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

M50 Congestion

Options
1…34689…22

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Last Stop
    Registered Users Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Last Stop


    veryangryman wrote: »
    It would not. A bypass that far away would be used by those avoiding Dublin altogether, not by those living and working in the city and county.

    M50 is currently a relief road but is direct route to port and airport. So its usage will always be high. Non Dublin county traffic is minimal percentage wise i have to imagine

    And yet your solution is to build a road specifically for this minimal percentage??


  • Options
    #153
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,129 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    Integrated Public transport with direct links to industrial parks, combined with higher density housing is the only way to reduce congestion on the M50.
    Building more roads just won't work.
    Reducing cars is the way to go, this can only be done by providing a proper alternative to commuters that works out financially better than the costs of running a car.


  • Options
    #154
    Last Stop
    Registered Users Posts: 920 ✭✭✭Last Stop


    tom1ie wrote: »
    Integrated Public transport with direct links to industrial parks, combined with higher density housing is the only way to reduce congestion on the M50.
    Building more roads just won't work.
    Reducing cars is the way to go, this can only be done by providing a proper alternative to commuters that works out financially better than the costs of running a car.

    The financial return on is difficult to quantify. Car drivers do not tend to acknowledge the true cost of having a car from insurance, tax, petrol etc. Therefore the alternative has to be significantly cheaper.

    Removing traffic that doesn’t actually need to be on the M50 would reduce congestion.
    That would involve:
    1) Improving cross country routes such as the N80 and N52 so if you’re travelling from say Cork to Belfast you could run off the M7 at Port Laoise.
    2)Providing an alternative for those who use the M50 to jump from one junction to the next. As I’ve already mentioned, the N4-N3 is the obvious one and this would remove anyone travelling from say Lucan to Tallaght or Blanch to Sandyford.


  • Options
    #155
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    Last Stop wrote: »
    The financial return on is difficult to quantify. Car drivers do not tend to acknowledge the true cost of having a car from insurance, tax, petrol etc. Therefore the alternative has to be significantly cheaper.

    Removing traffic that doesn’t actually need to be on the M50 would reduce congestion.
    That would involve:
    1) Improving cross country routes such as the N80 and N52 so if you’re travelling from say Cork to Belfast you could run off the M7 at Port Laoise.
    2)Providing an alternative for those who use the M50 to jump from one junction to the next. As I’ve already mentioned, the N4-N3 is the obvious one and this would remove anyone travelling from say Lucan to Tallaght or Blanch to Sandyford.

    Improving Public transport in Dublin is a better spend than building new roads. Sandyford/Leopardstown is very hard to get to from Tallaght or Lucan by PT

    Same D15 to Lucan/Clondalkin

    Once the commuter traffic is reduced, the N7 -> M1 trips are fine.


  • Options
    #156
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,129 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Improving Public transport in Dublin is a better spend than building new roads. Sandyford/Leopardstown is very hard to get to from Tallaght or Lucan by PT

    Same D15 to Lucan/Clondalkin

    Once the commuter traffic is reduced, the N7 -> M1 trips are fine.

    Not only this, but if you pair this approach up with building p+r’s on the radial routes, eg on the n4 at leixlip/cellbridge and then run reliable pt (heavy rail, plus constant frequency busses that use qbc’s) that integrate with the pt system provided for dubliners, you reduce the car traffic moving around Dublin and the car traffic moving into Dublin from the likes of maynooth, Naas, dunboyne etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    tjhook
    Registered Users Posts: 735 ✭✭✭tjhook


    Last Stop wrote: »
    The financial return on is difficult to quantify. Car drivers do not tend to acknowledge the true cost of having a car from insurance, tax, petrol etc. Therefore the alternative has to be significantly cheaper.

    Yes, it's difficult to quantify. If the choice is between owning/driving a car versus using public transport, then it's fairly clear.

    But if you already own a car, then costs like insurance, motor tax, nct, servicing etc are due regardless of how you choose to travel. The marginal cost of making an individual journey by car is little more than the fuel, and perhaps parking.


  • Options
    #158
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,500 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    tjhook wrote: »
    Yes, it's difficult to quantify. If the choice is between owning/driving a car versus using public transport, then it's fairly clear.

    But if you already own a car, then costs like insurance, motor tax, nct, servicing etc are due regardless of how you choose to travel. The marginal cost of making an individual journey by car is little more than the fuel, and perhaps parking.

    That ultimately is the problem though.

    People are very reluctant to use public transport when they've a car sitting in the driveway.

    For all the talk about extra routes, re channelling traffic, new roads etc etc - that will solve nothing.

    The only solution here is a change in mindset such that people will consider alternatives to the car.

    That's the biggest opportunity for change. There are absolutely heaps of people who could take bus/ luas/ bike but don't.

    Everyones happy for 'other people' to do it, but they wont do it themselves.


  • Options
    #159
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,129 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    tjhook wrote: »
    Yes, it's difficult to quantify. If the choice is between owning/driving a car versus using public transport, then it's fairly clear.

    But if you already own a car, then costs like insurance, motor tax, nct, servicing etc are due regardless of how you choose to travel. The marginal cost of making an individual journey by car is little more than the fuel, and perhaps parking.
    That’s where you must introduce tolls on private cars downstream of a p+r plus congestion charging to get people to move to pt. Along with providing pt at a reasonable cost at an exceptional service level.
    In other words tax and toll the private car user to subsidize the pt user.


  • Options
    #160
    tjhook
    Registered Users Posts: 735 ✭✭✭tjhook


    tom1ie wrote: »
    That’s where you must introduce tolls on private cars downstream of a p+r plus congestion charging to get people to move to pt.


    Or maybe a little carrot as well as the stick. Public transport is quite costly (especially when park-n-ride costs are considered), the routes don't really work unless you're traveling to/from a city centre, and it's often overcrowded. All the stick in the world won't magic thousands of people onto a system that hasn't capacity for them.

    The state could do a few things:

    1. Rebalance motoring costs so there are fewer fixed costs to the driver, and instead more pay-by-use costs. That doesn't have to mean overall cost increases, although some people love the idea of penalising drivers.

    2. Make public transport convenient. Better routes. Not everybody works in city centres.

    3. Fix park-n-ride. Add capacity, make it free or cheap.

    4. More capacity. Standing is ok for a 20-minute spin from the stop/station to the office. It's far less attractive if it's going to take 90 minutes, with one trip into the city centre, and another out to wherever you work. And possibly a walk to get from one to the other. (I did that for a number of years)


  • Options
    #161
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,500 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    tjhook wrote: »
    Or maybe a little carrot as well as the stick. Public transport is quite costly (especially when park-n-ride costs are considered), the routes don't really work unless you're traveling to/from a city centre, and it's often overcrowded. All the stick in the world won't magic thousands of people onto a system that hasn't capacity for them.

    The state could do a few things:

    1. Rebalance motoring costs so there are fewer fixed costs to the driver, and instead more pay-by-use costs. That doesn't have to mean overall cost increases, although some people love the idea of penalising drivers.

    2. Make public transport convenient. Better routes. Not everybody works in city centres.

    3. Fix park-n-ride. Add capacity, make it free or cheap.

    4. More capacity. Standing is ok for a 20-minute spin from the stop/station to the office. It's far less attractive if it's going to take 90 minutes, with one trip into the city centre, and another out to wherever you work. And possibly a walk to get from one to the other. (I did that for a number of years)

    Well look - its with good reason.

    Our air quality is appalling. The streets are clogged. Its constant gridlock.

    I do agree with your point overall though - people need cars. They just don't need to use them so much.

    A sharp reduction in car tax and a sharp increase in fuel prices would do what you describe above.

    Say motor tax fell to zero, but you were shelling out €150 to fill the tank.....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Orbital motorways are necessary. It is simply not realistic to expect public transport to service every route.

    People need to go where they neeed to be; increasing the cost won't change that.

    There is no avoiding congestion at peak times but that congestion could be a lot less if people drove properly and cut out the stupid accidents.


  • Options
    #163
    Breezer
    Registered Users Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭Breezer


    First Up wrote: »
    Orbital motorways are necessary. It is simply not realistic to expect public transport to service every route.
    Yes, and we have one. It’s not working because not enough people are using mass or sustainable transport for journeys that could be covered by those means. Building an orbital to orbit the orbital isn’t the answer; investing in sustainable and mass public transport is.

    Are there any proposals to resurrect Metro West? A high frequency rail line running under/beside the M50, connecting with Luas/Heavy Rail/Bus Connects/Park and Ride at the junctions, would surely go a long way. I’m aware it would be expensive but congestion is now hampering our economy too.
    People need to go where they neeed to be; increasing the cost won't change that.
    It would if there were a viable alternative and the cost were high enough. Both need to be done in tandem. Bus Connects is a great opportunity to start this.
    There is no avoiding congestion at peak times but that congestion could be a lot less if people drove properly and cut out the stupid accidents.
    Agreed.


  • Options
    #164
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Breezer wrote:
    It would if there were a viable alternative and the cost were high enough. Both need to be done in tandem. Bus Connects is a great opportunity to start this.

    And I'm sure they are looking at it very closely.


  • Options
    #165
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,129 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    tjhook wrote: »
    Or maybe a little carrot as well as the stick. Public transport is quite costly (especially when park-n-ride costs are considered), the routes don't really work unless you're traveling to/from a city centre, and it's often overcrowded. All the stick in the world won't magic thousands of people onto a system that hasn't capacity for them.

    The state could do a few things:

    1. Rebalance motoring costs so there are fewer fixed costs to the driver, and instead more pay-by-use costs. That doesn't have to mean overall cost increases, although some people love the idea of penalising drivers.

    2. Make public transport convenient. Better routes. Not everybody works in city centres.

    3. Fix park-n-ride. Add capacity, make it free or cheap.

    4. More capacity. Standing is ok for a 20-minute spin from the stop/station to the office. It's far less attractive if it's going to take 90 minutes, with one trip into the city centre, and another out to wherever you work. And possibly a walk to get from one to the other. (I did that for a number of years)


    Agreed which is why in my previous post I said a quality affordable service must be provided first.
    We must pay for this upfront.
    We then pay off this investment by penalizing those who continue to drive while pt has been provided.


  • Options
    #166
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,864 ✭✭✭trellheim


    M50 congestion could be solved instantly by setting the same scale of tolls at all onramps as peak hours port tunnel and increasing the tolls until the congestion settles back down .

    Its a solution that wont please many though.


  • Options
    #167
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    tom1ie wrote:
    Agreed which is why in my previous post I said a quality affordable service must be provided first. We must pay for this upfront. We then pay off this investment by penalizing those who continue to drive while pt has been provided.

    So you need the policy to fail in order to pay for it.


  • Options
    #168
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,129 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    First Up wrote: »
    So you need the policy to fail in order to pay for it.

    Well not really as people will always drive no matter what however if they choose to do this they will have to pay for the pt services for the masses. Obviously the state will have to subsidize pt as would be the case everywhere else.


  • Options
    #169
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    tom1ie wrote:
    Well not really as people will always drive no matter what however if they choose to do this they will have to pay for the pt services for the masses. Obviously the state will have to subsidize pt as would be the case everywhere else.

    Way too simplistic. The revenue from road users would be an insignificant part of the operating cost. Providing public transport alternatives is desirable of course but substituting for the role of an orbital motorway is far more complex than urban transport.


  • Options
    #170
    Dial Hard
    Registered Users Posts: 13,411 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    tom1ie wrote: »
    Well not really as people will always drive no matter what.

    Not necessarily. I live in Firhouse and drove to work for years because there simply weren't any viable public transport options to get me where I needed to go. I've recently started a new job in the city centre and have happily ditched the car in favour of the bus.

    The suburban business parks like Citywest and Parkwest are appallingly serviced by public transport. It was a fairly regular occurance in my last company (Aerodrome/Greenogue business park) for people to join the company only to leave a month or two later because it was so difficult to get to using PT, to the point where recruitment started asking people if they had a car during the application process.

    Public transport policy in Dublin seems to be entirely predicated on the assumption that pretty much everyone works in town. And then people are surprised when those working outside of the M50 use it to drive to work...


  • Options
    #171
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,129 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    First Up wrote: »
    Way too simplistic. The revenue from road users would be an insignificant part of the operating cost. Providing public transport alternatives is desirable of course but substituting for the role of an orbital motorway is far more complex than urban transport.

    I have already stated that the state would have to subsidize...........


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    tom1ie wrote:
    I have already stated that the state would have to subsidize...........

    The fragmented distribution of the customer base (who by definition are the users of an orbital motorway) makes public services on such routes both enormously expensive and uneconomic to operate. Penalising those with no alternative to the M50 would be deeply unfair (possibly unconstitutional) and would contribute a tiny fraction of the cost.


  • Options
    #173
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,129 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    First Up wrote: »
    The fragmented distribution of the customer base (who by definition are the users of an orbital motorway) makes public services on such routes both enormously expensive and uneconomic to operate. Penalising those with no alternative to the M50 would be deeply unfair (possibly unconstitutional) and would contribute a tiny fraction of the cost.

    But orbital pt routes that link radial routes would give people the inter connectivity that is so badly missing on pt. Obviously this would have to be paired with major priority measures to give pt the right of way over car usage.
    We need to get away from car usage for commuting into Dublin and then into the city centre.


  • Options
    #174
    Ally Dick
    Registered Users Posts: 12,671 ✭✭✭✭Ally Dick


    Pity the Romans didn't invade Ireland. They would have built two massive relief roads around Dublin, and would have executed protestors on the spot. We'd have a minor M50 and major M50 ring road to this day


  • Options
    #175
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    tom1ie wrote:
    But orbital pt routes that link radial routes would give people the inter connectivity that is so badly missing on pt. Obviously this would have to be paired with major priority measures to give pt the right of way over car usage. We need to get away from car usage for commuting into Dublin and then into the city centre.

    Cae usage into the city centre can be replaced a lot easier than orbital commuters. Hub and spoke public transport sounds great but the development and operating costs would have to come from general taxation, not from charges on motorists using the M50.

    We'll see how the tax payers of Kerry and Donegal feel about that.


  • Options
    #176
    Infini
    Registered Users Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    First Up wrote: »
    We'll see how the tax payers of Kerry and Donegal feel about that.

    Well considering theyre being subsidised by Dublin to begin with.....


  • Options
    #177
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,129 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    First Up wrote: »
    Cae usage into the city centre can be replaced a lot easier than orbital commuters. Hub and spoke public transport sounds great but the development and operating costs would have to come from general taxation, not from charges on motorists using the M50.

    We'll see how the tax payers of Kerry and Donegal feel about that.

    Yes and I’ve already stated this.


  • Options
    #178
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    tom1ie wrote: »
    Yes and I’ve already stated this.

    You didn't state how much the subsidy would have to be.


  • Options
    #179
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,129 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    First Up wrote: »
    You didn't state how much the subsidy would have to be.

    Not really my job. That’s be the nta or the department of transport. :pac:


  • Options
    #180
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    tom1ie wrote:
    Not really my job. That’s be the nta or the department of transport.

    OK. I think they could solve the problem with a helicoptor taxi service (subsidised.) Its someone elses job to figure out how to pay for it.

    There, done.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    tom1ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,129 ✭✭✭✭tom1ie


    First Up wrote: »
    OK. I think they could solve the problem with a helicoptor taxi service (subsidised.) Its someone elses job to figure out how to pay for it.

    There, done.

    Yep well done.


Advertisement