure on some over burdened public transport methods (looking at you, Irish Rail) in the process. Maybe it only makes a small dent, but there is no one panacea solution I reckon.

tom1ie

First Up wrote: »

140,000 cars a day isn't a black hole - or a white elephant. Of course there are possible alternatives but the M50 exists, serves a purpose and does it well when used properly.

If we are spending billions on metros because people don't know how to use a motorway, we might need to reflect on our priorities

I would say people not knowing how to use motorways is only part of the problem. The main problem being there are too many cars in use at the same time and there is no viable pt available.

First Up

tom1ie wrote:

I would say people not knowing how to use motorways is only part of the problem. The main problem being there are too many cars in use at the same time and there is no viable pt available.

Its a big part of the problem. When there are no accidents blocking lanes, the M50 works as well as any urban motorway I've used in the UK, US, mainland Europe or Asia.

magicbastarder

First Up wrote: »

140,000 cars a day isn't a black hole

between the red cow and lucan junctions was at 155k a day, 18 months ago - is 140k the figure averaged out over the whole motorway?

Elmer Blooker

First Up wrote: »

140,000 cars a day isn't a black hole - or a white elephant. Of course there are possible alternatives but the M50 exists, serves a purpose and does it well when used properly.

If we are spending billions on metros because people don't know how to use a motorway, we might need to reflect on our priorities

It is a white elephant, a failure, a flop.
In theory a motorway's function is the move traffic fast and efficiently and keep traffic away from urban areas but build gigantic shopping centres/town centres with acres of car parking every few miles along a motorway then traffic will be sucked in resulting in inevitable and predictable chaos.
The M50 is a road for those who are going shopping and not just those who are trying to make a living.
I would estimate that at least 90% of journeys on the M50 would only be a few miles or one or two junctions.

tjhook

When the Dart was built, people flocked to it. When Luas was introduced, it quickly filled up. Decisions on modes of transport are made on a micro basis. If changing (either way!) makes my daily commute quicker, convenient or cheaper, I'll consider it strongly.

If more public transport capacity is provided, it will be used. Isn't that the same logic that's used to dissuade the building of new roads? That when provided, it will quickly fill up and we'll end up with roads as busy as ever? So just provide more and better public transport, and there will be a shift.

There will always be a number of people who refuse to change, whether for reasons of health, distance, route or bloody-mindedness. But there's no point focusing on those people until there's an alternative to nudge them towards. It doesn't need 100% of drivers to change.

And if the response is that more public transport capacity cannot be provided, then we need to stop implementing policy that adds to the population in the Dublin area. E.g. stop with all the planning permissions for more office space etc. If transport links can't be provided, then the city is at capacity.

First Up

tjhook wrote:

If more public transport capacity is provided, it will be used. Isn't that the same logic that's used to dissuade the building of new roads? That when provided, it will quickly fill up and we'll end up with roads as busy as ever? So just provide more and better public transport, and there will be a shift.

No argument with that, as long as the PT meets peoples' needs. TFI/Dublin Bus cross city routes 75, 175 and 17 all pass close to me and I've used all of them.

By all means put public transport on the M50 too. Lots of it. But the people using it will first need to get to the M50 and will need another bus when they get off.

Nobody's journey starts and ends on the M50.

First Up

Elmer Blooker wrote:

It is a white elephant, a failure, a flop.

That reminds me of the Yogi Berra line about a New York eatery;
"Nobody goes there any more. Its too crowded".

First Up

magicbastarder wrote:

between the red cow and lucan junctions was at 155k a day, 18 months ago - is 140k the figure averaged out over the whole motorway?

Its a figure I saw. Open to correction. Whether is 140k or 150k doesn't really matter. People use it because it takes them where they need to go.

markpb

First Up wrote: »

140,000 cars a day isn't a black hole - or a white elephant. Of course there are possible alternatives but the M50 exists, serves a purpose and does it well when used properly.

If we are spending billions on metros because people don't know how to use a motorway, we might need to reflect on our priorities

The billion euro spent widening the M50 was a black hole because it didn't solve the problem, it just allowed more people to be stuck in congestion for longer. Worse still, the upgrade allows TII to justify silly things like widening the Dublin-bound carriageways of the N11 and N7 which will just dump more traffic on the M50.

I know you believe that improving peoples driving abilities will increase capacity on the M50 but, for several hours a day, the motorway is so far past it's design capacity that drivers behaviour won't have any significant impact. Crashes certainly make it worse but if they weren't there, it would still be congested. If you did manage to increase capacity, the motorway would become more attractive, vehicle numbers would increase and any extra capacity would be swallowed up again.

First Up

markpb wrote:

I know you believe that improving peoples driving abilities will increase capacity on the M50 but, for several hours a day, the motorway is so far past it's design capacity that drivers behaviour won't have any significant impact. Crashes certainly make it worse but if they weren't there, it would still be congested. If you did manage to increase capacity, the motorway would become more attractive, vehicle numbers would increase and any extra capacity would be swallowed up again.

Last evening I used the M50 to get from Stillorgan to Clondalkin in 25 minutes. At rush hour.

Two weeks ago it took me an hour and 45 minutes to get to Lucan. Same time, same weather, same volume of traffic.

Guess what the difference was.

The M50 can work if used properly.

tjhook

First Up wrote: »

Last evening I used the M50 to get from Stillorgan to Clondalkin in 25 minutes. At rush hour.

Two weeks ago it took me an hour and 45 minutes to get to Lucan. Same time, same weather, same volume of traffic.

Guess what the difference was.

You remembered to release the handbrake?

Can you give a clue to the...erm...slower among us?

All I can think of is the tractor protests, but I can't see how that would have improved M50 traffic.

First Up

tjhook wrote:

Can you give a clue to the...erm...slower among us?

No accidents.

MJohnston

You. Can't. Prevent. Accidents.

tom1ie

First Up wrote: »

Its a big part of the problem. When there are no accidents blocking lanes, the M50 works as well as any urban motorway I've used in the UK, US, mainland Europe or Asia.

Yes and when there are no accidents but heavy traffic it works just like every other urban motorway, which is to say not great.

First Up

MJohnston wrote: »

You. Can't. Prevent. Accidents.

That's an interesting attitude to bring with you as you turn on the engine.

First Up

tom1ie wrote: »

Yes and when there are no accidents but heavy traffic it works just like every other urban motorway, which is to say not great.

Of course; its busy. But it isn't disastrous.

Thargor

First Up wrote: »

That's an interesting attitude to bring with you as you turn on the engine.

Are you actually disagreeing with that statement?

First Up

Thargor wrote:

Are you actually disagreeing with that statement?

Yes.

Thargor

Wow, thats hilarious. You should patent your solution quick.

First Up

Thargor wrote:

Wow, thats hilarious. You should patent your solution quick.

Solution to what?

Thargor

You said you disagree with the statement "You cant prevent accidents", can you really not figure out what solution Im asking you for in a post immediately afterwards? Seriously? Wow...