Dublin Bus route 16 - solving the the SCR / Camden Street issue

Victor

[Parallel thread here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057536746 for Rathmines]

I regularly use the 14, 15, 15a, 15b, 16, 49, 65 and 65b.

One of the perpetual issues is that buses are interminably delayed going through
the SCR from Leonard's Corner to Kelly's Corner and through Rathmines from the Garda station to the canal (despite bus lanes operating for much of the distance).

One of the potential solutions would be to route some buses via New Street and Christchurch, where the underused bus lane is 10-15 minutes faster than SCR / Camden Street. However, there are two objections (a) the 16 brings tourists to hotels and hostels on SCR / Camden Street / Aungier Street and (b) people from Harold's Cross and beyond want to get to St. Stephen's Green, etc.

So, I'm suggesting the attached.
9 - operate the same as at the moment, with an increased frequency.
16 - operate via Christchurch, with reduced running time. Move the spare capacity to route 9 & 41.
41 - operate from Airport to Dartry, the current routing of the 140. 99% of former route 16 tourists taken care of.
49 - operate via SCR / Camden Street (not shown on map).
140 - divert from Darty to Terenure

Pete_Cavan

Victor wrote: »

One of the potential solutions would be to route some buses via New Street and Christchurch, where the underused bus lane is 10-15 minutes faster than SCR / Camden Street.

I have often thought that New Street is underused by buses and could offer a faster route for buses than Georges Street/Camden Street. The problem with New Street is that just north of the Fumbally and the Spar shop, the bus lane loses that designation and is a general traffic lane with road markings showing for left turn (for the Coombe) and continuing straight onto Patrick Street. That junction (where New Street, Patrick Street, Kevin Street and the Coombe meet) really disrupts buses. For general traffic going north from New Street, they use the former bus lane to skip the queue and when they get through that junction, the bus lane comes back in and traffic in the left lane suddenly tries to move into the next lane which is already full. This causes serious delays to buses, as they have to sit and wait for all the traffic to filter over into the general lane before they can continue. It is just one of many examples around the city where public transport loses out and the lanes provided specifically for public transport are compromised.

The road markings at that junction need to change to have the bus lane run continuously from New Street to Patrick Street, with only left turning traffic allowed to enter to turn towards the Coombe. The light sequence also needs to change to allow for the left turning traffic to get around the corner and out of the way of buses when there is green for continuing straight. This is already needed for existing buses like the 27 which is unnecessarily delayed here. It is a very easy problem to fix yet nothing happens. It certainly needs to happen before putting another route like the 16 along there.

MrMorooka

What's the reason for moving the 49 to the current 16 routing?

Other than that, looks like a good solution. As a resident of Portobello, I personally think it's pretty easy to go to Clanbrassil St or to Richmond St/Camden St to get buses, so I don't think you need a massive frequency over the SCR at this section anyway, especially given the delays to buses along there.

LXFlyer

While operating via Patrick St and Clanbrassil St might be faster southbound than the existing 16 route, I doubt very much that it would be particularly faster northbound as Patrick St, Lord Edward St and Dame St can all have major traffic issues.

I certainly don't believe that it would result in a reduction in running time and peak vehicle requirement (PVR) on the 16 route to facilitate increases on other routes.

I would be loath to remove the 16 from its current routing as that would mean anyone who uses it from south of Rathfarnham (and that can be a full seated load) to the St Stephen's Green area would have a longish walk or have to take two buses. None of the suggestions above would solve that issue.

The Clanbrassil St/New St corridor is just that bit more remote from the SSG area, and also anyone working in the CBD would have a much longer walk than at present. The current routing takes the bus where the bulk of passengers want to go, or within walking distance of it.

I'm afraid I wouldn't be in favour of changing that.

I think extending the 41/A/B/C to Palmerston Park isn't a bad idea, but I'd do that via SSG.

I'm not sure where you would terminate the 140 in Terenure - there's no obvious location for buses to lay over, unless it were to operate to the old 54a terminus at Templeville Road, but that's a lengthy route increase which along with the 41 extension would require a large number of extra buses.

Victor

Oh, bus lane enforcement might be useful on Harold's Cross Road, especially approaching the canal.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I have often thought that New Street is underused by buses and could offer a faster route for buses than Georges Street/Camden Street. The problem with New Street is that just north of the Fumbally and the Spar shop, the bus lane loses that designation and is a general traffic lane with road markings showing for left turn (for the Coombe) and continuing straight onto Patrick Street.

This can be messy, but is much faster than SCR / Camden Street, especially in the morning. Bus priority could be improved through traffic light changes, i.e. give the buses a green light before general traffic. It may be useful to revise the stop arrangement on Patrick Street.

MrMorooka wrote: »

What's the reason for moving the 49 to the current 16 routing?

To maintain a Harold's Cross-SSG link.

lxflyer wrote: »

While operating via Patrick St and Clanbrassil St might be faster southbound than the existing 16 route, I doubt very much that it would be particularly faster northbound as Patrick St, Lord Edward St and Dame St can all have major traffic issues.

The bus lanes on SCR are compromised by being too narrow and general traffic obstructing buses trying to use them and general nuisance parking elsewhere. Wexford Street is fly-parking central and Aungier Street-Georges Street are over-subscribed, especially in the evening.

I certainly don't believe that it would result in a reduction in running time and peak vehicle requirement (PVR) on the 16 route to facilitate increases on other routes.

Having used the route for the last 12 years, I differ.

I would be loath to remove the 16 from its current routing as that would mean anyone who uses it from south of Rathfarnham (and that can be a full seated load) to the St Stephen's Green area would have a longish walk or have to take two buses. None of the suggestions above would solve that issue.

They would still have the 15b and the re-routed 140.

I think extending the 41/A/B/C to Palmerston Park isn't a bad idea, but I'd do that via SSG.

I'm not so sure. Diverting the Rathmines busses from SSG to Aungier Street, reduced timings substantially.

I'm not sure where you would terminate the 140 in Terenure - there's no obvious location for buses to lay over, unless it were to operate to the old 54a terminus at Templeville Road

I wouldn't go west of Terenure.

LXFlyer

Victor - I was very specific by mentioning south of Rathfarnham. The 15b and 140 would be useless to anyone boarding south of Rathfarnham (and that can be a full seated load on the 16 in the mornings) - it would require changing buses.

Terenure is not a suitable location for a bus terminus - your 140 would have to go further. You need space for at least two buses to lay over.

Replacing the 15a/15b with the 49 and 54a to/from Grand Canal Dock is no use to anyone using them to/from Rathgar or Rathmines and there are quite a lot of people doing that.

My own experience of using the 16 for far longer than you is that you would discommode more people by your proposal.

You'd also need a far more radical change (such as removing it from Beaumont) to justify a change in the PVR.

My suggestion re the 41 group and SSG is on the basis of not re-routing the 16.

Changing bus routes around is all well and good, but when that results in people having to take two buses rather than one that's generally not a good idea. The changes that Network Direct made had virtually no such changes, except possibly the 13 being switched from Merrion Square. Your changes would leave a lot of people requiring either two buses where they currently take one or a much longer walk.

Victor

lxflyer wrote: »

Changing bus routes around is all well and good, but when that results in people having to take two buses rather than one that's generally not a good idea. The changes that Network Direct made had virtually no such changes, except possibly the 13 being switched from Merrion Square. Your changes would leave a lot of people requiring either two buses where they currently take one or a much longer walk.

The flip side is that Network Direct has stalled, many people are being dumped short of their destination and still need to get multiple buses and passengers are being price gouged for two fares (discounted or not).

LXFlyer

Victor wrote: »

The flip side is that Network Direct has stalled, many people are being dumped short of their destination and still need to get multiple buses and passengers are being price gouged for two fares (discounted or not).

Victor I appreciate where you're coming from (believe me I do as someone who has used all of those routes almost daily for far longer than you), but I don't believe in making wholesale changes without providing suitable direct alternatives, which your proposal doesn't do.

Remember people often make house purchases on the basis of transport connections - while you can make changes such as straightening them out to bypass a village (eg 46a and 145), you don't make such dramatic changes as you're suggesting - it's removing the 16 to the extremity and that's really not acceptable.

Clearly there is an opportunity to extend some of the routes that terminate in the city centre either through merging routes, or extending across to the other side of the city, and I'm sure when funds permit the NTA will be doing precisely that.

Carawaystick

lxflyer wrote: »

I'm sure when funds permit the NTA will be doing precisely that.

You are assuming the NTA are a passenger focused organisation, which isn't my experience of dealing with them

But the solution needs more than them, it needs city and national govt to change bylaws, laws and enforce the existing and new ones