M50 Congestion

First Up · 06-12-2019 5:59pm

MJohnston wrote:

You're so single-minded about accidents being the only possible cause of M50 congestion.

Except I never said that. I have repeatedly acknowledged the M50 is busy - at times overly so. It is a vital part of our transport infrasttucture so its hardly a surprise people use it.

That is precisely why I am exasperated by the needless collisions and fender benders that render it inoperable several times a day. The contrast between how the road functions when there are accidents and when there are not is all the evidence anyone should need but you seem in denial about it.

Cars going in the same direction on a well built and well marked road will only collide if one of them does something they shouldn't. There is NO excuse for the accidents on the M50.

You are welcome to lobby for more roads, more buses, better high speed rail, wider use of bicycles or anything else close to your heart. But it doesn't strengthen your argument to pretend that improved driver behaviour wouldn't help a lot - and a lot more quickly and cheaply than anything else.

tom1ie · 06-12-2019 9:23pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

A viable PT system can't be achieved without these in place first. This argument is a classic motorist red herring

That’s a chicken and egg argument.
You cannot introduce higher tax, congestion charges, in other words penalties for drivers, without giving them an alternative first.
The only way to do it is by doing both sides of the argument at the same time, ie penalties plus building qbc’s, p+r’s, metro’s etc.
my point was this won’t be done while we vote ff or fg in (regardless of a Green Party coalition partner).
Hence me saying motorists have nothing to worry about, the status quo will remain or get worse until traffic levels drop off in the next recession.

tom1ie · 06-12-2019 9:26pm

First Up wrote: »

Except I never said that. I have repeatedly acknowledged the M50 is busy - at times overly so. It is a vital part of our transport infrasttucture so its hardly a surprise people use it.

That is precisely why I am exasperated by the needless collisions and fender benders that render it inoperable several times a day. The contrast between how the road functions when there are accidents and when there are not is all the evidence anyone should need but you seem in denial about it.

Cars going in the same direction on a well built and well marked road will only collide if one of them does something they shouldn't. There is NO excuse for the accidents on the M50.

You are welcome to lobby for more roads, more buses, better high speed rail, wider use of bicycles or anything else close to your heart. But it doesn't strengthen your argument to pretend that improved driver behaviour wouldn't help a lot - and a lot more quickly and cheaply than anything else.

It’s human nature to make mistakes, hence accidents will always happen, until we all have Tesla autopilot driving us around.
You are not offering a solution, you are just stating the obvious.

First Up · 06-12-2019 9:40pm

tom1ie wrote:

Itâ€™s human nature to make mistakes, hence accidents will always happen, until we all have Tesla autopilot driving us around. You are not offering a solution, you are just stating the obvious.

What's your solution - a shrug of the shoulders?

I think we need a bit better than that.

MJohnston · 06-12-2019 9:42pm

tom1ie wrote: »

That’s a chicken and egg argument.
You cannot introduce higher tax, congestion charges, in other words penalties for drivers, without giving them an alternative first.
The only way to do it is by doing both sides of the argument at the same time, ie penalties plus building qbc’s, p+r’s, metro’s etc.
my point was this won’t be done while we vote ff or fg in (regardless of a Green Party coalition partner).
Hence me saying motorists have nothing to worry about, the status quo will remain or get worse until traffic levels drop off in the next recession.

The problem there is the two sides of the equation can't happen at the same time - best case is you introduce car reduction measures for the city centre a few months before you launch BusConnects. But you can't do it the other way around. And you can't have another 5 years after BusConnects is ready to introduce those penalties, in order to wait until Metro is ready.

With a city reliant upon on-road public transport for at least another 8 years, the first step has to be reducing the number of cars that can occupy valuable bus route space. It would lead to an improvement in public transport quality almost overnight, I would guess.

tom1ie · 06-12-2019 10:10pm

First Up wrote: »

What's your solution - a shrug of the shoulders?

I think we need a bit better than that.

No. I’ve already given my solution. It’s to reduce the number of cars on the road by providing a viable pt system.
Less human driven cars on the road, less human mistakes, less crashes.
Common sense really.

tom1ie · 06-12-2019 10:18pm

MJohnston wrote: »

The problem there is the two sides of the equation can't happen at the same time - best case is you introduce car reduction measures for the city centre a few months before you launch BusConnects. But you can't do it the other way around. And you can't have another 5 years after BusConnects is ready to introduce those penalties, in order to wait until Metro is ready.

With a city reliant upon on-road public transport for at least another 8 years, the first step has to be reducing the number of cars that can occupy valuable bus route space. It would lead to an improvement in public transport quality almost overnight, I would guess.

I agree with introducing car reduction methods, JUST before or at the same time as bc, however the problem I see with bringing in the measures years ahead of bc or metro is,
Let’s say a full bus with 100 people is stuck in a line of traffic (with no bus lane available) consisting of 100 cars sitting in front of that bus on a Monday.
On Monday night the government introduces financial penalties against motorists.
50% of the motorists say, “ok I’m not paying this it makes financial sense to take the bus now”.
So Tuesday morning we now have 150 people waiting at the bus stop to get on a bus that was at max capacity on the Monday.
The 50 people that left the car at home on Tuesday but couldn’t get on the bus as there was no room, guess what they do on Wednesday.........they drive:pac:
You MUST provide a viable alternative to keep people on pt if financial penalties initially kick them out of the car.

First Up · 06-12-2019 10:19pm

tom1ie wrote:

No. Iâ€™ve already given my solution. Itâ€™s to reduce the number of cars on the road by providing a viable pt system. Less human driven cars on the road, less human mistakes, less crashes. Common sense really.

Oh right. So in the meantime we do what?

MJohnston · 06-12-2019 10:22pm

First Up wrote: »

Oh right. So in the meantime we do what?

Apparently stop crashing.

First Up · 06-12-2019 10:24pm

MJohnston wrote:

Apparently stop crashing.

That would be a good start.

Thargor · 06-12-2019 10:26pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Apparently stop crashing.

Dont forget to remove all the cars that break down from the road leaving only the ones that dont.

X111111111111 · 06-12-2019 10:27pm

A major motorway with massive congestion problems, well i never...

tom1ie · 06-12-2019 10:33pm

First Up wrote: »

Oh right. So in the meantime we do what?

There is nothing major that can be done in the short term at all, as bc and metro are a decade away at least. This is purely the fault of successive governments and very poor ministers for transport, none more so than himself in office at the moment.
Rushing in anpr cameras to police qbc’s would help. - Ross says no.
Breaking up bc and individually building radial and orbital routes starting with the easiest (eg n4, n11 etc) would get things moving better much quicker, however that’s not gonna happen politically.
Adding more rail capacity won’t happen as we have a unique gauge rail width so we’ve to build trains from scratch, again years before they arrive.

The only answer is build the easy qbc’s of bc ASAP, introduce anpr, cashless system, middle doors opening, min 400m distance from bus stop to bus stop.
Not gonna be quick.

MJohnston · 06-12-2019 10:34pm

tom1ie wrote: »

I agree with introducing car reduction methods, JUST before or at the same time as bc, however the problem I see with bringing in the measures years ahead of bc or metro is,
Let’s say a full bus with 100 people is stuck in a line of traffic (with no bus lane available) consisting of 100 cars sitting in front of that bus on a Monday.
On Monday night the government introduces financial penalties against motorists.
50% of the motorists say, “ok I’m not paying this it makes financial sense to take the bus now”.
So Tuesday morning we now have 150 people waiting at the bus stop to get on a bus that was at max capacity on the Monday.
The 50 people that left the car at home on Tuesday but couldn’t get on the bus as there was no room, guess what they do on Wednesday.........they drive:pac:
You MUST provide a viable alternative to keep people on pt if financial penalties initially kick them out of the car.

Except you can almost immediately improve the *frequency* of bus services if cars aren't clogging up the city.

Whereas, if you flip the order and the same amount of cars are still on the road, you won't be able to do much at all about improving peak frequencies, without temporarily buying a tonne of extra buses and hiring a lot of extra drivers.

I'm also pretty unconvinced by the arguments that bus capacity is too bad for car drivers to consider switching - packed buses are largely a symptom of car congestion in the city centre messing up frequencies and leaving large gaps in service.

tom1ie · 06-12-2019 10:41pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Except you can almost immediately improve the *frequency* of bus services if cars aren't clogging up the city.

Whereas, if you flip the order and the same amount of cars are still on the road, you won't be able to do much at all about improving peak frequencies, without temporarily buying a tonne of extra buses and hiring a lot of extra drivers.

I'm also pretty unconvinced by the arguments that bus capacity is too bad for car drivers to consider switching - packed buses are largely a symptom of car congestion in the city centre messing up frequencies and leaving large gaps in service.[/QUOTE

Not sure if I agree with you on this. Yes if there’s less car traffic, the bus will move faster and hence improve frequency.
But if this bus is already packed full, the only people that benefit are the commuters on that bus, by getting maybe 5 mins off their journey time, due to their being less traffic as 50 people decided to leave their car at home and that pt on Tuesday.
We have not laid on any more busses or made the busses physically bigger, so the 50 people that left their car at home are stuck at the bus stop waiting as their is no extra CAPACITY.
FREQUENCY has improved as car traffic is down on Tuesday but CAPACITY is still the same even though there is more demand on Tuesday than on Monday when demand equaled supply.

First Up · 06-12-2019 10:43pm

MJohnston wrote:

I'm also pretty unconvinced by the arguments that bus capacity is too bad for car drivers to consider switching - packed buses are largely a symptom of car congestion in the city centre messing up frequencies and leaving large gaps in service.

Meanwhile on the orbital M50.......

tom1ie · 06-12-2019 10:48pm

First Up wrote: »

Meanwhile on the orbital M50.......

This argument can be applied to orbital bus routes also.
Orbital bus routes in Dublin are truly shocking.
The green route in firhouse to sandyford is a bug bearer of mine. :mad:

MJohnston · 06-12-2019 10:49pm

First Up wrote: »

Meanwhile on the orbital M50.......

The M50 isn't an isolated system detached from the rest of Dublin's Road network. It's a complex system that is constantly heavily affected by external factors such as congestion elsewhere in the city. Not to mention the large amount of cars heading into or out of the city that use the M50.

MJohnston · 06-12-2019 10:55pm

tom1ie wrote: »

Not sure if I agree with you on this. Yes if there’s less car traffic, the bus will move faster and hence improve frequency.
But if this bus is already packed full, the only people that benefit are the commuters on that bus, by getting maybe 5 mins off their journey time, due to their being less traffic as 50 people decided to leave their car at home and that pt on Tuesday.
We have not laid on any more busses or made the busses physically bigger, so the 50 people that left their car at home are stuck at the bus stop waiting as their is no extra CAPACITY.
FREQUENCY has improved as car traffic is down on Tuesday but CAPACITY is still the same even though there is more demand on Tuesday than on Monday when demand equaled supply.

I don't know what to tell you, but capacity of the bus network is absolutely a factor of bus frequency. If a bus that can hold 120 people comes every 15 minutes, that's a capacity of 480 passengers per hour on that route. Increase that frequency to 12 minutes, and the route capacity is now 600 people per hour.

tom1ie · 06-12-2019 11:03pm

MJohnston wrote: »

I don't know what to tell you, but capacity of the bus network is absolutely a factor of bus frequency. If a bus that can hold 120 people comes every 15 minutes, that's a capacity of 480 passengers per hour on that route. Increase that frequency to 12 minutes, and the route capacity is now 600 people per hour.

Yes I know your point, but 50 extra people turn up at bus tops along (for example) cromwelsfort road.
They’ve left their cars at home due to financial penalties.
The bus that was full at 07.00 on Monday is full again at 07.00 on Tuesday.
There is no room for the 50 extra people.
However that full bus will be turned around quicker to pick up those 50 people in maybe 30 mins time on Tuesday as opposed to the 40 mins it would’ve took on Monday.
Meanwhile the 50 people that left the car at home are late for work as there was no extra capacity for them to get on at the time they needed it.
Those 50 extra people are now gonna drive in on Wednesday, and were back to square one.
Now do you see what I mean?

First Up · 06-12-2019 11:24pm

tom1ie wrote:

Yes I know your point, but 50 extra people turn up at bus tops along (for example) cromwelsfort road. Theyâ€™ve left their cars at home due to financial penalties. The bus that was full at 07.00 on Monday is full again at 07.00 on Tuesday. There is no room for the 50 extra people. However that full bus will be turned around quicker to pick up those 50 people in maybe 30 mins time on Tuesday as opposed to the 40 mins it wouldâ€™ve took on Monday. Meanwhile the 50 people that left the car at home are late for work as there was no extra capacity for them to get on at the time they needed it. Those 50 extra people are now gonna drive in on Wednesday, and were back to square one. Now do you see what I mean?

Complicated isn't it?

Meanwhile, lets all learn how to use a motorway, while we wait for someone to wave a magic wand.

tom1ie · 06-12-2019 11:31pm

First Up wrote: »

Complicated isn't it?

Meanwhile, lets all learn how to use a motorway, while we wait for someone to wave a magic wand.

Well not really.

We’ve already ascertained that you cannot remove human mistakes without removing humans.

First Up · 06-12-2019 11:32pm

tom1ie wrote:

Weâ€™ve already ascertained that you cannot remove human mistakes without removing humans.

Can we reduce the mistakes?

tom1ie · 06-12-2019 11:35pm

First Up wrote: »

Can we reduce the mistakes?

Not really. I mean maybe if you introduced tech that mildly but uncomfortably electrocuted people for browsing/texting/looking at their phones whilst driving at 60kph + on the m50.
That’s unlikely though.

LeinsterDub · 07-12-2019 1:37am

First Up wrote: »

Can we reduce the mistakes?

I thought you were able to eliminate accidents and breakdowns all together

First Up · 07-12-2019 9:25am

tom1ie wrote:

Not really. I mean maybe if you introduced tech that mildly but uncomfortably electrocuted people for browsing/texting/looking at their phones whilst driving at 60kph + on the m50. Thatâ€™s unlikely though.

Sounds as if you plan to keep doing it anyway.

First Up · 07-12-2019 9:26am

LeinsterDub wrote:

I thought you were able to eliminate accidents and breakdowns all together

Not with you around by the look of it.

Those acts if god are pesky critters eh?

riddles · 07-12-2019 9:40am

If all the jobs were created in development hubs outside the M50 serviced by each of the motorways, it could have been different. The city could have been linked to those by LUAS and would make the city more pleasant and not the catalyst for insane property prices.

It’s insane that such a low density population country has such traffic chaos with Dublin and Galway being notable examples. It’s mind boggling how many motorway exits are clogged by poor design with motorists having to yield to the right to rat runs.

The Irish people’s ability to tolerate nonsense is almost unique. It’s a whole other thread as to why that is.

MJohnston · 07-12-2019 9:55am

The irony is, I bet increased enforcement on the M50 would actually heavily increase congestion while it was ongoing. The rubbernecking, the unexpected braking when you see the Garda car, etc.

First Up · 07-12-2019 10:32am

MJohnston wrote:

The irony is, I bet increased enforcement on the M50 would actually heavily increase congestion while it was ongoing. The rubbernecking, the unexpected braking when you see the Garda car, etc.

A touch of desperation there Mr J.

Cameras and fines in the post for most offences. A bit of Garda action would work wonders for focusing minds too.

M50 Congestion

Comments