BusConnects Dublin - Big changes to Bus Network

LeinsterDub

bk wrote: »

Just to point out, minor bus route changes, schedule changes and number changes have happened all the time over the years here in Dublin and even continue to happen. So not that different to the Netherlands.

With Network Direct 10 years ago they were pretty major changes.

BusConnects isn't small, they are probably the biggest changes that the bus network has ever seen. Having said that, I do wonder if the public consultation was even necessary? Could they not have just gone ahead with the changes. I don't remember such consultations for Network Direct?

I think these sort of public consultations just give a platform for whiners. Unless legally required, I think they should be avoided.

Their initial draft suggests, they are right to follow the public consultation model. Certain parts of the draft plan were a major disimprovement for a lot of people

Charles Babbage

bk wrote: »

Just to point out, minor bus route changes, schedule changes and number changes have happened all the time over the years here in Dublin and even continue to happen. So not that different to the Netherlands.

With Network Direct 10 years ago they were pretty major changes.

BusConnects isn't small, they are probably the biggest changes that the bus network has ever seen. Having said that, I do wonder if the public consultation was even necessary? Could they not have just gone ahead with the changes. I don't remember such consultations for Network Direct?

I think these sort of public consultations just give a platform for whiners. Unless legally required, I think they should be avoided.

Public transport is supposed to serve the public and is largely funded by the taxpayer. Bus companies should not be allowed suit themselves without reference to the public.

BluePlanet

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Public transport is supposed to serve the public and is largely funded by the taxpayer. Bus companies should not be allowed suit themselves without reference to the public.

Public consultation in this context is pitting one section of the public vs another.

The people complaining about bus corridors are not the people using them.
Those living in certain areas of affluence want to preserve the use of public space for the temporary storage and use of their personal autos.

It's a conflict of interest.
Infact, our politicians deciding transport policy while at the same time driving and storing their personal autos in our shared public space is similarly a sort of conflict of interest.

It's a conflict of interest because they don't want to inconvenience themselves by say, cracking down on cars in the bus lane.
Or inconvenience themselves by putting the interests of public transport commuters -ahead of- car owners as they are in the later group.

Nijmegen

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other kinds we've tried."

In fairness Bus Connects not only requires pretty major shifts in the service delivery, it requires people having their gardens CPO'd. You and I might think it's a good idea, but if there wasn't a proper and rigorously followed process I'd say you'd end up spending years in the courts over it. (Might still!)

Idbatterim

Their gardens cpod! A portion of Their front garden. Will any lose the ability to park in their garden ? Because nobody does anything else with their front garden !

Good point made by there , this public consultation just pits people against each other. To my mind , it’s not even a close contest. Losing trees is a pity , but people losing a bit of their front garden that they don’t even use ? You just can’t get anywhere with the spineless politicians here , I wouldn’t say the system as much , it’s jist total political cowardice

MJohnston

I've yet to see any house with a "Communities not Corridors" poster out front that actually had a front garden. What they all have is car parks filled with 2 or 3 oversized cars. This is especially true for the myopic denizens of the Rathgar Road.

Nijmegen

Again I think Bus Connects and CPO is fine and right, but I don't think you should hand a government or one of its agencies the power to just go and do it without having to go through the process of a public consultation. What some folks seem to want is a better class of electorate. The one we have is the one we have.

MJohnston

It's one thing have a public consultation on the bus corridors and relevant CPOs. But the network map redesign was very specifically a separate project within BusConnects to the bus corridors, and I think what people are arguing that it wasn't really necessary or indeed desirable to have a consultation about the network changes.

A network should be nearly 100% designed based on hard data, and unfortunately it's always compromised here.

CatInABox

Consultation extended. I don't know by how much, I didn't really keep track of things this time around.

https://twitter.com/BusConnects/status/1199657389038931969

machaseh

Honestly, what they should have done is first just build the bus corridors. The physical ones I mean. That of course requires cpo and many other procedures. Even the current bus network could make much use of most of that network.

Then afterwards, they could implement the network changes to make even better use of that newly built bus infrastructure.

tom1ie

machaseh wrote: »

Honestly, what they should have done is first just build the bus corridors. The physical ones I mean. That of course requires cpo and many other procedures. Even the current bus network could make much use of most of that network.

Then afterwards, they could implement the network changes to make even better use of that newly built bus infrastructure.

Absolutely. Even build them sneakily as 12 separate corridors and only engage with the residents along the corridor at that time.
Divide and conquer the opposition.

cgcsb

tom1ie wrote: »

Absolutely. Even build them sneakily as 12 separate corridors and only engage with the residents along the corridor at that time.
Divide and conquer the opposition.

The n11, Lucan and malahide road corridors neednt even apppy for planning permission..they couodve been done by now.

Qrt

cgcsb wrote: »

The n11, Lucan and malahide road corridors neednt even apppy for planning permission..they couodve been done by now.

Malahide Rd has some CPOs though.

punisher5112

Some roads such as Malahide road could have a lane which has directional arrows displayed above such as 2 lanes into the city at morning peak and 2 out of the city at evening peak....

As it is parking is permitted after 10am for the rest of the day.

We need to be robust and smart and use road space wisely.

Choke points where transport is pinched and held up should get priority and we already have such lighting systems in place on Rathgar road and Rathmines but these don't work as they were switched to stay on green.

No parking before a bus stop to allow buses get in safely to use all doors and also allow wheelchair users get on/off safely leaving little gap to get caught on or the danger of flipping as the bus is at an angle where huge gaps are left between bus and kerb.

We need like the UK double red lines which means no parking or stopping at any time(clearway if you will).

Bus stops clearly patrolled and tickets given, bus lanes and clearways patrolled or even use CCTV and issue fines.


Buses are obstructed daily even when clearways are in force by taxis and delivery vans/trucks.

Ticket equipment on buses are shocking bad, there should be a system exactly like London where you place your card against the reader at the driver screen.
This business of having the machine over the other side past the door behind the driver is a joke and many just walk on.
These commutes aren't counted and many get a free run.
Honestly this happens a lot.


Have priority lights where buses get through, better designed bus stops and actually have them so the bus can get in and out better then the way they are.

prinzeugen

MJohnston wrote: »

I've yet to see any house with a "Communities not Corridors" poster out front that actually had a front garden. What they all have is car parks filled with 2 or 3 oversized cars. This is especially true for the myopic denizens of the Rathgar Road.

So all the houses on Rathgar Rd are 100% paved over? No trees, plants, shrubs or any other form of plant life?

Do you even know what a garden is?

Another poster said people never use there front gardens so its ok to use them to build cyclelanes.

Those little well maintained flower beds or lawns are used. They are used by the owners to give them pleasure.

Just because you think front gardens are a waste and only used to park cars, does not give you the right to demand that they are forcibly taken from people.

AlekSmart

prinzeugen wrote: »

So all the houses on Rathgar Rd are 100% paved over? No trees, plants, shrubs or any other form of plant life?

Do you even know what a garden is?

Another poster said people never use there front gardens so its ok to use them to build cyclelanes.

Those little well maintained flower beds or lawns are used. They are used by the owners to give them pleasure.

Just because you think front gardens are a waste and only used to park cars, does not give you the right to demand that they are forcibly taken from people.

All somewhat valid points,however being Compulsorily Purchased under a CPO is somewhat different to being "forcibly taken" ?

salmocab

MJohnston wrote: »

I've yet to see any house with a "Communities not Corridors" poster out front that actually had a front garden. What they all have is car parks filled with 2 or 3 oversized cars. This is especially true for the myopic denizens of the Rathgar Road.

To be fair (and I think bus connects is a good idea and the CPOs should happen) some of those people have bought houses because they wanted/needed the space. If their garden no longer fits their 2 or 3 oversized cars then they will be very annoyed and very much inconvenienced. I know most of the CPOs will only mean a slightly smaller garden or drive that will be still perfectly useable but people shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand for not wanting some of the property taken by the state even for good money.

Idbatterim

salmocab wrote: »

To be fair (and I think bus connects is a good idea and the CPOs should happen) some of those people have bought houses because they wanted/needed the space. If their garden no longer fits their 2 or 3 oversized cars then they will be very annoyed and very much inconvenienced. I know most of the CPOs will only mean a slightly smaller garden or drive that will be still perfectly useable but people shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand for not wanting some of the property taken by the state even for good money.

Yeah my issue is , it’s a no brainer though. Unless someone here thinks there is no need for bus connects , because several underground metro lines will be built !!! We can’t even get one nuilt for god sake. Also the unnecessary length of some of the front gardens is madness. Twenty meters possibly more in some cases and on these same stretches, just two general traffic lanes ! All the space in the front garden clogged with cars and then no space for anything other than one general traffic lane in each direction !

salmocab

Idbatterim wrote: »

Yeah my issue is , it’s a no brainer though. Unless someone here thinks there is no need for bus connects , because several underground metro lines will be built !!! We can’t even get one nuilt for god sake. Also the unnecessary length of some of the front gardens is madness. Twenty meters possibly more in some cases and on these same stretches, just two general traffic lanes ! All the space in the front garden clogged with cars and then no space for anything other than one general traffic lane in each direction !

I think an issue is that some of the people will actually be properly inconvenienced by losing land, not everyone that gets land CPO’d will have those 20mtr gardens. We have to be careful I think of throwing all objectors in the same pot, not everyone that objects is a nimby and no good comes of it.

bk

Let me be clear, my comments about not needing public consultations pertained to the Network Redesign, not the Infrastructure part.

The public consultation was deeply flawed IMO. I went to one of the local meetings run by a politician, over 100 people there, of which about 5 of us were under 60!

Needless to say the majority there didn't regularly take the bus or take it at peak times. Yet their voices are getting heard louder then those who actually rely on such services.

Working people who are commuting to work every day, actually using these services and who have young families, etc. simply don't have the time to attend such meetings.

It leads to a very unfair and unbalanced public consultation IMO.

Why not have the NTA folks carry out questionnaires at busy bus stops at 8:30 in the morning. Perhaps on the bus itself if space. Get the views of a more rounded sample of the population.

Also I agree that it was a mistake for the NTA to put it all together as one big published project. That simply caused fear and confusion. During the meeting about Network changes, people were making points about the infrastructure project.

It would have been better to have done the planning behind closed doors and then roll it out quietly corridor by corridor, it would likely have created less opposition from the off. Like they did with the intercity motorways, breaking them up into small projects.

I think there are lessons to be learned here by the NTA around messaging and how best to carry out public consultations.

sharper

bk wrote: »

I think there are lessons to be learned here by the NTA around messaging and how best to carry out public consultations.

I definitely think they need more of an active engagement model for consultation. I filled out the online feedback form both times but I don't really feel like my comments have any weight relative to councillors or TDs making representations based on "Save the X" type campaigns.

Many have noted decreased frequency in the second version of the plan and this a direct result of politically driven interference in the process rather than a real balancing of concerns.

tom1ie

cgcsb wrote: »

The n11, Lucan and malahide road corridors neednt even apppy for planning permission..they couodve been done by now.

Exactly. Let’s take the case of the n4, why in the hell does it have to be part of bc?
If this was called the n4 qbc upgrade would we have uproar we are having at the moment?
Would it be taking the length of time it’s taking at the moment?
I think not. Bundling the likes of the n4/n11 upgrades in with a templeogue/terenure upgrade is dragging the whole lot down and causing delays.
Separate them out and it’s a much more manageable task.

tom1ie

punisher5112 wrote: »

Some roads such as Malahide road could have a lane which has directional arrows displayed above such as 2 lanes into the city at morning peak and 2 out of the city at evening peak....

As it is parking is permitted after 10am for the rest of the day.

We need to be robust and smart and use road space wisely.

Choke points where transport is pinched and held up should get priority and we already have such lighting systems in place on Rathgar road and Rathmines but these don't work as they were switched to stay on green.

No parking before a bus stop to allow buses get in safely to use all doors and also allow wheelchair users get on/off safely leaving little gap to get caught on or the danger of flipping as the bus is at an angle where huge gaps are left between bus and kerb.

We need like the UK double red lines which means no parking or stopping at any time(clearway if you will).

Bus stops clearly patrolled and tickets given, bus lanes and clearways patrolled or even use CCTV and issue fines.


Buses are obstructed daily even when clearways are in force by taxis and delivery vans/trucks.

Ticket equipment on buses are shocking bad, there should be a system exactly like London where you place your card against the reader at the driver screen.
This business of having the machine over the other side past the door behind the driver is a joke and many just walk on.
These commutes aren't counted and many get a free run.
Honestly this happens a lot.


Have priority lights where buses get through, better designed bus stops and actually have them so the bus can get in and out better then the way they are.

This would require a transport minister who is interested in transport, and who actually gives a fcuk about his portfolio.

hmmm

tom1ie wrote: »

Separate them out and it’s a much more manageable task.

Not only is it more manageable, it is easier to sell to the public. Pick a spine route with little opposition, implement it, and it will sell the entire project if it goes well.

The software world has moved away from big monolithic projects, towards a more agile approach where little bits are chipped away continuously. Perhaps, particularly considering our endless consultations and apparent local veto on changes, that we take the same approach to infrastructure.

Zebra3

I guess we got everything rolled into BC so FG could take credit for a large project.

CatInABox

Personally, I think that they've joined everything together to make it easier to justify the CPOs.

By combining them into the larger routes, the NTA is now able to say that any CPO is part of a much larger project, with significant overall time savings, and is therefore in the national interest. If they didn't do it as a large project, owners would be able to fight it court on the basis of "I'm losing my garden and it'll only save them 20 seconds". In fact, I recall that this has already been used as an argument against one of the routes (I can't remember which), with people arguing that the corridor will "only" shave 7 minutes off a journey, not being aware that 7 minutes across every work day of the year results in actual days being given back to the commuter.

tom1ie

CatInABox wrote: »

Personally, I think that they've joined everything together to make it easier to justify the CPOs.

By combining them into the larger routes, the NTA is now able to say that any CPO is part of a much larger project, with significant overall time savings, and is therefore in the national interest. If they didn't do it as a large project, owners would be able to fight it court on the basis of "I'm losing my garden and it'll only save them 20 seconds". In fact, I recall that this has already been used as an argument against one of the routes (I can't remember which), with people arguing that the corridor will "only" shave 7 minutes off a journey, not being aware that 7 minutes across every work day of the year results in actual days being given back to the commuter.

Problem is the residents will be bringing the nta to court en masse now anyway.

Peregrine

The latest talk from the NTA seemed to suggest that it would be 12 different ABP applications. It was a bit unclear.

CatInABox wrote: »

Consultation extended. I don't know by how much, I didn't really keep track of things this time around.

https://twitter.com/BusConnects/status/1199657389038931969

It was originally supposed to close on the 3rd.

cgcsb

tom1ie wrote: »

Problem is the residents will be bringing the nta to court en masse now anyway.

How is that? On what basis?

CatInABox

tom1ie wrote: »

Problem is the residents will be bringing the nta to court en masse now anyway.

Perhaps one or two will, but the NTA can now argue that it's in the national interest as the time savings will be very significant. They wouldn't be able to use that argument on smaller projects, that's my point. Once the first person loses, the rest will take the deal.

Also, I believe the CPO program will include a better deal for people who take the offer without going to court, so people will be incentivised to take what they're offered.