Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

M1 needs 3rd lane

  • 13-11-2009 2:39pm
    #1
    Praetorian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,712 ✭✭✭


    The M1 undoubedtly needs a 3rd lane in both directions from the Airport at least as far as Lissenhall (Junction 4). The daily traffic jams are amongst the worst in the country and there is no end in sight. The re-opening of the train line shortly will make very little difference to rush hour mayhem. The completion of the junction at the M1 / M50 will also make little difference. The M1 is just simply handling above capacity traffic at peak hours from Swords onwards. Once again, the powers that be knew that the population along the East coast was going to increase dramatically, and we have a road that is insufficient. M50 take two anyone?

    Are there any plans to fix the problem?

    It would seem that unlike the M50, a good deal of room was left for an additional lane in each direction. A complication maybe the Broadmeadow Estuary Crossing. I suppose the big problem is that no new projects are starting, and where will the money come from?
    Tagged:


«1

Comments

  • #2
    JodTT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 87 ✭✭JodTT


    I completely agree with you. The last 2 weeks in particular have been absolute nightmare. No matter what time of the morning, I leave home at it's taking me an hour and a half to get into the City Centre.

    They have started roadworks between Donabate and the Balbriggan exits heading south, and it seems the ground to the left of the hardshoulder is being dug up. I can only assume this is for road-widening?!?!


  • #3
    Posher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 109 ✭✭Posher


    JodTT wrote: »
    They have started roadworks between Donabate and the Balbriggan exits heading south, and it seems the ground to the left of the hardshoulder is being dug up. I can only assume this is for road-widening?!?!

    I don't think so. I understand that it's for a service area which I assume means a fuel service station. But I'm not 100% on that.


  • #4
    JodTT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 87 ✭✭JodTT


    Oh okay! Thanks. I did wonder why it was necessary to start it there when it's obviously needed a lot more on the City side of Lissenhall.


  • #5
    Cionád
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,000 ✭✭✭Cionád


    Posher wrote: »
    I don't think so. I understand that it's for a service area which I assume means a fuel service station. But I'm not 100% on that.

    Yep, it's going to be one of the motorway rest areas.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1008/roads.html

    http://www.face.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2055439234

    http://www.face.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=68362&d=1229019829


  • #6
    Tech3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,010 ✭✭✭Tech3


    Praetorian wrote: »
    I suppose the big problem is that no new projects are starting, and where will the money come from?

    There is absolutely no money for new roads after the MUI's are completed. The government are proceeding new roads through the PPP mechanism where the road will be paid back over a period of 30 years on average using toll plazas or shadow tolls. The M1 widening is not top priority either so that will set it back even more. Maybe a decade at least.

    Next PPP's to go ahead to construction:
    M17/M18 Q4 2010
    M11/N7 Newlands X Q4 2011
    N11/N25 Q2 2011
    Galway Bypass n/a
    M20 Cork to Limerick n/a

    Those dates are very optimistic too maybe give it +2-5 years for most of them.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Praetorian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,712 ✭✭✭Praetorian


    tech2 wrote: »
    There is absolutely no money for new roads after the MUI's are completed. The government are proceeding new roads through the PPP mechanism where the road will be paid back over a period of 30 years on average using toll plazas or shadow tolls. The M1 widening is not top priority either so that will set it back even more. Maybe a decade at least.

    Next PPP's to go ahead to construction:
    M17/M18 Q4 2010
    M11/N7 Newlands X Q4 2011
    N11/N25 Q2 2011
    Galway Bypass n/a
    M20 Cork to Limerick n/a

    Those dates are very optimistic too maybe give it +2-5 years for most of them.

    Yes that's true, but if you consider we're apparently borrowing 400 million per week just to run the country, then what, 200 million? for a long term investment seems like it would be well worth the price. Not to mention it would probably provide 500 jobs for a year. It's a massive bottleneck on what must be the second busiest motorway in the country after the M50.


  • #8
    Irish and Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Irish and Proud


    Praetorian wrote: »
    Yes that's true, but if you consider we're apparently borrowing 400 million per week just to run the country, then what, 200 million? for a long term investment seems like it would be well worth the price. Not to mention it would probably provide 500 jobs for a year. It's a massive bottleneck on what must be the second busiest motorway in the country after the M50.

    ...not to mention the economic costs in delays - bet a good reason for not upgrading the M1 is that...

    ...it will make life far too easy for those travelling North to do their shopping!

    Regards!


  • #9
    Chris_533976
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭Chris_533976


    In fairness now the likes of Claregalway and Adare need bypassing far more than anything needs widening.


  • #10
    Absurdum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,445 ✭✭✭Absurdum


    I'm hopeful that the M1/M50 interchange will improve the flow somewhat when completed. A little bit of courtesy for traffic merging onto the M1 from J3 and J4 would go a long way to keeping things moving too.


  • #11
    BrianD
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭BrianD


    I don;t think the addition of a third labe would make any difference. You'd just be adding a third line to the traffic jam.

    The problem is that traffic is being backed up from the restrictions ahead. Those restrictions are the end of the M1 and the roadworks at the M50 junction. Add in bad lane discipline and bad road signage and it's why the jam is there.

    The N7 has the third lane and it can be a car park durng rush hour.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    I think the solution here is not "build more road", but rather "build more rail".


  • #13
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    Aard wrote: »
    I think the solution here is not "build more road", but rather "build more rail".
    If only a metro to the city center with a large park and ride facility was planned for the area around Lissenhall where the the traffic congestion occurs starts.


  • #14
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    BrianD wrote: »
    Add in bad lane discipline and bad road signage and it's why the jam is there.

    Bad lane discipline is the main cause from what I've seen. Particularly in the mornings Southbound it's ridiculous, I once counted 15 cars in the outside lane and 2 in the left lane outside Balbriggan. Surprisingly the traffic jammed about 3km further on. :rolleyes:


  • #15
    T Corolla
    Closed Accounts Posts: 611 ✭✭✭T Corolla


    Roll on metro north and metro west to take away some of the traffic and make life at bit better. I thought expansion of the Northern line to Balbriggen is required. I have heard in previous threads that there is no room for a third line from Connolly to Balbriggen to seperate out the Dart from the Enterprise and increase commuter services from Dundalk to Dublin. I believe the introduction of an hourly Enterprise sevice in the morning would be a help. Currently the first enterprise leaves Belfast at 6:50 arriving in Dublin at 09:05
    This services needs an extra train at 5:40 in the morning arriving in Dublin at 8am taking the pressure of the morning commuter trains and Dart services. I am surprised that IR and NIR did not introduce an early bird service similar to all the services currently operating on the IR network.


  • #16
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Widening a motorway into the city isn't really going to make much difference to congestion. Improving the junctions might help by getting cars off the road faster onto the M50 in particular.

    As I understand it, adding extra lanes can actually worsen the situation, because it results in more lane changes. It is the lane changes that cause the delays (because every lane change results in a chain reaction of slowing down in the change-from and sometimes also the change-to lane). There is a literature about this - see http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0476j254041g114/ for example, also a book called 'critical mass' which has a chapter on the subject).

    If it were up to me, I would widen the M50 in this area alright, putting a 75mph coach lane in the centre. You could combine this with a park and ride or two and have a pretty effective alternative to driving into the city centre.


  • #17
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    Widening a motorway into the city isn't really going to make much difference to congestion. Improving the junctions might help by getting cars off the road faster onto the M50 in particular.

    As I understand it, adding extra lanes can actually worsen the situation, because it results in more lane changes. It is the lane changes that cause the delays (because every lane change results in a chain reaction of slowing down in the change-from and sometimes also the change-to lane). There is a literature about this - see http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0476j254041g114/ for example, also a book called 'critical mass' which has a chapter on the subject).

    If it were up to me, I would widen the M50 in this area alright, putting a 75mph coach lane in the centre. You could combine this with a park and ride or two and have a pretty effective alternative to driving into the city centre.

    An extra lane could make a difference around the M50 junction though, the amount of traffic looking to get onto it is what usually causes the hold-ups there, one lane for the city would be enough if it was kept clear which an extra lane on the right could do.


  • #18
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    It's actually the cars coming onto the road at the junction that cause a lot of the hold-ups. What happens is that people brake to let cars onto the road. When cars behind see the person in front braking, they brake too, opening up a wider gap between themselves and the car in front. The next guy back in the queue then breaks as well, and it carries back through the lane for up to a mile.

    Then some genius decides to move to the inside lane, because it seems to be going faster, because it doesn't have all this merging going on. Then this causes a similar kind of chain reaction in the inner lanes. Then people start moving between lanes all over the place, and it gets worse and worse.

    But this all carries back to where the cars are coming off the M1 onto the M50.

    Obviously, the M50 junction often completely backs up as well. This shouldn't really happen any more when there is a free-flow junction. But the other lane problems will still happen.


  • #19
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    What the M1 needs is a third lane all right, but it should be for public transport only between peak hours. It would cripple Iarnród Éireann of course though, so it will never happen.

    DART to drogheda every 5 minutes would be ten times better, with free parking and a few multi-storey carparks along the train line but common sense just doesn't bloody well apply in this godforsaken country.


  • #20
    arthie no no
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭arthie no no


    scarey stuff out there with 3 lanes almost 4 close calls heading for sallins clane nass road direction tonight crazy merging inside line stuff mad


  • #21
    Praetorian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,712 ✭✭✭Praetorian


    sdonn wrote: »
    What the M1 needs is a third lane all right, but it should be for public transport only between peak hours. It would cripple Iarnród Éireann of course though, so it will never happen.

    DART to drogheda every 5 minutes would be ten times better, with free parking and a few multi-storey carparks along the train line but common sense just doesn't bloody well apply in this godforsaken country.

    A joint bus and car pool lane, may not be a bad idea. It seems to work quiet well in the states.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    It's actually not cheap to put in a park and ride, particularly near a train line. It's a challenge to lease the land, put in the road network and manage it for less than 5 euros per car per day.

    HOV lanes in the US are sometimes used in order to deliberately reduce the number of lanes in general use and thereby reduce lane changing maneuvers.

    You couldn't safely use it as a high speed bus/coach lane if you also had cars in it.


  • #23
    Praetorian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,712 ✭✭✭Praetorian


    Well come to think of it, the carpool lanes in the states didn't have buses in them alright! There aren't many bus services using the M1, so a carpool only lane or just an additional lane would be the way to go.


  • #24
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    That's mostly because there are not that many buses on many US highways.

    The idea would be to generate extra bus journeys off the back of park-and-ride.

    The cost of building an extra lane would be enormous. If you make it a general lane or even a carpool-only lane, all you will do is deliver cars to the congested junctions quicker.


  • #25
    Praetorian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,712 ✭✭✭Praetorian


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    That's mostly because there are not that many buses on many US highways.

    The idea would be to generate extra bus journeys off the back of park-and-ride.

    The cost of building an extra lane would be enormous. If you make it a general lane or even a carpool-only lane, all you will do is deliver cars to the congested junctions quicker.

    The major congestion at the M1 / M50 will soon be much improved. I also think with construction of extra lanes, the port tunnel car toll should be reduced to encourage a better balance of cars going through it. The tunnel is practically empty 90% of the time. Drumcondra is a disaster and will never be improved.

    The problem on the m1 is the addition of a massive quantity of cars in the morning from the Lissenhall junction. In the evenings, again when you pass Lissenhall the traffic always clears up.

    I don't think the costs of an upgrade would be prohibitive. As I said before, there is the space already there for the lanes. Cost per KM compared to the upgrade to the M50 will be cheap.

    Why not take advantage of the recession in building, and get the thing done ~40% cheaper than we would have 3 years ago?


  • #26
    HydeRoad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭HydeRoad


    Here we go, somebody rehashing arguments that were had here months ago.

    Why does somebody always insist that because the tunnel is not jammed up with cars too, that there must be something wrong with it?

    Similarly, because bus lanes are mostly empty, they should be jammed with cars too?

    It is an abuse of the privelege of private motoring that causes all this congestion, both people who drive when they have other options open to them, and people who drive when they clearly have not had the right education to do so properly.

    Jamming up the few remaining pieces of road infrastructure available to other forms of transport is not the answer.

    Getting the NCT to read the odometers of private cars every year and tax people according to the mileage they drive, would be far better than filling the port tunnel with yet another massive traffic jam.

    And car pool lanes are no solution at all. Just an excuse for some selfish private motorists to jump the queue, at the expense of everyone else, particularly public transport users.


  • #27
    munchkin_utd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭munchkin_utd


    One alternative to spending gazillions of euros on extra lanes + hard shoulder + tossing bridges to facilitate widening (for the sake of maybe only a couple of hours in the morning or evening), is to allow the controled use of the hardshoulder as a regular driving lane during peak times.

    On the Munich ring road they do this at rush hour as is shown below. Its damn good as it basically turns into a truck convoy at 100kmh leaving the other 3 lanes to cars!

    (note the safety bay after the gantry where you can pull in if you break down)
    A99_00237.jpg

    and of course the lane isnt always open, so you'll get this when you should be getting out of the hardshoulder!
    A99_00240.jpg


  • #28
    HydeRoad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭HydeRoad


    No, no, no, no, no, we do NOT have the culture of road craft and respect for the law in this country to facilitate this. When the M50 jams up to the point of not moving, and a truck zooms past in the 'hard shoulder,' the world and it's mother will pile in after it, unquestioned. It already happens. On the M1 last Saturday evening, there was an accident, and everything southbound was stopped for miles, and idiots were not only using the hard shoulder, but they were storming up the inside of lines of stopped cars at 120kph plus. This is beyond danger, this is absolute madness. They should be jailed. What if a car door opened, or a car pulled into the hard shoulder, or as happened, a car was stopped in the hard shoulder in complete darkness with no lights or advance warning?

    Too many people propose solutions whereby they might be able to bypass all the other stopped traffic, and thereby not have to queue. Don't you see, if you are entitled to 'skip' the queue, then so is everybody else, and you end up with just another line of traffic jam?

    The hard shoulder is the only access emergency vehicles have to clear obstructions and access accidents. You want to fill it up with more cars.


  • #29
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    i wouldn't say that it's an abuse of privilege by car users. People use cars for very good reasons, in terms of convenience and speed. It's the only practical thing for a lot of people.

    Think about the problem like this. Imagine a restaurant where there are no bookings and no table allocations. Everyone who comes in the door will be squashed in and eventually served. Everyone wants to be served as quickly as possible.

    It would be chaos. The crowds holding up the aisles of the restaurant would make it impossible to serve food and get people to and from their tables.

    This is basically what the roads of our towns and cities are like.

    Making the restaurant bigger will help up to a point, but it does not really resolve the issue. Widening the doors of the restaurant (so that people will get in quicker) certainly won't resolve anything.

    Taxing people per mileage would be quite like putting a few cents on the litre of petrol. It would not deal with the core demand-side cause of congestion, i.e., everyone wanting to use the same road resources at the same time.


  • #30
    HydeRoad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭HydeRoad


    Ah yes, but at the moment, the differential between the cost of public transport and private motoring is negligable, resulting in far too many people choosing the comfort of their own private car rather than sit on a cramped bus or train.

    If somebody lives in Swords, and works in Tallaght, or Blanchardstown, or East Point, or finishes work at 8pm, or does shift work, then their car becomes essential, or at least preferable.

    If somebody lives in Swords and works nine to five in O'Connell Street, then they have no business driving to work when the Swords Express is available. They have a right to drive in of course, but they should bloody well pay over the odds for it.

    How do you differentiate between someone who has a bus service door to door, and somebody whose hours or workplace is a little off the scheduled bus route? Similarly, for some people their cars are working vehicles, i.e. for deliveries, site visits, meetings, etc. So there is a difference between simple commuters, and people whose cars are part of their workplace.

    The reason I suggest the NCT reading odometers, rather than additional fuel tax, is because it can be targetted at the private motorist, and then those who need their cars for working reasons, can argue a rebate with their employers or the revenue or whatever.

    I have no problem with people's right to drive. I just think they should pay for it, and pay a tad more than the other person sitting in a bus.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    I basically agree with you, but this needs to be done mainly through the application of carrot rather than stick. You have to give people real alternatives to get them out of their cars.

    In terms of giving an allowance to goods vehicles, the best way to do it would be by reducing tolls on the ring roads, it would seem.

    For people doing many calls, meetings, etc., a well regulated road system would provide enormous advantages - they would be able to get to their meetings and jobs much quicker and this would greatly outweigh any charge that would be applied. Red Ken said anecdotally that this was the case in London, but I have not seen any studies on this.

    (It is by-the-way, but SE provides a reasonable service for people living in Swords but working in East Point business park, and people working until 8pm)


  • #32
    Redsoxfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Redsoxfan


    HydeRoad wrote: »
    I have no problem with people's right to drive. I just think they should pay for it, and pay a tad more than the other person sitting in a bus.

    How much is a 'tad more'?

    I live in Maynooth and work in Sandyford, so public transport isn't really a feasible option unless I want to double my travel time.

    But let's just say I worked in the city centre and was lucky enough to have parking (for which I may or may not have to pay €200 a year under the Budget 2009 rules)

    This year, I have paid the following:
    • Motor Tax €620
    • Insurance €450
    • Diesel €1,680

    or €2,750 in total. (ignoring depreciation and maintenance costs)

    My wife has an annual tax saver ticket (short hop bus and rail) which costs €1,190 (before allowing for benefit of tax and PRSI relief).

    So if I wanted to drive to work in the city centre, I would be paying nearly 5 times the after tax cost of using public transport, or nearly 2.5 times the gross cost (not everyone is lucky enough to benefit from the taxsaver scheme).


  • #33
    HydeRoad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭HydeRoad


    It is a huge debate, with so many angles, many of which come back to the state the country finds itself in today, the national debt, people living in commuter towns miles out of the city, the road network, the neglect of the railway, years and years of government ineptitude, capped by ten years of Bertieism.

    At least it is good to remember it could even be a whole lot worse. Thank God we don't seem to have the kind of people who would seriously suggest filling the tunnel with cars, for example, there is still a semblance of sense in the corridors of power.

    I will never forget Olivia Mitchell of Fine Gael before one of Bertie's supersaver elections, telling us all that if Fine Gael were elected, they would let carpoolers use the bus lanes, with absolutely no thought as to how that would be policed, or what the advantages might be, other than as a soundbite to woo commuter town BMW driving voters.

    So, bad as it is, we could be a lot worse off! Be careful what you wish for! :)


  • #34
    Praetorian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,712 ✭✭✭Praetorian


    HydeRoad, your attitude is terrible. All negativity and not a single good idea of your own.

    I'm not saying the tunnel should be full of cars, but it should be priced so that it carrys more traffic than it does currently. As it stands, building it as a two lane road (two tunnels) was a waste of money, because there is never enough trucks going through it to need that much capacity.

    Irish motorists aren't good motorway drivers, I'll give you that one, but at peak times on the M1 it's not a major factor. There is just too much traffic for the road.


  • #35
    HydeRoad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭HydeRoad


    Redsoxfan wrote: »
    How much is a 'tad more'?

    Well, the fact is, that even most habitual bus users have a car parked at home for weekends, etc. so they are all paying exactly the same bills. In fact, if the private motorist uses his car for his weekly commute, while he is doing what makes economic sense for him personally, he is actually better off than the person who pays for a car for weekend and social use, yet leaves it at home and gets the bus to work.

    I still believe the balance is wrong. There is too much carrot to take the car to work, and congest up the city for those who really need the roads.

    How somebody lives in Maynooth and works in Sandyford, to take your example, or say someone living in Gorey and working in Dublin, well that is a question rooted in how this economy was managed over ten years of Bertie and before, and why such an unsustainable system was allowed to grow to the point it is at now. How do you right that? Well, how do you right the economy? It's really a case of, 'I wouldn't start from here...'


  • #36
    Praetorian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,712 ✭✭✭Praetorian


    I'm all for Metro North which definitely will be beneficial for North Co Dublin and I would also be well up for a major overhaul of the Drogheda / Dublin rail link. An extra 1 or 2 tracks would increase passenger capacity dramactically. Metro north may happen, but the extra tracks are a long time off, if they ever happen. The road needs to be done.

    It takes me an hour and 40 minutes to get to work by public transport. Wheras up until the last year or so, the m1 got me to work in about 35 minutes. (currently about an hour).


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    HydeRoad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 495 ✭✭HydeRoad


    Praetorian wrote: »
    HydeRoad, your attitude is terrible. All negativity and not a single good idea of your own.

    I'm not saying the tunnel should be full of cars, but it should be priced so that it carrys more traffic than it does currently. As it stands, building it as a two lane road (two tunnels) was a waste of money, because there is never enough trucks going through it to need that much capacity.

    Irish motorists aren't good motorway drivers, I'll give you that one, but at peak times on the M1 it's not a major factor. There is just too much traffic for the road.

    Ha ha, of course I am negative! The whole system is mad, totally unsustainable! And being fed by people who would fill more cars into the tunnel?

    Look, if the M1 is jammed all the way back to the Skerries turnoff, and some of that traffic is bound for the M50, and some for the city, besides the fact that soon there will be new freeflow junctions in place, are you really suggesting that more of that jam should be allowed flow into the tunnel? And then what? Down to the traffic lights on East Wall Road? What does that do, only move the jam to a different place, and create a safety issue in the tunnel itself? Besides encouraging trucks back onto the city quays?

    You aren't making any better suggestions than I am. I am at a loss for suggestions quite frankly, but I cannot stand back and see people make suggestions that will leave us even worse off.

    If just some of the people who sit in these jams day in, day out, would consider using public transport, then public transport would have the impetus to grow, and even provide more travelling options. But most private motorists are only interested in options that will allow them to stay in their warm cars, and somehow skip past everyone else.


  • #38
    Redsoxfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Redsoxfan


    HydeRoad wrote: »
    Well, the fact is, that even most habitual bus users have a car parked at home for weekends, etc. so they are all paying exactly the same bills.

    Tax and insurance, most likely yes, but not fuel. If you wanted to add in maintenance and depreciation, the cost for the car commuter will outweigh those for the occasional car user.

    Anyway, looks like the Dutch have been reading this thread.


  • #39
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    HydeRoad wrote: »
    No, no, no, no, no, we do NOT have the culture of road craft and respect for the law in this country to facilitate this. When the M50 jams up to the point of not moving, and a truck zooms past in the 'hard shoulder,' the world and it's mother will pile in after it, unquestioned. It already happens. On the M1 last Saturday evening, there was an accident, and everything southbound was stopped for miles, and idiots were not only using the hard shoulder, but they were storming up the inside of lines of stopped cars at 120kph plus. This is beyond danger, this is absolute madness. They should be jailed. What if a car door opened, or a car pulled into the hard shoulder, or as happened, a car was stopped in the hard shoulder in complete darkness with no lights or advance warning?

    Too many people propose solutions whereby they might be able to bypass all the other stopped traffic, and thereby not have to queue. Don't you see, if you are entitled to 'skip' the queue, then so is everybody else, and you end up with just another line of traffic jam?

    The hard shoulder is the only access emergency vehicles have to clear obstructions and access accidents. You want to fill it up with more cars.

    Absolutely right. I know it's a sweeping generalization, but it's true - the majority of Irish drivers are too simple-minded and some just too downright stupid to have any respect for this sort of a measure and it would be abused to the hilt.


  • #40
    KevR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    20,000,000+ passengers passing through Dublin Airport every year, all getting to/from the Airport by road. Shameful really and an alternative method of transport to/from the airport is long overdue. Hopefully Metro North will be built sooner rather than later.


  • #41
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    HydeRoad wrote: »

    I will never forget Olivia Mitchell of Fine Gael before one of Bertie's supersaver elections, telling us all that if Fine Gael were elected, they would let carpoolers use the bus lanes, with absolutely no thought as to how that would be policed, or what the advantages might be, other than as a soundbite to woo commuter town BMW driving voters.

    I agree with you on this, but have you seen anywhere a proper explanation of why this would be a bad idea and wouldn't work? This particular myth was never properly debunked.

    Antoin.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    I agree with you on this, but have you seen anywhere a proper explanation of why this would be a bad idea and wouldn't work? This particular myth was never properly debunked.

    Antoin.

    In my experience the bus lanes are already too crowded with taxis and buses, then you have cyclists, motorcyclists etc. Adding people with more than 2 people in the car to this would cease to be an incentive if very many people took it up.

    Taxis need to be banned from the bus lanes if they have no fare in the car tbh. (The majority also need to pass another driving test but that's a different thread)

    The only solution to this nightmare on our roads is Metro North and West. The government needs to make priority #1 Welfare, #2 Education, #3 Transport and just get the bloody things built NOW NOW NOW. The banks might not collapse overnight if we dont bail them out; they will if nobody can get to bloody work to drive the economy ;)


  • #43
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    But is there modeling, statistics, international comparisons?


  • #44
    Chris_533976
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,082 ✭✭✭Chris_533976


    The simple truth is that everyone would pile into those lanes, with one driver and no passengers. Since there is a culture of not enforcing laws, they would just get away with it.


  • #45
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    But is there modeling, statistics, international comparisons?

    Three of the largest wastes of time and money. Fúck paying private enterprise millions or even tens of millions to do studies and plans and test-boring and other red-tape activities, just figure out what we need (my 2 year old cousin could do that) and then bloody well build it (he could probably have a decent go at that part, too)...


  • #46
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    The only thing I would do is build an eastbound M50 to airport direct slip to reduce Airport bound merges to the M1 from the M50 .

    None of the rest of it is a priority at all compared to the dismal state of the roads outside Dublin . Come back to it in the 2020s when an outer orbital is envisaged and forget about it in the meantime and take the train or express bus instead if it bothers you :)


  • #47
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    The only thing I would do is build an eastbound M50 to airport direct slip to reduce Airport bound merges to the M1 from the M50

    Ther's a fairly direct slip M50N->M1N already, it splits in two. The problem is that the main merge (the right hand one) is far too short and slows everyone down, or forces mainline M1N traffic into the overtaking lane.


  • #48
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    Then the need another one for M1 north to Airport about here

    http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&lat=53.433908&lon=-6.213177&zoom=18

    and ban exiting from M1 to Airport at that junction, far to close to the M50 .


  • #49
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    The short merges from M50 to M1N and M1E to M1N cause congestion because you can't merge in your own good time at a proper motorway speed.

    Also THere should be an auxilliary lane from the M1E/M1N junction to the Holywell exit and vice versa. the 3stripemarker is before the on slip from Holywell to M1S ends so it's not a huge distance.

    Also another mistake was making the M1S 3 lanes just before the M1E->M1S junction. the third lane should start at the onramp so those cars don't have to merge immediately in another short merge.


  • #50
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    Sponge Bob wrote: »
    Then the need another one for M1 north to Airport about here

    http://maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&lat=53.433908&lon=-6.213177&zoom=18

    and ban exiting from M1 to Airport at that junction, far to close to the M50 .
    Jesus, Yahoo could do with updating their maps. The M1 north of J2 isn't even finished in these maps, circa 2003.


  • #51
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    It's not the exits off the motorway that cause the congestion as much as the entrances onto it, as I understand it. The congestion often backs up from the entrance to the exit, and that's why it seems like the congestion is caused by the exit. But it isn't necessarily.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement