BusConnects Dublin - Big changes to Bus Network

MJohnston

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Maybe, I'll look into that option.

The city centre routes for peak times are not being served as well as before bus connects under the new plan. The biggest issue for bus commuters is the sheer length the commute takes. All the proposed new city centre buses will be routed through Lucan village, rather taking the bypass, Even with no traffic snafus (unlikely given the amount of buses which will be routed through) this will add at least 20 minutes onto an already long commute. As any commuter knows, the later one leaves the more traffic that will be hit. By delaying the buses at such an early stage in the journey, commuters are likely to encounter significant delays further up route. The 66x and 67x can already take between 50-90 minutes to reach the city centre, to increase this commute time is going to take a heavy toll on bus users.

With regard to frequency, the current expresso services are already overloaded, and passengers are frequently standing if they are able to board at all at some stops. The population of North Kildare is going to skyrocket in the next few years, as rezoning has taken place to increase the supply of houses. A The population of Celbridge alone is projected to grow by at least 10,000 people within the next 5 years. Simply matching the current abysmal levels of service is not something to crow about, it is an absolute failure of a network redesign which is supposed to meet current and near future trasport needs. These housing estates are already being built. That anyone can stand over these decisions is madness.

I note, with mostly disinterest and lack of surprise, that you have ignored several thorough replies to you.

OscarMIlde

MJohnston wrote: »

I note, with mostly disinterest and lack of surprise, that you have ignored several thorough replies to you.

And I note that you keep minimising the massive impact that lengthening the route that peak time city centre buses now have to take because you have no actual way to spin that one.

You're also not addressing the fact that bus connects has failed to account for huge population increases planned for these areas within the next five years.

MJohnston

OscarMIlde wrote: »

And I note that you keep minimising the massive impact that lengthening the route that peak time city centre buses now have to take because you have no actual way to spin that one.

I didn't though: "This route goes through Lucan, but bypasses Chapelizod, avoids part of the quays and skips College Green. I think journey times will be about 10 minutes slower, but it's hard to say how much that inner-city route change will benefit things."

I fail to see where I'm minimising it? The route loses some time by going through Lucan (which I have already said it should be adjusted to skip), but gains some by skipping part of the quays and College Green. Is this an unreasonable assertion?

You're also not addressing the fact that bus connects has failed to account for huge population increases planned for these areas within the next five years.

I did address this: "None of the existing network takes that into account either though. As numbers increase, so will bus frequency and routes."

To add to that, if you think bus routes should increase capacity well before demand increases, I don't know what to tell you, but I think you're very wrong.

OscarMIlde

MJohnston wrote: »

I didn't though: "This route goes through Lucan, but bypasses Chapelizod, avoids part of the quays and skips College Green. I think journey times will be about 10 minutes slower, but it's hard to say how much that inner-city route change will benefit things."

I fail to see where I'm minimising it? The route loses some time by going through Lucan (which I have already said it should be adjusted to skip), but gains some by skipping part of the quays and College Green. Is this an unreasonable assertion?



I did address this: "None of the existing network takes that into account either though. As numbers increase, so will bus frequency and routes."

To add to that, if you think bus routes should increase capacity well before demand increases, I don't know what to tell you, but I think you're very wrong.

Why would the existing network account plan for accelerated planning permission only granted in the last year? Such a massive rezoning of land was not something anyone predicted 5 years ago. The planning was known to bus connects planners though and they should have accounted for it in their plans.

sharper

OscarMIlde wrote: »

it is an absolute failure of a network redesign which is supposed to meet current and near future trasport needs. These housing estates are already being built. That anyone can stand over these decisions is madness.

Unless you live in the areas that gain bus service or want to go from Maynooth/Celbridge to Tallaght or CityWest.

Under bus connects not all those 10000 people need to be working either locally in the city centre which is a massive step forward for connectivity.

You really need to wait to see the finalised plan before declaring it a failure. You've seen the version that was put out for public consultation.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Why would the existing network account plan for accelerated planning permission only granted in the last year? Such a massive rezoning of land was not something anyone predicted 5 years ago. The planning was known to bus connects planners though and they should have accounted for it in their plans.

Every project has a scope, I doubt future expansion was part of bus connects. Their remit would be to build a network that can potentially scale for future population growth and I think what they did there is far superior to what we have now.

You can't have a network that's both capable of expansion and all going to Dublin City centre.

OscarMIlde

sharper wrote: »

OscarMIlde wrote: »

it is an absolute failure of a network redesign which is supposed to meet current and near future trasport needs. These housing estates are already being built. That anyone can stand over these decisions is madness.

Unless you live in the areas that gain bus service or want to go from Maynooth/Celbridge to Tallaght or CityWest.

Under bus connects not all those 10000 people need to be working either locally in the city centre which is a massive step forward for connectivity.

You really need to wait to see the finalised plan before declaring it a failure. You've seen the version that was put out for public consultation.

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Why would the existing network account plan for accelerated planning permission only granted in the last year? Such a massive rezoning of land was not something anyone predicted 5 years ago. The planning was known to bus connects planners though and they should have accounted for it in their plans.

Every project has a scope, I doubt future expansion was part of bus connects. Their remit would be to build a network that can potentially scale for future population growth and I think what they did there is far superior to what we have now.

You can't have a network that's both capable of expansion and all going to Dublin City centre.

I'm not complaining about the orbital routes. I am greatly in favour of them. I'm pointing out legitimate complaints with some aspects of bus connects as currently laid out. I don't think all buses need to go to the city centre but making city centre buses go longer routes is going to deter people from availing of buses. Also there is no way going through Lucan is only going to add 10 minutes to journey time, anyone who thinks that has never travelled through there at rush hour.

Qrt

http://theirishtimes.emlnk1.com/lt.php?i=1589A729A15A47755

Slight delay it seems.

RayCun

OscarMIlde wrote: »

You're also not addressing the fact that bus connects has failed to account for huge population increases planned for these areas within the next five years.

On the BusConnects site is a map of the Public Transport 2027 proposals, which include a LUAS to Lucan.

Buses, as a mode of public transport have advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are that they are very flexible, it is easy to add capacity, to move buses from one route to another, to divert routes as necessary. The disadvantage is they have less carrying capacity than rail, and they compete with cars for road space.

Given that buses are relatively flexible, you don't have to draw up a timetable today for your requirements in five years time.

OscarMIlde

RayCun wrote: »

OscarMIlde wrote: »

You're also not addressing the fact that bus connects has failed to account for huge population increases planned for these areas within the next five years.

On the BusConnects site is a map of the Public Transport 2027 proposals, which include a LUAS to Lucan.

Buses, as a mode of public transport have advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are that they are very flexible, it is easy to add capacity, to move buses from one route to another, to divert routes as necessary. The disadvantage is they have less carrying capacity than rail, and they compete with cars for road space.

Given that buses are relatively flexible, you don't have to draw up a timetable today for your requirements in five years time.

The housing estates are already being built, so the increase will begin prior to five years time. I take your point though.

The problem I, and many other Dublin Bus customers have, is that although bus timetables should be flexible and frequently changed, past experience has shown that change is slow to arrive. And to be honest the bus connects proposal for north Kildare stated that they expected the majority of commuters to be switched to rail in the near future but that services would be maintained until then. That expectation is highly unrealistic given rail capacity issues and planned population increases.

I probably sound terribly argumentative but fans of bus connects were lambasting anyone with concerns as uninformed eejits, yet how can pitfalls be avoided and improvements made without complaining?

MJohnston

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Why would the existing network account plan for accelerated planning permission only granted in the last year? Such a massive rezoning of land was not something anyone predicted 5 years ago. The planning was known to bus connects planners though and they should have accounted for it in their plans.

Your reasons for why the existing network doesn't account for future housing construction, are exactly the same reasons why BusConnects (for which planned starting well over a year ago) doesn't. The network change would have originally been implemented next year (by which time I doubt many houses would have been constructed, let alone occupied), but now that it is delayed, I'm sure there will be even more routes or frequency planned for anywhere with large actual population growth.

But then you refuse to acknowledge that the bus service for Celbridge would have been improved anyway under the current BusConnects plan, so you've obviously decided your opinion is immutable.

OscarMIlde

MJohnston wrote: »

OscarMIlde wrote: »

Why would the existing network account plan for accelerated planning permission only granted in the last year? Such a massive rezoning of land was not something anyone predicted 5 years ago. The planning was known to bus connects planners though and they should have accounted for it in their plans.

Your reasons for why the existing network doesn't account for future housing construction, are exactly the same reasons why BusConnects (for which planned starting well over a year ago) doesn't. The network change would have originally been implemented next year (by which time I doubt many houses would have been constructed, let alone occupied), but now that it is delayed, I'm sure there will be even more routes or frequency planned for anywhere with large actual population growth.

But then you refuse to acknowledge that the bus service for Celbridge would have been improved anyway under the current BusConnects plan, so you've obviously decided your opinion is immutable.

There are imorovements in some ways, orbital routes and avoiding Chapelizod for off peak services. It is good that mire people can access hazelhatch station although I am not sure how many passengers can be absorbed that way.

On peak to city centre it is a disimprovement in journey time. Nine buses that bypass Lucan have been replaced with buses that go through Lucan, significantly increasing journey time for little net benefit.

bk

Qrt wrote: »

http://theirishtimes.emlnk1.com/lt.php?i=1589A729A15A47755

Slight delay it seems.

Would you look at the size of the "front garden" of this lady who is complaining. That isn't a garden, that is a car park that can fit 10 cars!!

And her back garden is double that size again. Just shows the insane NIMBYism

MJohnston

OscarMIlde wrote: »

There are imorovements in some ways, orbital routes and avoiding Chapelizod for off peak services. It is good that mire people can access hazelhatch station although I am not sure how many passengers can be absorbed that way.

On peak to city centre it is a disimprovement in journey time. Nine buses that bypass Lucan have been replaced with buses that go through Lucan, significantly increasing journey time for little net benefit.

And those same buses bypass the more congested parts of the city centre in favour of their actual task - getting people from Celbridge to UCD. You keep overlooking that I agree with you that the Lucan detour is unnecessary, in pursuit of your aimless anger.

You won't acknowledge that the C4 offers a significantly improved frequency from the existing 67, for passengers wanting to go to the city centre.
You won't acknowledge that service frequency on the Hazelhatch line is going to be increased in December (and I'll point out that this line is quad-tracked between there and Inchicore, so the frequency increases could be even more aggressive during peak times in future).

CatInABox

Qrt wrote: »

http://theirishtimes.emlnk1.com/lt.php?i=1589A729A15A47755

Slight delay it seems.

Not surprising really, I've been expecting the delay. I think the extended BusConnects consultation has pushed back all of the NTAs projects.

Also, that's some garden she has there.

sharper

MJohnston wrote: »

But then you refuse to acknowledge that the bus service for Celbridge would have been improved anyway under the current BusConnects plan, so you've obviously decided your opinion is immutable.

I think the key point here though is the bus service improves overall but peak time commutes get worse. Even from a marketing perspective it would be far better if the final plan takes the time to focus on peak travel and makes sure existing users will be happy with the changes.

If there are enough users to justify it (and I think there are in this case) direct services should run during peak times. If anything these need to be expanded rather than be reduced and made less direct.

CatInABox

Very good article on the state of play regarding public transport in Ireland, have to admit I was shocked to see something so informed about public transport issues in the Irish Times.

See here.

MJohnston

sharper wrote: »

I think the key point here though is the bus service improves overall but peak time commutes get worse. Even from a marketing perspective it would be far better if the final plan takes the time to focus on peak travel and makes sure existing users will be happy with the changes.

If there are enough users to justify it (and I think there are in this case) direct services should run during peak times. If anything these need to be expanded rather than be reduced and made less direct.

I agree that the 324 should skip Lucan - Lucan has it's own direct to UCD peak-only service*

As to whether "peak time commutes get worse" - I think on balance I don't agree with that - even leaving out the above, there's other elements to consider:

If you use the 67 currently, rather than the 67x (which would be anyone who leaves after 7:50am, because 8-9am is still peak time), then I've already explained why I think the C4 replacement will have a slightly improved journey time (skipping Chapelizod, BusConnects infrastructure adjustments making the city centre portion quicker), as well the fact that it would have a much improved frequency.

You'll also be able to get on the 259 or W8 to Hazelhatch (approx 6 minute journey), and then take a 21-25 minute train into the city. Even including the Bus Eireann 120, that'd be by far your quickest journey. And it will hopefully only cost a single 90 minute flat-fare too!

*Worth noting though that Google Maps estimates "Celbridge, Golf Range" to "The Bungalow Hermitage" as being a 14 minute journey at 8am on the 67x (via the bypass) and 20 minutes on the 67 (through Lucan village). The 324 would have a similar journey time through this section as the 67, so possibly only an extra 6-10 minutes?
Conversely, the 67x is estimated to take about 34 minutes from Heuston to the Morehampton Road (via College Green), whereas an estimate for the 324 on the same journey (which skips College Green, using Bridge Street and Kevin Street instead) is about a 26 minute journey.

Zebra3

North Kildare services going through Lucan village is madness.

I called this out in my BC submission.

I hope plenty of others did too.

howiya

MJohnston wrote: »

as well the fact that it would have a much improved frequency.

A lot of people underestimate the effect of frequency on a bus service.

From my own observations on the route I use if there is a service every 15 minutes the bus doesn't stop at every stop. Fast forward to Saturday/Sunday when the frequency is less and the bus stops at each stop increasing journey time and making the bus service less attractive.

sharper

MJohnston wrote: »

If you use the 67 currently, rather than the 67x (which would be anyone who leaves after 7:50am, because 8-9am is still peak time), then I've already explained why I think the C4 replacement will have a slightly improved journey time (skipping Chapelizod, BusConnects infrastructure adjustments making the city centre portion quicker), as well the fact that it would have a much improved frequency.

The C3 is absolutely superior to the 66. More direct and more frequent.

The C4 is slightly more complicated. It removes chapelizoid but adds Leixlip. It might work out faster overall but still not as improved as it could be. Frequency is also better except for Sundays.

The C3 is still less direct than the existing 66x though because the C3 will go through Lucan. From a peak time commute perspective that's a step backwards.

As I mentioned elsewhere I consider more direct and more frequent C3 a reasonable replacement for the 66x but ultimately that's subjective to me and not something I can really dispute if someone else feels differently about.

My commute is also different to some others in this thread. I get the 66X from the city centre and not UCD. That has the effect of making the 323 totally useless for me because the only 66X departures you can actually use in the city centre are the ones that depart from Westmoreland street, not UCD. The others will be full before reaching the city centre (and the others are often full or at least packed within two stops, hence everyone's confusion about them being downgraded).

TheChrisD

OscarMIlde wrote: »

The C4 is going to route through Leixlip, negating any gains by bypassing Chapelizod.

There seems to be a fair bit of NIMBYism from Celbridge commuters towards the detour via Leixlip, but you need to look at the big picture to understand why the detour exists. Going to Leixlip means the C4 replaces and provides much better coverage to Castletown currently serviced by the once-hourly-and-not-Sunday 66b, and combined with the C3 extends the part of Leixlip which is afforded high-frequency service from just the very far end of the village by Mill Lane, and up towards the housing estates.

Zebra3 wrote: »

North Kildare services going through Lucan village is madness.

Well, what sort of alternative option did you suggest? Perhaps a combination of things such as taking the C2 from the barely-built sections of north Adamstown and instead running it past SuperValu and up into Lucan village to terminate instead; and adding a G3 to split off from the G2 along Thomas Omer and Adamstown Avenue into Adamstown itself. Then the C3/C4 could possibly be made to bypass Lucan village.

MJohnston

TheChrisD wrote: »

Well, what sort of alternative option did you suggest? Perhaps a combination of things such as taking the C2 from the barely-built sections of north Adamstown and instead running it past SuperValu and up into Lucan village to terminate instead; and adding a G3 to split off from the G2 along Thomas Omer and Adamstown Avenue into Adamstown itself. Then the C3/C4 could possibly be made to bypass Lucan village.

I think it should be totally fine for the C3/4 to go through Lucan, as the services they are replacing also do this.

It's the peak-only routes going there that seems pretty unnecessary - specifically 323 (from Maynooth), 324 (from Celbridge), 325, 326 (both from Leixlip). Lucan itself already has the 322, as well as the 321 serving the parts of Lucan south of the N4. The 325 or the 326 going through Lucan would probably also be okay, but it seems overkill to send the Maynooth and Celbridge services through there too (in addition to the C3/4) when they don't currently.

punisher5112

Vt tri axle buses up for sale model 1 to 20 are going.

They will be missed.

MJohnston

sharper wrote: »

The C3 is absolutely superior to the 66. More direct and more frequent.

The C4 is slightly more complicated. It removes chapelizoid but adds Leixlip. It might work out faster overall but still not as improved as it could be. Frequency is also better except for Sundays.

The C3 is still less direct than the existing 66x though because the C3 will go through Lucan. From a peak time commute perspective that's a step backwards.

As I mentioned elsewhere I consider more direct and more frequent C3 a reasonable replacement for the 66x but ultimately that's subjective to me and not something I can really dispute if someone else feels differently about.

My commute is also different to some others in this thread. I get the 66X from the city centre and not UCD. That has the effect of making the 323 totally useless for me because the only 66X departures you can actually use in the city centre are the ones that depart from Westmoreland street, not UCD. The others will be full before reaching the city centre (and the others are often full or at least packed within two stops, hence everyone's confusion about them being downgraded).

It's a nuanced change that really depends on what you use the X services for. If you're a passenger that's going to the intended terminus of UCD, then there very arguably won't be any affect on journey time - the extra detour through Lucan is balanced out by the time gained by taking a quicker route in the city centre. If you're using it to go to the city centre, then yeah, it'll probably lengthen your journey time if you continue to stick with that route. If we can get even more enhancements to the Hazelhatch line frequency though, it starts to become a question of "why wouldn't you take the train?" because that will be a quicker journey than any existing option.

sharper

MJohnston wrote: »

It's a nuanced change that really depends on what you use the X services for. If you're a passenger that's going to the intended terminus of UCD, then there very arguably won't be any affect on journey time - the extra detour through Lucan is balanced out by the time gained by taking a quicker route in the city centre. If you're using it to go to the city centre, then yeah, it'll probably lengthen your journey time if you continue to stick with that route. If we can get even more enhancements to the Hazelhatch line frequency though, it starts to become a question of "why wouldn't you take the train?" because that will be a quicker journey than any existing option.

The X services aren't taking a quicker route to the city centre under bus connects. They already bypass Lucan and Chapelizoid. Under bus connects they no longer bypass Lucan and in the case of Celbridge also go through Leixlip. If you're a Celbridge user in particular that's a pretty big negative for your daily commute each way on an already long route.

Infrastructure improvements are nice and everything but we don't even have detailed plans for these let alone timescales for implementation.

I like bus connects but I don't think commuting was seen as any sort of priority in the plans. I also don't think overall journey length was seen as important. Further out areas should certainly be using trains instead but we don't have the infrastructure for that either and we're even further away from having a plan for that.

If I was building busconnects I'd build the network plan they produced then overlay the peak time commuter based services on top of that. If you can win over existing commuters (let's say most of the existing taxsaver owning population) that gives you a large base of support to get the rest of the plan through. As things change and other improvements make the peak time services less needed you can reduce them.

MJohnston

sharper wrote: »

The X services aren't taking a quicker route to the city centre under bus connects. They already bypass Lucan and Chapelizoid. Under bus connects they no longer bypass Lucan and in the case of Celbridge also go through Leixlip. If you're a Celbridge user in particular that's a pretty big negative for your daily commute each way on an already long route.

Why are you replying to my post with that when I specifically said it in the post? Did you misread what I said?

Infrastructure improvements are nice and everything but we don't even have detailed plans for these let alone timescales for implementation.

No, well we don't have detailed plans or timescales for any of BusConnects anymore. I'd be pretty sure the infrastructure plans would have been inextricably linked to the network change though. A lot of the network redesign was impossible without them (lots of contraflow lanes needed, for example).

I like bus connects but I don't think commuting was seen as any sort of priority in the plans. I also don't think overall journey length was seen as important. Further out areas should certainly be using trains instead but we don't have the infrastructure for that either and we're even further away from having a plan for that.

Two things I'd disagree with - first is that commuting wasn't a priority. I think it absolutely was, but with the expectations that (a) people need more diverse routes like orbitals to connect them with their workplaces (b) interchanging needs to be accepted as common practice. I mean, their interactive map was specifically designed to mention the number of extra jobs reached (or vice versa), so it was definitely a very big priority.

Journey time certainly wasn't a priority, that's for sure, and that's because it's been widely measured that frequency and reliability have a much greater impact on service sentiment than journey time changes (at least within a certain range). People are more likely to switch from commuting with a car to the bus if they can rely upon a bus turning up quickly when they go to a stop (this has been proven to work in Dublin with the relatively slow, but high frequency Luas). And people who already use buses are on average more concerned with frequency and capacity than journey times too.

Leading on from that point - if improving frequency is a better encourager for moving people from cars to buses, then it'll also have a side-effect of improving journey times (because fewer cars will be on the roads).

If I was building busconnects I'd build the network plan they produced then overlay the peak time commuter based services on top of that. If you can win over existing commuters (let's say most of the existing taxsaver owning population) that gives you a large base of support to get the rest of the plan through. As things change and other improvements make the peak time services less needed you can reduce them.

The problem wasn't necessarily that people weren't won over, it's just that a very vocal section of people were really annoyed. People are generally very silent about things that they're happy with, which is one of the problems with our various planning systems.

But to your point, it seemed to me that they were very much open to adjusting lots of the BusConnects network, Walker himself said:

How much change could we make to the plan in response to public comment?

[...] if you change more than about 15% of the network it will fall apart. But 15% is not minor. While the plan is a dramatic change, at least half of it consists of service on streets served now, doing something much like what it does now. So compared to the amount of the network we’re actually changing, 15% is very substantial.

[...]we will make changes. Quite possibly lots of them.

sharper

I don't want to go back and forth endlessly making the same points but

MJohnston wrote: »

Why are you replying to my post with that when I specifically said it in the post? Did you misread what I said?

I was replying to where you said

It's a nuanced change that really depends on what you use the X services for. If you're a passenger that's going to the intended terminus of UCD, then there very arguably won't be any affect on journey time - the extra detour through Lucan is balanced out by the time gained by taking a quicker route in the city centre.

The X service changes don't have any balancing going on, they're just longer.

Daemonic

MJohnston wrote: »

....
You'll also be able to get on the 259 or W8 to Hazelhatch (approx 6 minute journey), and then take a 21-25 minute train into the city. Even including the Bus Eireann 120, that'd be by far your quickest journey. And it will hopefully only cost a single 90 minute flat-fare too!

That's an optimistic train journey. Current train times from Hazelhatch to Connolly (the most likely stop for anyone taking rail instead of a current 67X) is between 35-40 minutes. Only 5-10 minutes less than the time it currently takes to get from Celbridge main street to Bachelor's Walk without adding in the additional time commuting to and from Hazelhatch station and the likely waiting time for the 259/W8.

I think a lot of the frustration is when services which are currently working as well as can be hoped for within the constraints of Dublin traffic etc. are seemingly going to dis-improve.
Absolutely improve the elements that need it, i.e. why route every X through the city centre to get to UCD, as anyone who takes these routes will know the buses are practically empty by the time they cross the river so a huge part of their market is city centre commuters.

Peregrine

bk wrote: »

Would you look at the size of the "front garden" of this lady who is complaining. That isn't a garden, that is a car park that can fit 10 cars!!

And her back garden is double that size again. Just shows the insane NIMBYism

Oh, yes, that will do nicely. I reckon you could fit two bus lanes in there and still have enough space for another house. That will do nicely indeed.

MJohnston

sharper wrote: »

I don't want to go back and forth endlessly making the same points but

I was replying to where you said

The X service changes don't have any balancing going on, they're just longer.

Nope, that's not accurate - the X services all go down the Quays and cross at O'Connell Bridge, then through College Green. This is by far the most congested part of the city.

In contrast, the 32something services that are going to UCD all skip this section - instead they cross the Liffey at Bridge Street, then down to Kevin Street and across Stephen's Green that way. This is a far less congested route, and I would imagine would be accompanied by infra changes to Kevin St, and I estimated above that it could shave something like 9 minutes off of the city centre portion of these Kildare to UCD journeys. Which would essentially balance out the effect of going through Lucan.