M50 Congestion

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.....

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.

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.

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...........

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.

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.

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:

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.

Markcheese wrote: »

Like it, or loath it the m50 is the main transport hub in the state,

M50 carries about 140,000 vehicle trips per day. Dublin Bus carries almost twice day per day (143 million per year).

Maybe not quite the correct thread for my following question, but I am driving up to the airport from Gorey for a circa 11AM flight on Thursday, and am not quite sure how heavy the traffic will be on a midweek morning. I thankfully don't have to commute to work, but have been told the M11/M50 tends to be at its worst congestion between 7 amd 8AM?

So would I want to be leaving before 7AM, or would my original departure time of 7.30AM be time enough?

TIA

First Up wrote: »

Morning congestion is worse going southbound so you should be OK. Give yourself a safety margin though.

The poster would need to account for crashes, which happen frequently and are completely unpredictable in the delays they can cause. I know you implied this, but I just want to stress it to them.

I used to do the full length of the M50 northbound, coming on at Bray North on the M11 at about 8 and it would usually take me about 45 minutes to the M1 if there wasn’t a crash. That was about 18 months ago and I believe it’s worsened since then. God I don’t miss it!

Looking at Google Maps, Gorey to Bray is apparently 43 mins off peak. There’s usually congestion from around Glen of the Downs to Bray in the mornings I think, and that’s before you even hit the M50. If you’re trying to make the airport for 9 I’d be allowing yourself a lot of leeway. I don’t think I’d be leaving at 7.30 but it depends how long you need to park your car and get through to the gate I guess.

Actually, is the Wexford Bus an option for you? Less stressful I’d imagine, though I know nothing about its reliability.

Idbatterim wrote: »

I’m thinking of staying around airport in two weeks for early morning flight. Flight is in morning. E67 for hotel near airport a night ... fcuking stress of m50 for morning flights... can’t be arsed with it

What hotel did you get for €67?

Anytime I've booked there at least €100+

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Not sure if I have missed it but has been there been any movement on adding additional toll gates to the M50? IIRC, this was seen as an option to address congestion by encouraging locals using the M50 as a rat run to instead use local roads. I recall thinking that it was quite progressive thinking at the time.

Is there any other innovative/smart solutions being looked at for the M50?

That solves nothing, as you just push cars onto local roads.
Removing people from cars and putting them on pt is the only answer.
We just need to get good pt in place. :rolleyes:

tom1ie wrote: »

That solves nothing, as you just push cars onto local roads.
Removing people from cars and putting them on pt is the only answer.
We just need to get good pt in place. :rolleyes:

I agree with you on public transport. It is the long term solution of course.

I would argue the the M50 has a special designation relative to local roads. The M50 is one of the most crucial pieces of infrastructure in the country, and being a motorway, I would suggest it's primary purpose is in allowing commuters to cover relatively distances in a timely manner - the type of timely manner that makes commuter towns a viable place to live.

I am not for a second suggesting that locals in Dublin shouldn't be able to use the M50 but I do think the concept of incentivising people not to use it for short trips - particularly when alternative routes exist, is a worthwhile consideration in the short term. During peak hours anyway.

I travel the M50 from the Northside to deep in the Southside, J6 to J13 or J14 and in, majority on the M50. I’d agree with variable tolls and, indeed, would pay more overall for my journey if it would reduce traffic by incentivising people to skip the m50. As it is I know folks who try escape the Northside tax and just go round from Blanch to Lucan. It actually is a little bit nonsensical after the infrastructure the toll was for was built to only have a toll affecting one junction pair.

Has anyone with a similar north to south commute noticed that of late Google Maps etc is recommending not only the port tunnel, but a run straight through town as being usually faster than the M50. That about sums it up for me nowadays.

I did the whole south bound M50 run for over 15 year every day .. and saw the worst of it from the upgrade, celtic tiger, recession and now the return to the congestion.

Our offices are after J10 and about 18 months ago it became so restrictive for most of our staff .. people arriving in to the office 2 hours before work started so they wouldn’t have to sit in traffic etc. Eventually it dawned on us that we can’t complain about the traffic when we are all part of it.

So we made a decision that no body needs to come to the offic unless they want to .. everyone has the tool and tech to work from anywhere there is internet.

Aside from taking the guts of 20 cars a day off the road everyone is much happier and productivity has increased dramatically - couple this with more family time and saving money on commuting we find staff retention is much easier.

When we do need to visit customers in the city we can do this off peak and tend to bundle all out weekly meetings in to one day

Another side effect is that we are all spending more money in our local communities.

If the government can somehow bring in incentives for companies to introduce remote working it will take traffic off the roads, free up space for public transport and give an injection to small local economies.