M50 - Eastern Bypass

SeanW · 04-03-2020 12:12pm

You are also fundamentally mis-representing my view. I'm not trying to "justify" the Eastern bypass as something which needs to be done right now. Just as a "nice to have" to be looked at in the future.

Pete_Cavan · 04-03-2020 3:39pm

SeanW wrote: »

Because there are no distribution centres in the South-East, and no industry in the South-East at all that exports anything

That really makes sense. :rolleyes: Who benefits from sending thousands of trucks all around the city in the current C-Ring?

The real question is who benefits from building the Eastern Bypass and is there enough benefits to justify the enormous financial, environmental and social cost?

Remove traffic to/from the port and there is very little other journeys which benefit from the Eastern Bypass - bar of course city centre destined traffic which we should be reducing anyway and much of which can be accommodated through improved public transport. The only other journeys would be to/from the M1 from/to the N/M11, which is a small proportion of traffic.

So beyond whatever Dublin Port traffic has to get to/from the N/M11 corridor, and city centre bound traffic, which needs to be reduced or switched to PT anyway, where is the need for the Eastern Bypass? What other traffic would use it instead of the M50 (you know, the ring road which is on the side of the city where most people live and industry located, linking together all the major roads to/from the city)? The Eastern Bypass doesn't actually bypass anything, it just dumps traffic on city centre streets which don't have the capacity for it. East of it is the sea so it's not opening up journeys that side or disturbing traffic there. Even to continue a journey through the DPT, traffic will have to navigate the existing roads to access it, funnelling more traffic into this area is not a good idea.

Last Stop · 04-03-2020 8:25pm

SeanW wrote: »

Because there are no distribution centres in the South-East, and no industry in the South-East at all that exports anything

That really makes sense. :rolleyes: Who benefits from sending thousands of trucks all around the city in the current C-Ring?

Furthermore, I fundamentally reject the idea that an Eastern bypass will just clog up streets in Dublin with new traffic. The Port Tunnel got lots of traffic (mostly trucks) off the streets. No reason the Eastern bypass could not be planned along similar lines - a free expressway for trucks and buses at all times, with limited or no tolls for people using private vehicles in the off-peak.

Why can’t trucks use existing roads? I don’t think there is a huge HGV presence along rock road or N11. The majority of the traffic is cars. Realistically, even if the HGV route takes longer the time spent is relatively minor in comparison to the time it takes to sail to where ever. The new motorways further south have significantly improved journey times anyway.

I can see merit in continuing the M50 from the port tunnel under the Liffey to Sean Moore road. This would take them away from the Eastlink. I know the port is proposing this as a bridge but I really don’t get why not a tunnel. It’s either going to have to be really high bridge to allow ships pass under or a lifting bridge which will restrict movement. A tunnel would have neither problem and wouldn’t cost much more when everything is factored in.

prunudo · 10-03-2020 8:50am

What worries me lately is the opinion that we never need to set aside land corridors for roads ever again. Our population is growing and the idea that we should never build a new road again whether it be the M20, an eastern bypass or Galway ring road is narrow mindedness.

Is an eastern M50 needed in the next 10 years, definitely not, much more important to build underground rail network in the city. But by 2040 and beyond the country will be a very different place and it would be short sighted to lose a future route option.

markpb · 10-03-2020 11:15am

prunudo wrote: »

Is an eastern M50 needed in the next 10 years, definitely not, much more important to build underground rail network in the city. But by 2040 and beyond the country will be a very different place and it would be short sighted to lose a future route option.

Why not build any future motorway underground, just like any proposed metro would be and how DPT was built? Houses, schools, apartments, shops and parks cannot go underground but roads can.

prunudo · 10-03-2020 11:45am

markpb wrote: »

Why not build any future motorway underground, just like any proposed metro would be and how DPT was built? Houses, schools, apartments, shops and parks cannot go underground but roads can.

Afaik, part of it was due to be underground. My point is that there is a narrative out there that we should never build another new road again.
That, in my opinion is wrong and short sighted. As our population grows, an increase in traffic is a given, whether it is private, commercial or buses, there will be demand for roads.

hans aus dtschl · 10-03-2020 2:33pm

prunudo wrote: »

Afaik, part of it was due to be underground. My point is that there is a narrative out there that we should never build another new road again.
That, in my opinion is wrong and short sighted. As our population grows, an increase in traffic is a given, whether it is private, commercial or buses, there will be demand for roads.

We've discussed this a little on here over the last few months.

What's currently happening is that we're spending the lion's share of the land transport budget on roads, while preparing to pay large emissions fines for same.
There was a strategy to reduce private car usage over the past 10 years, which has failed....because of lack of expenditure on the other modes.

According to department for transport and strategic government strategies, we should be actively trying to reduce the mode share of private cars dramatically. Our latest reaction to those strategies has been to announce another round of massive roads expenditure in late 2019.

So when you see the knee-jerk reaction of some "against all new roads", bear in mind that it's against a backdrop of "pretty much only roads for now".

Most people on here aren't against "roads" (take me for instance, in favour of the M20 even though I'd only very rarely use it). But are extremely frustrated at the current brainless "roads-only" direction.

So I don't think the narrative is "never build another road again", more like "really, guys, you still think roads are the priority?".

Idbatterim · 10-03-2020 2:38pm

Last Stop wrote: »

Why can’t trucks use existing roads? I don’t think there is a huge HGV presence along rock road or N11. The majority of the traffic is cars. Realistically, even if the HGV route takes longer the time spent is relatively minor in comparison to the time it takes to sail to where ever. The new motorways further south have significantly improved journey times anyway.

I can see merit in continuing the M50 from the port tunnel under the Liffey to Sean Moore road. This would take them away from the Eastlink. I know the port is proposing this as a bridge but I really don’t get why not a tunnel. It’s either going to have to be really high bridge to allow ships pass under or a lifting bridge which will restrict movement. A tunnel would have neither problem and wouldn’t cost much more when everything is factored in.

I wonder can they just build a new much wider bridge and then get rid of the east link... traffic needs to be able to get into the port tunnel and to the south docks, without stopping, the endless lights there heading northbound are ridiculous. It will never be a high bridge over liffey. tunnel possibly best BUT everything here is done on the cheap, it will be the cheapest solution that wont cause offence to anyone, like a high bridge would. You would wonder will they intergrate the luas bridge to connect to IGBS with it?

I think the post above hits the nail on the head, I am against most new road building, and Dublin needs Dublin metro and dart underground first. But in twenty years, when the place is hitting potentially another million people. It should have a full proper ringroad in my opinion

10-03-2020 3:15pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The Eastern Bypass would primarily be used for people driving from the M1 or N/M11 corridors into the centre of the city. That is the last thing we should be facilitating, the road capacity doesn't exist for the combined volume of cars that the DPT and Eastern Bypass would dump in the Docklands area and would cause such congestion that the M50 would be preferable for journeys to anywhere but the city centre.

I agree with your overall point, but the part in bold..........isn't that the whole point of a ring road?

Last Stop · 10-03-2020 8:47pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with your overall point, but the part in bold..........isn't that the whole point of a ring road?

I think you’re missing the context of this. What they were saying was that even if we built the eastern bypass, any traffic coming from the south not going to the city centre would still use the M50... I.e. the eastern bypass wouldn’t take any pressure off the M50

SeanW · 10-03-2020 10:20pm

It would almost certainly take a good deal of trucks off the existing M50.

Last Stop · 10-03-2020 11:06pm

SeanW wrote: »

It would almost certainly take a good deal of trucks off the existing M50.

Trucks aren’t the cause of the majority of the congestion on the M50. Cars are.

plodder · 11-03-2020 8:59am

I think you could solve the problem of using the Eastern bypass for commuting to the city centre the same way it is solved today, by having a hefty charge for cars exiting at the port at peak times, but a lower charge for through traffic. In any case, I don't think anyone is saying this should be a priority before Metrolink, Dart underground etc. It's not going to happen in the short/medium term.

Pete_Cavan · 11-03-2020 11:49am

plodder wrote: »

I think you could solve the problem of using the Eastern bypass for commuting to the city centre the same way it is solved today, by having a hefty charge for cars exiting at the port at peak times, but a lower charge for through traffic. In any case, I don't think anyone is saying this should be a priority before Metrolink, Dart underground etc. It's not going to happen in the short/medium term.

But a continuous through journey isn't going to be an option. The DPT already finishes at ground level and connects to the local road network there. How do you end the Eastern Bypass on the southside, connect it to the local network there (which is supposed to be the primary objective i.e. linking south port to M50) and also continue that road to connect into the DPT without having to navigate the local roads network? You would need GSJs on both sides of the Liffey, multiple over and under passes, a new completely ssegregated bridge over the Liffey, etc. This will cost a fortune, take up a ridiculous amount of space and attract a level of opposition unlike anything we have seen before. It would be putting the ugliest American spaghetti junction in the heart of Dublin. It isn't an option.

This is what I was talking about before, it doesn't bypass, it can't bypass the city or it doesn't fulfil that primary objective. The Eastern Bypass would be more used by people from the N11 corridor driving into the city or D4 residents heading to Wicklow for the day. Set a toll to make this prohibitive, grand, but who uses it then? We have claims here about "a good deal of trucks" but how many and is that enough to justify the enormous cost? The trunks can continue to use the M50, it is not them clogging the thing up during committing hours.

plodder · 11-03-2020 1:10pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

But a continuous through journey isn't going to be an option.

The 2007 feasibility study was for a full bypass, and effectively completion of the M50 ring, so I think a continuous journey is a given. There were various options including cut and cover tunnel to this rather attractive high level bridge (not unlike the newly opened one in New Ross)

I'm not sure an interchange in the South port is a given though. Some of the options provided it, others didn't.

Whether the economics stacks up is another question of course, but I think they are right to keep the options open

Pete_Cavan · 11-03-2020 4:08pm

plodder wrote: »

I'm not sure an interchange in the South port is a given though. Some of the options provided it, others didn't

What possibly no n interchange in the South port, the one bloody place that would benefit from the Eastern Bypass!? So you are down to just journeys from/to the M1 corridor to/from the N/M11 corridor, everything else is easier and faster via the existing M50. The vast majority of the city is on the western side, the sea is to the east, the amount of traffic this would take off the M50 would be negligible and certainly not worth the enormous cost. Completing the M50 sounds great but when you actually think about it, it makes no sense. The whole thing is absolutely ludicrous.

Idbatterim · 11-03-2020 4:17pm

if a new crossing is needed for the luas anyway, they could combine it all into one very wide bridge, luas tracks, several lanes each direction and proper segregated footpath and cycle track ... obviously the same level bridge as current eastlink...

Pete_Cavan · 11-03-2020 4:27pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

if a new crossing is needed for the luas anyway, they could combine it all into one very wide bridge, luas tracks, several lanes each direction and proper segregated footpath and cycle track ... obviously the same level bridge as current eastlink...

You can't run the Luas or a pedestrian/cycle route through a busy port.

SeanW · 11-03-2020 4:28pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The Eastern Bypass would be more used by people from the N11 corridor driving into the city or D4 residents heading to Wicklow for the day. Set a toll to make this prohibitive, grand, but who uses it then? We have claims here about "a good deal of trucks" but how many and is that enough to justify the enormous cost? The trunks can continue to use the M50, it is not them clogging the thing up during committing hours.

Firstly, the prohibitive toll for peak movements is not something that may be done in theory. It's already being done on the Port Tunnel. There is also no doubt that completing the M50 Ring would be of use mostly to freight, but I note that you included an off-peak movement above. Why?

There are actually two other reasons why a completed ring would be nice to have that I didn't think of before:

As an alternative route to the Port Tunnel if it is closed - currently, I think, if the PT has to close for any reason, trucks are allowed to use the city streets. With the Eastern Bypass, they could be directed to go South and around the M50.
To resolve the problem of "super cube" trucks. A big mistake made with the Port Tunnel was that it was built too low for high trucks that are (or were at that time) in common use in both Ireland and the UK. At the time the DPT was built, ancillary legislation was introduced to ban them, thus re-enforcing the idea that Ireland is a special market with special requirements for everything and thus higher costs. Higher trucks are more efficient (especially for bulky, low-value loads) because they provide more cubic area inside to carry goods. The DPT will never be retrofitted to allow higher vehicles and so a high-vehicles ban will have to remain in place until either the Port is moved or an alternative to the DPT is built. Building the Eastern Bypass with a higher vertical clearance could allow high/supercube lorries and trailers to be used again. Such vehicles could simply be directed to use the Eastern Bypass instead of the Port Tunnel.

Like I said, not urgent, but nice to have.

Idbatterim · 11-03-2020 4:31pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

You can't run the Luas or a pedestrian/cycle route through a busy port.

I propose it going just marginally east of the current bridge, if feasible. I mean I assume everything was planned to be "at grade" I mean, given that is a serious artery there. Look at the carnage that happends when you put a very frequent and long tram, interfering with key junctions...

Pete_Cavan · 11-03-2020 7:17pm

SeanW wrote: »

Firstly, the prohibitive toll for peak movements is not something that may be done in theory. It's already being done on the Port Tunnel. There is also no doubt that completing the M50 Ring would be of use mostly to freight, but I note that you included an off-peak movement above. Why?

There are actually two other reasons why a completed ring would be nice to have that I didn't think of before:
As an alternative route to the Port Tunnel if it is closed - currently, I think, if the PT has to close for any reason, trucks are allowed to use the city streets. With the Eastern Bypass, they could be directed to go South and around the M50.

To resolve the problem of "super cube" trucks. A big mistake made with the Port Tunnel was that it was built too low for high trucks that are (or were at that time) in common use in both Ireland and the UK. At the time the DPT was built, ancillary legislation was introduced to ban them, thus re-enforcing the idea that Ireland is a special market with special requirements for everything and thus higher costs. Higher trucks are more efficient (especially for bulky, low-value loads) because they provide more cubic area inside to carry goods. The DPT will never be retrofitted to allow higher vehicles and so a high-vehicles ban will have to remain in place until either the Port is moved or an alternative to the DPT is built. Building the Eastern Bypass with a higher vertical clearance could allow high/supercube lorries and trailers to be used again. Such vehicles could simply be directed to use the Eastern Bypass instead of the Port Tunnel.

Like I said, not urgent, but nice to have.

So we need a €1bn port access road for the very few times our €0.5bn port access road is out of action?

The think about the DPT being too low is pure horse****. It has a clearance of 4.65m, most of Europe restricts truck height to 4m:

https://www.itf-oecd.org/node/19209

Our higher limit is so farmers can stack bails higher when transporting. The road network here, or any of Europe, wasn't designed for super trucks, we don't need or want them. 99.9% of freight comes in standard sizes. The DPT is more than big enough.

The more people try to justify the Eastern Bypass, the more stupid it sounds.

L1011 · 11-03-2020 7:23pm

It was one trailer vendor that moaned at the time from memory, as their container flats were too tall.

Pete_Cavan · 11-03-2020 9:19pm

L1011 wrote: »

It was one trailer vendor that moaned at the time from memory, as their container flats were too tall.

The IRHA were spreading misinformation as well. As usual, the media were fed incorrect information by a vested interest and they ran with it without any fact checking.

SeanW · 11-03-2020 10:01pm

You say the IRHA were "spreading misinformation" ... to what end?

L1011 · 11-03-2020 10:43pm

SeanW wrote: »

You say the IRHA were "spreading misinformation" ... to what end?

Most likely looking for €€€ for their members to get compliant vehicles. Didn't work.

Eric Cartman · 11-03-2020 10:48pm

first im hearing of this eastern bypass, fantastic idea. We need to invest heavily in road based infrastructure projects to all ow more access for cars to and through the city, its a nightmare at present.

LeinsterDub · 11-03-2020 10:49pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

first im hearing of this eastern bypass, fantastic idea. We need to invest heavily in road based infrastructure projects to all ow more access for cars to and through the city, its a nightmare at present.

We already did that. We just got more congestion but you're going to tell us why this motorway will not suffer from the same induced demanded as the rest of the m50

SeanW · 11-03-2020 11:33pm

Dublin needed a bypass in the late 20th century but the powers that be made the mistake of building the first part(s) of the M50 ring without also investing in public transport for the city. The subsequent overuse of the motorway as a regional commuter route followed on from that failure.

Alkers · 11-03-2020 11:46pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

first im hearing of this eastern bypass, fantastic idea. We need to invest heavily in road based infrastructure projects to all ow more access for cars to and through the city, its a nightmare at present.

There isn't one city on earth that works having sufficient road capacity to provide for all journeys by individual private cars, they are not a solution

plodder · 12-03-2020 12:30pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

So we need a €1bn port access road for the very few times our €0.5bn port access road is out of action?

The think about the DPT being too low is pure horse****. It has a clearance of 4.65m, most of Europe restricts truck height to 4m:

https://www.itf-oecd.org/node/19209

So, why did we bother to build the entire motorway network with a clearance of 5 metres then? Comparing us with Europe where the motorway networks are decades older than ours is absurd. The hauliers were right to call it out. When the Shannon tunnel was planned even An Taisce questioned the logic of it being only 4.65. We took the easy way out then and just banned higher vehicles than that. Anyway, it is what it is, and it's not a major concern going forward.

But, this idea that road tunnels are 20th century solutions is exactly the kind of ideology that leads to nothing getting built. And someone should tell the Swedes about it as well. They are spending over 3 billion euro on a massive system of tunnels to make a Western road bypass of Stockholm. They also are expanding their metro system at the same time. A project of similar scale is underway in Norway too.

The way things are going here, we will still have the same few railway lines in Dublin and everything else, public and private sharing the same congested roads. It is completely pathetic.

M50 - Eastern Bypass

Comments