Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Port tunnel to slash its off peak charges.

Comments

  • #2
    Mr Magnolia
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,449 Mod ✭✭✭✭Mr Magnolia


    The off-peal charge for cars was always €3.


  • #3
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    Mr Magnolia wrote: »
    The off-peal charge for cars was always €3.

    No, they had a stepped rate which is now reduced to a flat rate of e3


  • #4
    loyatemu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 16,083 ✭✭✭✭loyatemu


    Mr Magnolia wrote: »
    The off-peal charge for cars was always €3.

    It was 12, 6 or 3 depending on the time, now its 10 or 3.

    I've always thought it should be free between say 10pm and 6am - can't see the point in forcing cars through the city centre at night when the tunnel is lying virtually empty (yeah I know ships come in at night too, but the amount of cars would not be enough to delay any trucks using the tunnel).

    Put your money where yer mouth is... Subscribe and Save Boards!

    https://subscriptions.boards.ie/



  • #5
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,667 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Good news.

    Probably not enough, they should try to get as many cars as possible in to it off peak. Cuts traffic in town and will increase revenue.

    They should also look at the ferrry companies and do a cut price with them to encourage those people to use the tunnel. Even come up with a discount for using port tunnel and east-link.


  • #6
    DrEvil
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭DrEvil


    This is good news especially having the sense to charge €3 for the outbound journey during morning peak times and inbound during evening peak


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    cormie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,859 ✭✭✭✭cormie


    That's good news alright, I just hope it doesn't clog up the route to the eastlink even later than it already does though. They should make it free for all commercial vehicles, not just those over 3.5tn/16 seats.

    Isn't there still concerns about the safety of the tunnel itself though I heard:confused:


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


    cormie wrote: »
    That's good news alright, I just hope it doesn't clog up the route to the eastlink even later than it already does though. They should make it free for all commercial vehicles, not just those over 3.5tn/16 seats.

    Isn't there still concerns about the safety of the tunnel itself though I heard:confused:

    Well at least the DPT is leading by example in this "fiscal adjustment" that the government keeps on lecturing about! :)

    About the safety aspect, my main concern would be the enforcement of traffic laws - the distancing between vehicles is terrible despite the numerous electronic signs telling users to keep 2 or 3 chevrons apart - maybe this country needs to invest in reading skills for people. Also, some of the traffic seems to be traveling at excessive speed. That said, the tunnel is very efficient in getting people from A to B.

    Regards!


  • #9
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,284 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    Great news for me, I live in Malahide and work in the O2 so journey time through Holywell and the tunnel is about 14 minutes door to door. Good stuff NRA - one state body that seems to be doing its job very well indeed tbh.


  • #10
    cormie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,859 ✭✭✭✭cormie


    Irish and Proud wrote: »
    Well at least the DPT is leading by example in this "fiscal adjustment" that the government keeps on lecturing about! :)

    About the safety aspect, my main concern would be the enforcement of traffic laws - the distancing between vehicles is terrible despite the numerous electronic signs telling users to keep 2 or 3 chevrons apart - maybe this country needs to invest in reading skills for people. Also, some of the traffic seems to be traveling at excessive speed. That said, the tunnel is very efficient in getting people from A to B.

    Regards!

    I don't think it was to do with driver safety, more like infrastructural safety I heard? I think there was a program on TV stating it wasn't properly built and it isn't 100% safe from collapsing etc?


  • #11
    paulm17781
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,858 ✭✭✭paulm17781


    cormie wrote: »
    I don't think it was to do with driver safety, more like infrastructural safety I heard? I think there was a program on TV stating it wasn't properly built and it isn't 100% safe from collapsing etc?

    I'd be fairly certain that's nonsense.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    cormie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,859 ✭✭✭✭cormie


    I don't know, my mam told me, hardly something she'd make up :P it was more a "don't be going through that port tunnel cormie!" way then ranting against it for some reason. She saw it on tv. May not have full story but just going by what I thought I heard my mam say :o Maybe it was them saying how it wasn't built high enough for the tall trucks and she understood it as being unsafe for trucks or something.


  • #13
    bmaxi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,859 ✭✭✭bmaxi


    I remember seeing a TV doc. where the Fire Brigade had concerns but it was to do with emergency access being blocked rather than structural problems.


  • #14
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    I can't understand why they don't let taxis go through it for free, or at least free if they have a fare.

    i like the idea of giving something to Ferry passengers as well, they could issue a permit or voucher that allows cars through for free during a two hour window before their ferry leaves or after it docks.


  • #15
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,415 ✭✭✭markpb


    bmaxi wrote: »
    I remember seeing a TV doc. where the Fire Brigade had concerns but it was to do with emergency access being blocked rather than structural problems.

    I saw the same problem - I think it was Primetime about a year after it opened. The vehicular emergency doors along the tunnel were blocked with water barriers which DFB claimed were for the fire brigade and the DFB claimed they didn't need, wouldn't use and would hinder emergency access.

    The show also claimed that more than the allowed number of cameras and sensors were out of order at several times and the tunnel was (knowingly) allowed remain open. There was never a follow-up show so I've no idea if the problems were fixed but I've been through it a few times lately and the exits seem to be clear.


  • #16
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,122 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I can't understand why they don't let taxis go through it for free, or at least free if they have a fare.

    i like the idea of giving something to Ferry passengers as well, they could issue a permit or voucher that allows cars through for free during a two hour window before their ferry leaves or after it docks.

    Why? And why?
    cormie wrote: »
    T...They should make it free for all commercial vehicles, not just those over 3.5tn/16 seats...

    Why?


  • #17
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,415 ✭✭✭markpb


    monument wrote: »
    Why? And why? Why?

    Social policy to reduce traffic from residential and urban streets.


  • #18
    ad hoc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39 ✭ad hoc


    markpb wrote: »
    Social policy to reduce traffic from residential and urban streets.

    Social policy?


  • #19
    cormie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,859 ✭✭✭✭cormie


    monument wrote: »

    Why?

    Because a commercial vehicle is essential to carry some things and there are no alternatives. Isn't the peak increases to influence the use of public transport as opposed to sending vehicles through the city and whatever other reasons they had for allowing HGV's through it for free ;)


  • #20
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,122 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    markpb wrote: »
    Social policy to reduce traffic from residential and urban streets.

    Social policy? Including promoting taxi use?
    cormie wrote: »
    Because a commercial vehicle is essential to carry some things and there are no alternatives. Isn't the peak increases to influence the use of public transport as opposed to sending vehicles through the city and whatever other reasons they had for allowing HGV's through it for free ;)

    Fair enough, that's a fairly valid point.


  • #21
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,415 ✭✭✭markpb


    monument wrote: »
    Social policy? Including promoting taxi use?

    Fair point, I quoted badly. I was referring only to commercial vehicles. If there's no need for them to be on urban streets, I think it would be a good idea to move them to an alternative.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    I think they must have been reading my post. Off to start new thread on the logic of dropping VAT to 10%.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055723560&referrerid=63730

    Just curious what people think or the logic of the off peak prices. Had a day off today so took the family for a day out. Ended up driving through town to go Northside. firstly my mistake didnt check the time of the various rates so at the back of my head thought it might be 12€. So Eastlink plus tunnel we are talking €8. Now from my point of view 8€ or 16€ return seems alot to save maybe 15/20min eachway when time isnt the main concern.
    Is the tunnel near capacity off peak or should they be aiming for a lower price point to divert more traffic from the city?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #23
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,667 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    monument wrote: »
    Why? And why?



    Why?

    to take as much PSV / freight / commercials (that don't need to be there) as possible out of the CC.
    Even have a nominal fee of €1 for these vechiles so revenue is maintained and I don't reall think these vechiles will add any congestion as such to the tunnel.

    As good as it is, I think it is still underutilised


  • #24
    johnnyrotten
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,591 ✭✭✭johnnyrotten


    €12 to €10 is hardly slashing prices


  • #25
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,667 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    johnnyrotten wrote: »
    €12 to €10 is hardly slashing prices

    16.67% reduction. Fairly substancial


  • #26
    DWCommuter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 ✭✭✭DWCommuter


    I always found it a bit rediculous that Car ferry traffic (non HGV) had to pay the toll if it used the tunnel. I would have thought it more sensible to allow all booked ferry vehicles to use it free of charge. It only requires the ferry companies to issue a token. In the summer the amount of cars, camper vans and towed caravans on north wall quay post ferry arrival, is something that can be avoided.


  • #27
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    monument wrote: »
    Why? And why?



    Why?

    just the small matter of a tunnel that costs godzillians to build and has pretty much **** all traffic.

    I thought these would be fairly small measures that keep the tunnel free for the HGVs for which it is designed and yet remove a bit more traffic off the residential areas.


  • #28
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,737 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    Remember that here we have a motorway that terminates directly into an 'R' road. There is very little road capacity in the docks area to take a significant volume of through traffic. The idea was that the DPT would be supplemented by a southern bypass which would provide an onward link, but this idea has now been shut down.

    The issue isn't really the capacity of the tunnel.

    The issue is the capacity of the city centre for the extra traffic. The DPT is priced to avoid increasing the demand on that limited capacity.

    You could certainly say that it's not fair that centre city users who come in via the N4 get fairly direct access to the city centre for free, but that M1 users have to pay full whack.


  • #29
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    Remember that here we have a motorway that terminates directly into an 'R' road. There is very little road capacity in the docks area to take a significant volume of through traffic. The idea was that the DPT would be supplemented by a southern bypass which would provide an onward link, but this idea has now been shut down.

    The issue isn't really the capacity of the tunnel.

    The issue is the capacity of the city centre for the extra traffic. The DPT is priced to avoid increasing the demand on that limited capacity.

    You could certainly say that it's not fair that centre city users who come in via the N4 get fairly direct access to the city centre for free, but that M1 users have to pay full whack.

    Anyone from D4 down to Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire etc uses that route as their main way to the airport or north. I don't think you would significantly increase the traffic heading up the east coast, just take a lot of traffic off the area between Dublin port and the M1.

    ditching the east link toll would help as well. that bridge must have paid for itself a thousand times over by now.


  • #30
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,737 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    You would move the traffic that is currently in Drumcondra into the East Wall area.

    In addition, you would have traffic hitting the M1 faster. It is 'gated' at the moment by Drumcondra. The M1 is somewhat congested as it is.

    In the other direction, you would have to close the Tunnel southbound at times, because traffic would not be able to get out of the city end sufficiently quickly to avoid a tailback into the tunnel.

    I am not saying that you would not create some extra capacity. You would, but it would have quite serious consequences for the Port area. The extra congestion in the port area would mean that the benefit would ultimately not be all that great.

    That is all quite apart from the tendency of road usage to increase to fill the capacity available.

    Do you think there is a benefit in keeping a high-speed route available, even if a premium is charged for it?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement