BusConnects Dublin - Bus Network Changes Discussion

MJohnston

Think about what you're arguing in opposition there - the bus network should deliberately kept inefficient, and losses should intentionally kept high, in order to ensure that privatisation should never happen. The bus network should remain disfunctional and broken so that it is an unappealing purchase.

(Even though, it must be said, privatisation might never even happen even if those problems were fixed.)

That's a truly nutty position to take.

If you make a bus network better for more people, it is completely impossible to avoid the outcome of it also being more profitable, and therefore a more appealing target for privatisation. But to suggest that we shouldn't attempt the first thing to avoid the last thing is crazy!

Seth Brundle

SG317 wrote: »

It's quite interesting that a lot of people seem to deny that Bus Connects will lead to future privitisation. In order for a narrative to gain attention it has to be somewhat believable. Future privitisation is very believable and the Bus Connects plan will make the Bus Network more profitable. This is simply due to the fact, that people on less popular routes will be moved onto more profitable routes which are the spine routes. This will inturn decrease the number of unprofitable routes as they will be reduced to the bear minimum, with people instead being forced onto the already at capacity Luas, Dart, Commuter Lines and busy bus routes. So future privitisation is very much a threat and I think people need to stop being so dissmisive of the idea that Bus Connects is partially about privitisation.

Why does any form of progressive change nowadays instantly arise suspicion from some.
Do people want to see us back in the seventies with the crap yet expensive services that were on offer?

Sam Russell

Increasing the efficiency of DB would decrease the likely push for privatisation. It is inefficiency that privatisation is attempting to be the cure for, so being very efficient makes the target unappealing.

SG317

Completely expected what I said to be blown out of proportion. Actually I do agree that the current network needs change, however what I said is that these changes will result in the network being more profitable, and hence it makes sense why people fear privitisation will follow with Bus Connects. I also clearly stated that the plan will also force people on the already at capacity Luas, Dart and Commuter Lines, do actually that is not maximising efficiency but rather profability. I would appreciate if people actually bothered to read the post and stopped with the usual attacking of peoples viewpoint when it opposes theirs. Bus Connects may have some benefits, but I certainly wouldn't go out as far as call it progressive, a real progressive transport policy would focus on extending the much more popular tram lines, which won't be extended for at least another 5 or 10 years.

ThunbergsAreGo

ED E wrote: »

The only reason to get the bus to Skerries is St Stephen's' day. Otherwise train.

The train is at capacity

Stephen15

SG317 wrote: »

Completely expected what I said to be blown out of proportion. Actually I do agree that the current network needs change, however what I said is that these changes will result in the network being more profitable, and hence it makes sense why people fear privitisation will follow with Bus Connects. I also clearly stated that the plan will also force people on the already at capacity Luas, Dart and Commuter Lines, do actually that is not maximising efficiency but rather profability.

If the new network is more profitable then that is proof that the new network is more attractive as it is attracting more passengers which can only be seen as a good thing as people are being attracted to use public transport reducing pollution and congestion. We need to attract people out their cars and onto sustainable transport.

Yes I agree that more money needs to be invested in rail based transport hopefully DART expansions and Metrolink will bring about that.

I would appreciate if people actually bothered to read the post and stopped with the usual attacking of peoples viewpoint when it opposes theirs. Bus Connects may have some benefits, but I certainly wouldn't go out as far as call it progressive, a real progressive transport policy would focus on extending the much more popular tram lines, which won't be extended for at least another 5 or 10 years.

Luas extensions won't cut it the Luas Green Line needs to be upgraded to Metro and DART expansions are badly needed. Metrolink needs to be built. Luas is at capacity and so is the DART. DART needs more rolling stock and extensions to improve the frequency on commuter lines but all these projects need a good bus system to back it up.

Staph

Well won't it be great to have the bus services that BusConnects are offering compared to over stretched train service!

dashcamdanny

davetherave wrote: »

For a start on record with a Joint Oireachtas Committee

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_transport_tourism_and_sport/2018-07-18/6/

Just a few bits in this one,


Dunboyne, currently served by the 70 which runs every 60 minutes, is being replaced by a bus that runs, at worst, every 20 minutes to Blanchardstown SC, where users can change onto any 'B' bus running every 5 minutes to get in to the City Centre and on out to UCD.

Blessington, the current 65 is proposed to be replaced with a 244.
the 65 currently at midday of a weekday runs one service every two hours into the City Centre.
Proposed change makes the route an a worst hourly connection to Tallaght where people can change to the Luas or the A2/D2 frequent route. This is supplemented by a peak hours service 344 which reduces it to a connection with Tallaght every 30 minutes.


Skerries will have an at worst 30 minute frequency to Swords where they can connect to the high frequency A4.

Saggart has the 69, the only change is that front of the bus will now say 63. Saggart is also gaining the new connection the W8, running Tallaght - Citywest - Saggart - Celbridge -Maynooth. Why is the NBRU opposing a plan that will allow students from, in their own words, working class communities like Tallaght, Saggart, Rathcoole the opportunity to have Maynooth University as an option for their studies?

The 68 in newcastle has a midday frequency of every 60 minutes, this is being replaced with an at worst 30 minute frequency to the Red Cow for Luas connections.

Now I don't claim to be an infrastructure megamind but if I wanted to "isolate" Dunboyne I would scrap all of their bus routes and tell them to get the train, not increase the frequency of the buses. Like I said though, I don't have the knowledge of how bus infrastructure works like Mr O'Leary clearly has.

The right Honourable Mr O'Leary continues with


You can see from the screenshots in the link below that these areas are gaining more connections, and more employment opportunities in 60 minutes than they have now.
https://imgur.com/a/BBqVsjm





The single decker buses are to be used on the Orbital route that follows the two canals and has restrictions due to bridge height. You'd hope that the head of the bus and rail union would understand that double decker buses tend to be quite tall.

Thanks. That was a well though and very informative post.
Facts instead of journalist links and opinions. . I did check some of the driver bills and you are correct.

Qrt

davetherave wrote: »

For a start on record with a Joint Oireachtas Committee

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/joint_committee_on_transport_tourism_and_sport/2018-07-18/6/

Saggart has the 69, the only change is that front of the bus will now say 63. Saggart is also gaining the new connection the W8, running Tallaght - Citywest - Saggart - Celbridge -Maynooth. Why is the NBRU opposing a plan that will allow students from, in their own words, working class communities like Tallaght, Saggart, Rathcoole the opportunity to have Maynooth University as an option for their studies?

The proposed 63 doesn't serve Saggart. It terminates at Citywest SC, which is more Tallaght than anywhere else. The residents of the likes of Carraigmore, Saggart Abbey (awfully misleading name) and Carrig Court all have the Luas on their doorstep, whereas the residents of Saggart Village and the estates of Slade Castle, Páirc Mhuire, Millrace and the new Crosforge/Drury Mills are very far flung from the proposed route 63, I'd hazard a guess and say it's a 30 minute walk.

marno21

Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)

I raise the issue of BusConnects. There are many concerns relating to BusConnects. Like many Deputies, I support the investment in public transport. While the overall intention of what is being attempted with BusConnects should be warmly welcomed, nevertheless there are genuine concerns among communities across my constituency and across Dublin relating to existing bus services and the consultation process that is currently ongoing.

Will the Taoiseach raise these concerns with the National Transport Authority, NTA? Many concerns are genuine. There are some local politicians and politicians of various stripes who are trying to stoke fears. They are trying to make people fearful that they will lose their service when many people will have an increased service. Nevertheless, there are genuine concerns about bus services to local communities that will be affected.

Leo Varadkar (Taoiseach, Department of An Taoiseach; Dublin West, Fine Gael)


I thank Deputy Brophy for raising this important issue, which is causing enormous concern across the capital city. BusConnects is Government policy. It is a €2 billion investment in improving our bus services, not only in Dublin but also in Cork and Galway.

Some people in my constituency spend more than an hour each day travelling to work on the bus. That is an hour in and back which is ten hours a week. BusConnects, if we get it right, could reduce journey times by half.

This would mean that people could spend an extra five hours a week with their families or on their own daily lives. It is clear that we need to get it right. When I met the chief executive officer of the National Transport Authority last week, I expressed the enormous concerns of many people in Dublin about the proposals, particularly regarding direct routes into the city centre and the termination of routes long before the city centre. I said that the authority needs to make major modifications to the plan and I asked that a revised plan with major modifications be submitted and put to consultation again.

Cookie_Monster

That is an hour in and back which is ten hours a week

At least he managed to get the complicated maths bit correct :rolleyes:

I said that the authority needs to make major modifications to the plan and I asked that a revised plan with major modifications be submitted and put to consultation again.

just change it, I don't really care how, just make it different...

Hotblack Desiato

SG317 wrote: »

a real progressive transport policy would focus on extending the much more popular tram lines, which won't be extended for at least another 5 or 10 years.

Extending tram lines which are already too slow and too low in capacity is pointless.

Dublin needs a system of metro lines but in the meantime it needs buses to work as well as they possibly can. The current system does not come close to delivering that.

Victor

Qrt wrote: »

Does anybody know if there's any indication that the new bus corridors will have high degree speed of priority? As in similar levels to the luas, where it arrives and usually goes through without stopping or just stopping for a short period? I was on the bus to Swords yesterday and the time it spent waiting at lights was awfully high.

There has been a programme to improve bus priority in the city centre.

Under BusConnects, the idea is that stops will be moved to immediately after a junction, thereby helping to minimize transfer times. As a bus approaches, it gets a green light. After the bus goes through the junction (and assuming no more buses), the light goes red. Where there isn't a bus lane, this means that there should be some empty road ahead of the bus when it pulls off from the stop.

MJohnston wrote: »

Speaking of bus priority signals, the ones they installed on the Chapelizod N4 bypass westbound are so badly done. When you're driving up from the Kylemore Road onto the bypass, you get a flashing amber even when the bus lane on the N4 has a red light. The flashing amber is actually to indicate you need to give way to the bus lane on the slip road, not the N4, but you'd basically never know that.

The result is 90% of onramp traffic stops on the flashing amber to try and turn and look at the N4 bus lane, which is almost entirely physically impossible to see. They can make a couple of quick fixes here and solve it, but they never do.

I'm not sure that flashing orange is needed. The bus lane and traffic lane on the slip road don't interact. One does need to be careful of taxis in the traffic lane on the main carriageway.

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3502356,-6.3547941,3a,75y,284h,91.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skAHHU4Bq0ig2AYoz9rKQcQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

CatInABox

marno21 wrote: »

Leo wrote:

This would mean that people could spend an extra five hours a week with their families or on their own daily lives. It is clear that we need to get it right. When I met the chief executive officer of the National Transport Authority last week, I expressed the enormous concerns of many people in Dublin about the proposals, particularly regarding direct routes into the city centre and the termination of routes long before the city centre. I said that the authority needs to make major modifications to the plan and I asked that a revised plan with major modifications be submitted and put to consultation again.

The most optimistic reading of this is that the "major modifications and consultation" would simply be the next phase of the BusConnects project, i.e. finish this consultation, take on board all the comments, and then go to consultation with the revised plan.

The less optimistic take is that BusConnects is finished in Dublin for now.

Marlay

marno21 wrote: »

Some people in my constituency spend more than an hour each day travelling to work on the bus. That is an hour in and back which is ten hours a week. BusConnects, if we get it right, could reduce journey times by half.

The reduction in journey times given in the plan are dependent on the planned infrastructure changes going ahead, is that correct? As in, the continuous bus corridors would need to be place to achieve this?

CatInABox

Marlay wrote: »

The reduction in journey times given in the plan are dependent on the planned infrastructure changes going ahead, is that correct? As in, the continuous bus corridors would need to be place to achieve this?

Each part of the plan will result in a reduction in journey times, so the Core Bus Corridors have their own reduction, and the BusConnects reorganisation will have their own reduction as well.

sharper

Marlay wrote: »

The reduction in journey times given in the plan are dependent on the planned infrastructure changes going ahead, is that correct? As in, the continuous bus corridors would need to be place to achieve this?

Some routes will be improved but as far as I can see a lot of the journey time improvements are frequency increases or having a bus service that's closer so less walking/waiting time.

I'm pretty sure that BusConnects without infrastructure changes will increase journey times overall for existing users.

dashcamdanny

Marlay wrote: »

The reduction in journey times given in the plan are dependent on the planned infrastructure changes going ahead, is that correct? As in, the continuous bus corridors would need to be place to achieve this?

What makes anyone here think that bus corridors are going to make any difference. We already have miles of them all over the city. And they are used as a place to park. Especially outside peoples houses. Lets be clear. A bus lane fits a bus with 6" of clearance each side. When car partly or fully parks a car in it, the whole lane is useless as the bus now has to stop and give way to traffic in the other lane.

Billions being pumped in. Yet zero enforcing what we have. Its almost like the government want the current system to fail.

What will happen is Bus connects will get lots of attention at the start and lots of Garda attention to match. Give it a month it will reduce to zero enforcement. all these spine busses will bunch up and you will frequently see 3 or ever 4 buses coming down the road together .

Qrt

dashcamdanny wrote: »

What makes anyone here think that bus corridors are going to make any difference. We already have miles of them all over the city. And they are used as a place to park. Especially outside peoples houses. Lets be clear. A bus lane fits a bus with 6" of clearance each side. When car partly or fully parks a car in it, the whole lane is useless as the bus now has to stop and give way to traffic in the other lane.

Billions being pumped in. Yet zero enforcing what we have. Its almost like the government want the current system to fail.

What will happen is Bus connects will get lots of attention at the start and lots of Garda attention to match. Give it a month it will reduce to zero enforcement. all these spine busses will bunch up and you will frequently see 3 or ever 4 buses coming down the road together .

I'm fairly sure I read somewhere that there's a bill being held up in the Dáil, but the main gist of the bill is that traffic camera enforcement etc. will come under the realm of the NTA.

tom1ie

dashcamdanny wrote: »

What makes anyone here think that bus corridors are going to make any difference. We already have miles of them all over the city. And they are used as a place to park. Especially outside peoples houses. Lets be clear. A bus lane fits a bus with 6" of clearance each side. When car partly or fully parks a car in it, the whole lane is useless as the bus now has to stop and give way to traffic in the other lane.

Billions being pumped in. Yet zero enforcing what we have. Its almost like the government want the current system to fail.

What will happen is Bus connects will get lots of attention at the start and lots of Garda attention to match. Give it a month it will reduce to zero enforcement. all these spine busses will bunch up and you will frequently see 3 or ever 4 buses coming down the road together .

Automatic number plate recognition needs to be introduced. We can’t depend on the guards, they are under resourced. Where private cars abuse bus lanes they should be caught using pole mounted cameras, not employing a guard to sit in a car and catch them. But I’d say legislation will have to be introduced.

But make no mistake, for bus connects to work, we need the spine infrastructure built.

Bray Head

We also need to get over the mindset that you need sworn officers from a national police force to enforce local traffic offences. AGS have training to investigate all sorts of crimes, have weapons training, etc. This is superfluous for the humdrum task of keeping people out of bus lanes.

You simply need an urban transport police with powers somewhere in between a traffic warden and a police officer. This would be a dedicated budget line with clear reporting lines and responsibility to the minister for transport.

Lord Glentoran

Crushing cars parked illegally in bus lanes, on the spot, would concentrate minds wonderfully.

Sam Russell

Bray Head wrote: »

We also need to get over the mindset that you need sworn officers from a national police force to enforce local traffic offences. AGS have training to investigate all sorts of crimes, have weapons training, etc. This is superfluous for the humdrum task of keeping people out of bus lanes.

You simply need an urban transport police with powers somewhere in between a traffic warden and a police officer. This would be a dedicated budget line with clear reporting lines and responsibility to the minister for transport.

The old traffic wardens would be quite adequate. A bit of technology, and backup from the Street Parking lot and it could all be sorted.

ANPR Camera enforcement of no right turns, bus lanes and cycle lanes would complement the system, particularly if they included NCT, Motor Tax and Insurance as part of the package for both ANPR and traffic wardens.

Victor

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Crushing cars parked illegally in bus lanes, on the spot, would concentrate minds wonderfully.

Forfeit and sell is much better.

Marlay

I would be more concerned with bus lanes appearing and disappearing like the current QBCs. Do people really think of journeys in door to door times? Or just time spent on the bus. A more frequent bus that takes as long just won't seem like an improvement to me.

sharper

Marlay wrote: »

I would be more concerned with bus lanes appearing and disappearing like the current QBCs. Do people really think of journeys in door to door times? Or just time spent on the bus. A more frequent bus that takes as long just won't seem like an improvement to me.

It depends on whether you're thinking of the bus as getting you to/from work or or as a generally useful service.

If you're commuting to work then you'll think mostly in terms of journey time. For general usefulness frequency matters a lot because you can essentially just go get the bus at any time that's convenient to you, as you would with a private car.

Bus Connects focuses a lot on making a generally useful service. This is good but won't help getting it adopted because existing users will always be louder and more forceful than potential new users.

MJohnston

Marlay wrote: »

I would be more concerned with bus lanes appearing and disappearing like the current QBCs. Do people really think of journeys in door to door times? Or just time spent on the bus. A more frequent bus that takes as long just won't seem like an improvement to me.

The frequency improvements are vital for getting more people to accept the concept of interchanging.

The concept of interchanging is vital for getting more routes to use more efficient QBCs rather than going on zig-zag journeys through suburban main streets.

The more efficient routes are vital to ever being able to improve journey times.


These things are all connected.

ED E

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Crushing cars parked illegally in bus lanes, on the spot, would concentrate minds wonderfully.

Can't do that, we'd have no Garda cars left within a week.

Sam Russell

MJohnston wrote: »

The frequency improvements are vital for getting more people to accept the concept of interchanging.

The concept of interchanging is vital for getting more routes to use more efficient QBCs rather than going on zig-zag journeys through suburban main streets.

The more efficient routes are vital to ever being able to improve journey times.


These things are all connected.

A service that is infrequent is OK for going somewhere requiring a swap to a frequent service, but not so good for coming back. I could decide to go somewhere and look up the time of the infrequent service, but not so easy coming back as a few minutes late caused by a delay somewhere and I miss my connection.

Commuters would know the connection times I would think.

Marlay

sharper wrote: »

It depends on whether you're thinking of the bus as getting you to/from work or or as a generally useful service.

If you're commuting to work then you'll think mostly in terms of journey time. For general usefulness frequency matters a lot because you can essentially just go get the bus at any time that's convenient to you, as you would with a private car.

Bus Connects focuses a lot on making a generally useful service. This is good but won't help getting it adopted because existing users will always be louder and more forceful than potential new users.

That does make sense. But, as a 9 to 5 commuter, it does make it difficult to view the plan positively. For Celbridge, where I am, the general approach seems to be, if you want to commute go get the train. Which is fine, as long as we see corresponding improvements in the rail services.