NTA to the rescue! -- "Bus will be workhorse as NTA chief tackles congestion"

StreetLight

In the current context of industrial relations at Bus Éireann, it's interesting to see how the powers that be will have to rely so much on bus drivers to help sort out public commuting woes.

From the Irish Independent:
"Bus will be workhorse as NTA chief tackles congestion conundrum"

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/bus-will-be-workhorse-as-nta-chief-tackles-congestion-conundrum-35407631.html

hmmm

It's interesting to know just what exactly some posters would like the NTA to do in the context of BE:
- Remove competition on routes so they can charge exorbitant rates?
- Subsidise an unprofitable service run by BE, even where there is private competition that customers are choosing to use?

Aside from all that, it's a very interesting article with some sensible observations and plans.

Corca Baiscinn

It's good to see that somebody is worried about congestion. I shiver every time I read yet another Brexit -related article re company X or Y being enticed to Dublin. The article always talks about the jobs, the opportunities etc and never about how Dublin is crippled with traffic congestion. We need improved public transport and cycle tracks, in any case but if the government is hell-bent on maximising the opportunities from Brexit they had better get the cheque-book out

ClovenHoof

"There's no doubt we need to look at the next fleet to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce emissions, but there's a cost associated."

How does Virtue Signalling reduce congestion?

monument

ClovenHoof wrote: »

How does Virtue Signalling reduce congestion?

It doesn't reduce congestion, but our state agencies should be following national policy to reduce both climate change and health-impacting emissions. Even if that means paying a bit extra -- the human health benefits alone are worth it.

AlekSmart

monument wrote: »

It doesn't reduce congestion, but our state agencies should be following national policy to reduce both climate change and health-impacting emissions. Even if that means paying a bit extra -- the human health benefits alone are worth it.

The nub of the Matter....define "a bit"....?

Infini

Realistically tho they're putting too much emphasis on the busses. Many of the roads expecially close to Dublin CC are all old style narrow roads difficult for traffic and to even place a bus lane in. Realistically more rail and tram solutions need to be considered as well as planning buisness parks near the M50 or the proposed M20.

monument

AlekSmart wrote: »

The nub of the Matter....define "a bit"....?

Other cities seem to manage it. For example, LA Metro have their full bus fleet on compressed natural gas CNG since 2011 https://www.metro.net/news/simple_pr/metro-retires-last-diesel-bus/

Then again they are also ahead of us on ticketing, underground rail, on-street rail, and BRT.

Infini2 wrote: »

Realistically tho they're putting too much emphasis on the busses. Many of the roads expecially close to Dublin CC are all old style narrow roads difficult for traffic and to even place a bus lane in.

So, that's why the plan is to take more space from ineffective private cars and give that space over to sustainable transport, including buses.

Infini2 wrote: »

Realistically more rail and tram solutions need to be considered

Sure, but, realistically, not yet funded rail projects with no planning permission of no help in the short to mid term -- the NTA are saying that buses are the solution which is realistic in the short term.

Infini2 wrote: »

as well as planning buisness parks near the M50 or the proposed M20.

The M50 which is already at critical levels of usage???

Or an outter ring road away from where most people live and one which is still a pipe dream? Btw the M20 name is already taken!

AlekSmart

monument wrote: »

Other cities seem to manage it. For example, LA Metro have their full bus fleet on compressed natural gas CNG since 2011 https://www.metro.net/news/simple_pr/metro-retires-last-diesel-bus/

Then again they are also ahead of us on ticketing, underground rail, on-street rail, and BRT.

So, that's why the plan is to take more space from ineffective private cars and give that space over to sustainable transport, including buses.

Sure, but, realistically, not yet funded rail projects with no planning permission of no help in the short to mid term -- the NTA are saying that buses are the solution which is realistic in the short term.

The M50 which is already at critical levels of usage???

Or an outter ring road away from where most people live and one which is still a pipe dream? Btw the M20 name is already taken!

https://www.metro.net/about/financebudget/

The agreed LA Metro budget for 2017,amounts to...$5,626,200,000 5 Billion,626 million,200 thousand U.S $ of which the total Congestion Management allocation is $110.9 million .

bk

AlekSmart wrote: »

https://www.metro.net/about/financebudget/

The agreed LA Metro budget for 2017,amounts to...$5,626,200,000 5 Billion,626 million,200 thousand U.S $ of which the total Congestion Management allocation is $110.9 million .

The population of the LA Metro area is 13 million people or somewhere close to 10 times Dublin and that budget includes all pubic transport in the area.

Plus when they say "budget" that includes all ticket sales + operating revenue + capital assets.

If you add up DB + Luas + Dart + Cummter Rail + BE + Private operators I wouldn't be surprised if their yearly "budget" was proportionally similar.

The Congestion Management Allocation is in no way comparable to LA Metros budget. Nor should it be used to excuse the terrible operational practices of Dublin Bus of terrible dwell times and non use of dual door buses, etc.

monument

AlekSmart wrote: »

https://www.metro.net/about/financebudget/

The agreed LA Metro budget for 2017,amounts to...$5,626,200,000 5 Billion,626 million,200 thousand U.S $ of which the total Congestion Management allocation is $110.9 million .

Yes, they construct and run highway and public transport projects in LA county -- which has 10 million residents and plus commuters and other visitors.

In 2015 their weekday average daily ridership was 1,286,723 -- and that's just their own-brand transport services, they also contribute to regional commuter rail.

They had proper integrated ticketing when they were still paper based and launch smartcards before we did. This accounted for a small percentage of their budget.

Their rail projects were planned and build bit by bit over time -- just like most other cities big and small.

Going for CNG buses would not have amounted to a lot of their budget -- nobody is expecting Dublin Bus or the NTA to go out and buy a new fleet in one go, you buy new buses with demand or as buses need replacing.

bk

I didn't realise that budget also includes road construction and maintenance.

Then you can compare it to the Department of Transports land transport budget for 2017 which is €1.46 Billion. That is for the whole country, which is about 1/3rd the size of the LA Metro area. So scaled up that would be in the region of €4.5 Billion, not far off. And note the DOT's budget doesn't include DB, etc. ticket sales and other revenue, which the LA Metro does.

markpb

bk wrote:

That is for the whole country, which is about 1/3rd the size of the LA Metro area.

I think you're getting your numbers a little mixed up.

LACMTA are responsible for transport in Los Angeles county (not the metro area) which is 12,000 km2. The Republic of Ireland is 70,000 km2.

They do contribute to the running of suburban rail that covers more than just LA county but so do all the other transit agencies in that areas covered by that system. It's a shared management system, they're not funding rail in Orange County for example.

I totally agree with the rest of your post though. They're an excellent transit operator who have come a long way from a very bad place. They have proper long term plans, they execute those plans well and they have repeatedly convinced the people of Los Angeles to contribute extra sales taxes to pay for those plans.

monument

bk wrote: »

I didn't realise that budget also includes road construction and maintenance.

Their current capital budget is running at around $21,048 million for public transport vs $32,091 million for roads.

See: https://mtadash.mlmprojectservices.com/

The larger road projects seem to be led by the state DoT, and Metro plans and part funds, likely in some cases directly or indirectly with the feds.

Their short-range transport plan gives an idea of what they are funding: https://www.metro.net/projects/short-range-transportation-plan/#

KCAccidental

This article is the first time I've seen the "BRT" mentioned for a couple of years now.

newacc2015

Infini2 wrote: »

Realistically more rail and tram solutions need to be considered as well as planning buisness parks near the M50 or the proposed M20.

Business parks near the M50 is one of the main reasons why congestion is so bad in the city. One of my friends couldn't get her head around how as a Dubliner I had a car, why would I need one? I put it to her this way, if I lived in Swords and wanted to work in Sandyford or Citywest it would probably be about 2 hours each way on public transport. A car would be 30-60 mins tops. I know someone who used to go from Ballymun to Sandyford and it took him 90 mins each way on the bus. He could do it in a car in about 30 mins.

All the public transport leads to the city. There is no orbital routes. Office blocks in the city are being designed to house 1000-1200 workers and have a dozen car spaces. I would love to see an office in a business park on the M50 where a third of the staff aren't driving to work versus 1% in the city

It was refreshing to see the Government is hesitant to build the M20 as it realises that it will spur ribbon development and more ****ty suburb housing without public transport. Build high rise in cities and will see the need for cars disappear. Look at how hardly anyone in Phisboro has a car

hmmm

newacc2015 wrote: »

Business parks near the M50 is one of the main reasons why congestion is so bad in the city.

I agree with you, and it's odd that you rarely hear it mentioned - everything PT-wise is so city centre orientated. DART underground, metro North, LUAS, all designed to get people into the city centre. The reality like you say is that unless you live close to a bus route that goes via a business park, you are going to need a car and you are going to drive to save vast amounts of time. A bit of creative thinking with bus routes at peak times could make a big difference.

Dyr

Does the NTA know that work horses are a thing of the past?

I doubt it tbh

Dyr

"The authority's 20-year €10bn strategy, published in 2015, aims to reduce car commuting from 62pc to 45pc of all journeys made, and increase walking and cycling rates from 16pc to 20pc."

So this clown Graham wants to increase the numbers of pedestrians? Would she mind explaining how thats going to work when they've spent the last two years narrowing footpaths, clogging them with overused bus stops and ensuring that Dublin pedestrians will spend more time waiting at traffic lights than any other transport option?

What annoys me about this is there isn't a journo in this country with a clue to actually put it to these chancers that they know their plans are a load of nonsense that will never be implemented

loyatemu

Bambi wrote: »

So this clown Graham wants to increase the numbers of pedestrians? Would she mind explaining how thats going to work when they've spent the last two years narrowing footpaths, clogging them with overused bus stops and ensuring that Dublin pedestrians will spend more time waiting at traffic lights than any other transport option?

Does the NTA actually have any remit when it comes to footpath construction and traffic light timings? That would be controlled by DCC.

Dyr

loyatemu wrote: »

Does the NTA actually have any remit when it comes to footpath construction and traffic light timings? That would be controlled by DCC.

They don't but they have a large say so when they're narrowing paths and sticking rows of bus stops on paths that won't be able to handle the capacity

Also begs the question why is she aiming at increasing pedestrians while they have no input into the infrastructure?

bk

Actually NTA have a massive say. Almost all funding for road and footpath maintenance comes to DCC via the NTA and all funding for new infrastructure and works (e.g. Luas Cross City, BRT, The Quays public transport corridor, etc.) are all funded by the NTA.

At this stage it is pretty much a case of when the NTA say jump, DCC, etc. say how high.

And for the most part DCC actually agrees with the NTA's ideas. They are pretty sensible after all and pretty much the only reasonable solution to the ever growing population and congestion in Dublin.

The only area of disagreement is on street parking and the city car parking, as they are such major revenue generators for DCC.

The NTA/DCC priorities are number one, walking + cycling, number 2 public transport.

Dyr

bk wrote: »

The NTA/DCC priorities are number one, walking + cycling, number 2 public transport.

The fact that every nearly every reference to walking in their report is actually "walking + cycling" says a lot. Cyclists (traffic) and pedestrians are mixed in together in their mindset. Like that works out well for pedestrians

bk

Bambi wrote: »

The fact that every nearly every reference to walking in their report is actually "walking + cycling" says a lot. Cyclists (traffic) and pedestrians are mixed in together in their mindset. Like that works out well for pedestrians

It isn't any more fun for cyclists either!

Though in fairness to the NTA, from all the reports and plans I've seen from them, they do try and separate pedestrians and cyclists where possible.

The more road space that is removed from cars, the more that is available for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.

Dyr

bk wrote: »

The more road space that is removed from cars, the more that is available for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.

But they've done the opposite in most cases...space has been taken from pedestrians for other transport options

It's sorta funny that they point out all the sub optimal pedestrian facilities in their report but fail to mention that they're the cause of most of it

pclive

Bambi wrote: »

But they've done the opposite in most cases...space has been taken from pedestrians for other transport options

It's sorta funny that they point out all the sub optimal pedestrian facilities in their report but fail to mention that they're the cause of most of it

Can you give some examples where this has happened?

Dyr

pclive wrote: »

Can you give some examples where this has happened?

O'Connell Street, O'Connell bridge, Pearse street, fosters green, D'olier street, Drumcondra, Most of the new city centre bridges

Just pick anywhere that has had transport infrastructure added in the last 5 years and you'll find the pedestrian was who was squeezed to make space

flutered

Bambi wrote: »

Does the NTA know that work horses are a thing of the past?

I doubt it tbh

similar to the last few goverments, they are making it up as they go along

pclive

Bambi wrote: »

O'Connell Street, O'Connell bridge, Pearse street, fosters green, D'olier street, Drumcondra, Most of the new city centre bridges

Just pick anywhere that has had transport infrastructure added in the last 5 years and you'll find the pedestrian was who was squeezed to make space

O'Connell Street - footpaths widened
O'Connell bridge - footpaths to be widened as part of Luas Cross City
Pearse street - Cant think of where pedestrians space was lost
fosters green - College Green? Civic plaza to be constructed and to be pedestrianised
Most of the new city centre bridges - providing new bridges surely improves things for pedestrians through improved connectivity?

Dyr

pclive wrote: »

O'Connell Street - footpaths widened
O'Connell bridge - footpaths to be widened as part of Luas Cross City
Pearse street - Can't think of where pedestrians space was lost
fosters green - College Green? Civic plaza to be constructed and to be pedestrianised
Most of the new city centre bridges - providing new bridges surely improves things for pedestrians through improved connectivity?

O'Connell street central median narrowed for luas as with o'connell bridge

Pearse street, foootpath narrowed in numerous places for loading areas and busy bus stops added to narrow sections

Same on fosters green narrow footpaths blocked by busy bus stops

Butt bridge and rosie hackett bridge both have pedestrian lights on only one side and have their footpaths combined with bicycle lanes. The Sean O'Casey Bridge is a pedestrian only bridge that banned bicycles and then placed a dublin bikes station right at its mouth, thus ensuring it would become a bike highway

On top of that you have constant building work in the city centre which takes away pedestrian routes as a matter of course.

Anything else you need clarified?

bk

Bambi wrote: »

O'Connell street central median narrowed for luas as with o'connell bridge

I'm sorry, but while they have reduced the median, they have massively increased the footpath width on both sides. Almost doubled in both cases. You know, next to the shops, where most people actually walk!

Reducing the median is irrelevant as almost no one walks there anyway!

It is ironic you mention O'Connell Street because it is pretty much an outstanding example of very successful footpath widening.

There is more then enough pedestrian space on O'Connell Street now. The issue now is the bottleneck that forms on O'Connell Bridge and down Westmorland Street, etc.

But fortunately the NTA plan when they complete the Luas works is to significantly widen the footpath on O'Connell Bridge and down Westmorland Street to a new plaza on College Green.

Here is the plan for O'Connell Bridge widening, note the blue lines are the current footpath:





Westmorland Street:



College Green:



As you see, lots of massively widened footpaths.