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

First Up

Thargor wrote:

No its really clear to me now, Im going to use your ingenious theory of how to eliminate traffic accidents to solve all the breakdowns clogging it up every day aswell, all you have to do is tell people not to have breakdowns! It works for traffic accidents in your head...

If you took a few lessons or paid attention to the RSA tv ads you might even learn how to avoid accidents. Breakdowns happen but a hefty fine and towing charge would discourage people with clapped out bangers from taking them on the M50.

Thargor wrote:

And as for the road being 20-30% over design capacity (now I know this is nothing to do with delays as you've already proved, it's all those deliberate traffic accidents), we could just tell people to use the road 20-30% less. Problem solved!

I await your solution for the congestion. In the meantime, why not minimise the problem by an education and enforcement campaign to change the behaviour that causes accidents?

magicbastarder

Between the lucan and red cow junctions carries approx 160,000 vehicles per day; averaged out over the year. And I assume that's in both directions. 160k per day is two vehicles a second, or in one direction, one vehicle per second. Given that includes weekend and nighttime traffic, I'm going to - for the laugh - suggest that rush hour traffic is at least twice the average volume. At twice the average volume, you're at one vehicle per lane every two seconds, which is the standard reaction time suggested for safe driving in the dry. If it is more that two vehicles per second, you're pretty much in the danger zone for human reaction times and that's a barrier that's very hard to lift, no matter how you engineer it.

First Up

MJohnston wrote:

1. Increased enforcement on the M50 will not solve the constantly increasing congestion on that road.

No, but it could reduce the amount of bad driving that is causing the daily accidents on the M50. Enforcement works. Cameras could catch a lot.

MJohnston wrote:

2. If resources were available for increased enforcement, they would be needed elsewhere in the city first.

Why and for what? I'm not arguing against enforcement anywhere but the frequency of accidents and resulting delays on the M50 is a daily occurence. Delays in the city are almost all due to congestion.

tom1ie

First Up wrote: »

If course it does, although traffic all the way back to Naas would usually require more than just volume.

My experience of the M50 is that most (and the longest) delays are due to accidents.

Nah. It's exceeded its capacity at peak times. There's your problem.
Solution being reduce usage by providing top class PT.
Sorted.

monument

People here need to be a nicer to each other or there will be action.

— mod

Thargor

First Up wrote: »

Its all a mystery to you eh?

A few driving lessons might help - but I wouldn't book a test until you have figured a few things out.

No its really clear to me now, Im going to use your ingenious theory of how to eliminate traffic accidents to solve all the breakdowns clogging it up every day aswell, all you have to do is tell people not to have breakdowns! It works for traffic accidents in your head...

And as for the road being 20-30% over design capacity (now I know this is nothing to do with delays as you've already proved, it's all those deliberate traffic accidents), we could just tell people to use the road 20-30% less. Problem solved!

MJohnston

Stark wrote: »

It's getting really black and white, the discussion here.

Alright, then let's get nuanced:

You can probably reduce some temporary congestion events with greater enforcement of speed limits, and you can solve some more by lowering the M50 peak speed limits to 80 or lower.
A lot of the congestion-causing bad driving on the M50 is due to driver behaviours that are 100% legal.
Even setting aside driver behaviour for a minute, breakdowns are neither illegal, nor preventable. And they're more frequent and just as disruptive as accidents.
I don't believe that even without breakdowns and accidents that the M50 would be un-congested. It clearly exceeds capacity during peak hours.
More dangerous driver behaviour is going unenforced in parts of the city centre that include vulnerable road users such as pedestrians or cyclists. This behaviour doesn't just cause congestion, it injures and kills people.
There is not an infinite budget available to police the roads, and you can't automate for every bad driver habit, so you have to balance your resources carefully.
Most would argue that the off-motorway enforcement is more urgent and deserving of policing resources.
Even with all the enforcement in the world on the M50 and exit roads, you still have the problem that a lot of congestion is not caused by illegal driving.

So even with all that, I'm afraid I still come to two pretty solid conclusions:

1. Increased enforcement on the M50 will not solve the constantly increasing congestion on that road.

2. If resources were available for increased enforcement, they would be needed elsewhere in the city first.

Thargor

First Up wrote: »

How about the solution to road traffic accidents is to not do the things that cause them?

Do you need help compiling a list?

Have you thought about writing to the RSA with your amazing plan to eliminate road traffic accidents? It's very selfish of you to keep your ingenious 'Dont Have Traffic Accidents' theory to yourself when it could be saving lives right now. If you pm me your address I'll send you a box of crayons so you can get your proposal down on paper.

First Up

CowboyTed wrote:

Still not working...

Stark wrote:

First off, few road traffic accidents are genuine accidents. Most can be attributed to some behaviour which could be changed with better education/enforcement.

All road accidents are the result of behaviour. "Accident" just means the result was not intended or anticipated.

Stark

It's getting really black and white, the discussion here.

First off, few road traffic accidents are genuine accidents. Most can be attributed to some behaviour which could be changed with better education/enforcement.

You can't eliminate them entirely but there are things you can do to reduce the number of incidents. For example, average speed cameras and variable speed limits that adjust according to traffic volumes.

Traffic volumes and "accidents" do go hand in hand. As traffic volume goes up, so do the number of accidents. Above a certain volume, it is no longer safe to do 100km/hr or 120km/hr. The likes of the N7 and M50 are currently operating above the safe design threshold at rush hour. Variable speed limits are probably the best way to counteract this effect.

First Up

tom1ie wrote:

So first up, you are saying the reason for traffic being so bad on the m50 is not down to volume itâ€™s accidents and bad driving, have I got that right? If so how do you explain the n7 inbound (Dublin bound) traffic? Even with the 3 lanes the traffic is back to Naas with no accidents occurring. Would this have anything to do with volume?

If course it does, although traffic all the way back to Naas would usually require more than just volume.

My experience of the M50 is that most (and the longest) delays are due to accidents.

tom1ie

So first up, you are saying the reason for traffic being so bad on the m50 is not down to volume it’s accidents and bad driving, have I got that right?
If so how do you explain the n7 inbound (Dublin bound) traffic? Even with the 3 lanes the traffic is back to Naas with no accidents occurring. Would this have anything to do with volume?

Thinkingaboutit

A few years back when the extra lane was being added, the pace was walking or no pace, so anything faster is a bonus. Traffic volumes cannot entirely explain things like all those who exit really, really late, coming close to hitting either those who entered the exit lane, or the partition crash barrier. And indicating before the derring-do manoeuvre would be good.

First Up

Thargor wrote:

I dont know why you're implying Im the one being ridiculous, you're the genius who's claiming the solution to road traffic accidents is for people to not have road traffic accidents? Wow why didnt anyone think of that before now? Plus you could apply that methodology to a whole range of the worlds problems, your Nobel prize is in the post.

How about the solution to road traffic accidents is to not do the things that cause them?

Do you need help compiling a list?

First Up

tom1ie wrote:

Define disastrous.

8 kilometers in one hour 45?

First Up

MJohnston wrote:

So, as I said, and you appear to agree, you can't prevent accidents.

Well I can certainly try but with you on the road with your understanding of causes and effects, it would be harder.

Thargor

First Up wrote: »

I was giving you the opportunity to avoid looking ridiculous but there ya go.

An accident is something that happens unintentionally but all motor accidents are caused.

You seem astonished at the notion that accidents can be prevented. My charitable interpretation of that is you are a devout Muslim who believes that God's will prevails ("Inshallah) in all things. Everything is God's fault; we just take what's coming.

At the risk of exposing myself to a fatwah as an unbeliever, I could point out that all motor accidents are the result of someone doing something they need not have done - i.e if they had chosen to do something different, the accident would not have happened.

So yes, all motor "accidents" can be prevented. Some more easily than others but all are avoidable.

For example, before and during my M50 journey yesterday, nobody did anything to cause a collision between cars going in the same direction on a clearly marked 3 lane road with a speed limit of 100kph.

In contrast, during my M50 journey two weeks ago, somebody did something to cause a collision in the outside lane near Firhouse and someone else did something to cause a collision in the slip road off the N7.

I don't know what happened and I don't know who was to blame. But I do know that if at least two people had done something differently, the collisions would not have happened and I might have got to Lucan an hour earlier.

So my "solution" to traffic accidents is to drive properly and pay attention to what is going on around you. That won't always work of course but it should reduce the number of times cars collide while going in the same direction on a clearly marked 3 lane road moving at less than 100kph.

Anything else I can solve for you?

I dont know why you're implying Im the one being ridiculous, you're the genius who's claiming the solution to road traffic accidents is for people to not have road traffic accidents? Wow why didnt anyone think of that before now? Plus you could apply that methodology to a whole range of the worlds problems, your Nobel prize is in the post.

MJohnston

So, as I said, and you appear to agree, you can't prevent accidents.

First Up

Thargor wrote:

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...

I was giving you the opportunity to avoid looking ridiculous but there ya go.

An accident is something that happens unintentionally but all motor accidents are caused.

You seem astonished at the notion that accidents can be prevented. My charitable interpretation of that is you are a devout Muslim who believes that God's will prevails ("Inshallah) in all things. Everything is God's fault; we just take what's coming.

At the risk of exposing myself to a fatwah as an unbeliever, I could point out that all motor accidents are the result of someone doing something they need not have done - i.e if they had chosen to do something different, the accident would not have happened.

So yes, all motor "accidents" can be prevented. Some more easily than others but all are avoidable.

For example, before and during my M50 journey yesterday, nobody did anything to cause a collision between cars going in the same direction on a clearly marked 3 lane road with a speed limit of 100kph.

In contrast, during my M50 journey two weeks ago, somebody did something to cause a collision in the outside lane near Firhouse and someone else did something to cause a collision in the slip road off the N7.

I don't know what happened and I don't know who was to blame. But I do know that if at least two people had done something differently, the collisions would not have happened and I might have got to Lucan an hour earlier.

So my "solution" to traffic accidents is to drive properly and pay attention to what is going on around you. That won't always work of course but it should reduce the number of times cars collide while going in the same direction on a clearly marked 3 lane road moving at less than 100kph.

Anything else I can solve for you?

NedNew2

tom1ie wrote: »

Define disastrous.

Extremely bad or unsuccessful.

Examples:
Such a war would be disastrous for the country.
This decision will have a disastrous impact on foreign policy.
His first attempt was disastrous.

tom1ie

First Up wrote: »

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

Define disastrous.

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...

First Up

Thargor wrote:

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

Solution to what?

Thargor

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

First Up

Thargor wrote:

Are you actually disagreeing with that statement?

Yes.

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

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.

First Up

MJohnston wrote: »

You. Can't. Prevent. Accidents.

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

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.

MJohnston

You. Can't. Prevent. Accidents.