Alternative rapid transit systems.

tom1ie

Dravokivich wrote: »

That's not what i said.

I live in Clondalkin and work in Leixlip. Public transport requires me to go into the city and out again. Getting to Liffey Valley takes longer.

I accept a need for connections, but they should not be the core basis for a service. If it's going through arteries, it should be accessible at those points. it should not be setup, to require people to commute, to their commute.

Agreed, which is why the orbital routes are so important. They allow you to get on the brt orbital loop that stops at the n7 and stops at the n4. You the hop off their and get the brt to the p+r in leixlip. You can the cycle or walk from there.
However would your route not be going against peak traffic? You’d be leaving Dublin during rush hour to get to leixlip therefore traffic would be light when you clear clondalkin and get onto the n7 then go via outer ring road to n4?

If you go via m50, the benefit to you if this system was introduced would be a lot less traffic on the motorways if you still insisted on driving.

Dravokivich

tom1ie wrote: »

Agreed, which is why the orbital routes are so important. They allow you to get on the brt orbital loop that stops at the n7 and stops at the n4. You the hop off their and get the brt to the p+r in leixlip. You can the cycle or walk from there.
However would your route not be going against peak traffic? You’d be leaving Dublin during rush hour to get to leixlip therefore traffic would be light when you clear clondalkin and get onto the n7 then go via outer ring road to n4?

If you go via m50, the benefit to you if this system was introduced would be a lot less traffic on the motorways if you still insisted on driving.

You are talking about ditching cars. So we should be basing this discussion on Public Transport options. I used mine to show that not only have I accepted not all public transport suits, I don't expect it to. There can be requirements to connect, but that should not be a fundemental design for bringing the service in.

Such a link between N7 and N4 would not be a simple one, unless pushed out around Rathcoole or Newcastle. Nothing on the motorway changes with that. These aren't people trying to get into the city either.

tom1ie

Dravokivich wrote: »

You are talking about ditching cars. So we should be basing this discussion on Public Transport options. I used mine to show that not only have I accepted not all public transport suits, I don't expect it to. There can be requirements to connect, but that should not be a fundemental design for bringing the service in.

Such a link between N7 and N4 would not be a simple one, unless pushed out around Rathcoole or Newcastle. Nothing on the motorway changes with that. These aren't people trying to get into the city either.

Connection would be the outer ring round, three lane carriage way that includes bus lane already that goes from kings wood to Lucan.

The car needs to be ditched it has no place in a modern city when people are using it instead of viable transport options, all the car does is impede the flow of the viable transport options.
The viable transport options must be built which in my mind is a proper brt system for all of dublin.
In your case a car is worthwhile as your traveling away from Dublin during rush hour.

Dravokivich

tom1ie wrote: »

Connection would be the outer ring round, three lane carriage way that includes bus lane already that goes from kings wood to Lucan.

The car needs to be ditched it has no place in a modern city when people are using it instead of viable transport options, all the car does is impede the flow of the viable transport options.
The viable transport options must be built which in my mind is a proper brt system for all of dublin.
In your case a car is worthwhile as your traveling away from Dublin during rush hour.

I still think you are ignoring a big flaw to your proposed system. It is dependent people looking to get to the City Centre, or back out to the P+R's. That's not what people want to do in Dublin. The City Centre focus of public transport is a legacy design issue. Which is why you've so many driving around Dublin. They don't want to connect between multiple services to get around.

tom1ie

Dravokivich wrote: »

I still think you are ignoring a big flaw to your proposed system. It is dependent people looking to get to the City Centre, or back out to the P+R's. That's not what people want to do in Dublin. The City Centre focus of public transport is a legacy design issue. Which is why you've so many driving around Dublin. They don't want to connect between multiple services to get around.

Ok so are you saying a high percentage of people from satellite towns around Dublin, (swords, ashbourne, dunboyne, cellbridge, Naas, blessington, bray) want to travel across Dublin to get to industrial estates, eg parkwest, inchicore, Liffey valley, damastown, etc etc.
I’m saying that if the above traffic can be funneled into brt’s, won’t this free up more road room?
The way I see traffic in Dublin it’s a 2 problem situation.
Number 1 is the traffic mentioned above and number 2 are the people from Dublin traveling around Dublin.

Markcheese

I reckon an orbital BRT route on the m50 (using hard shoulder running where possible and segregated platforms and stops at every junction and overpass, combined with a transport hub (for buses, trains, coaches, bikes and park and rides at as many of the junctions as possible) and if possible get industrial estates/large employers to operate feeder buses to these...

tom1ie

Markcheese wrote: »

I reckon an orbital BRT route on the m50 (using hard shoulder running where possible and segregated platforms and stops at every junction and overpass, combined with a transport hub (for buses, trains, coaches, bikes and park and rides at as many of the junctions as possible) and if possible get industrial estates/large employers to operate feeder buses to these...

To reduce the traffic on the m 50 we have to reduce the amount of cars. We can only do this by reducing the amount of cars coming onto the m50 via the main arterial roads m1 n7 etc etc.
we do this by funneling people into p+r’s and running top quality public transport out the other side of the p+r’s.
If we used your proposal the problem is how would people from Naas, swords etc get to the orbital brt?
There’s just no room at these junctions for large p+r’s. Plus navigating into the p+r’s at a main arterial junction would cause some people to have a breakdown!
Glad you see the benefit of brt though.

Markcheese

I agree with you on the cars, but how do we get there? I'd still do other BRT routes, and other public transport projects, like metro North, but I'd have stations/stops/interchanges where they cross the m50, naas coaches/buses could pull in at a red cow interchange to go to a different part of the route...
A kind of spoke and hub set up, with the m50 as A rim... And each stop on the m50 rim as a mini/local hub...
And it'd probably mean cpo ing sites for multistorey park n ride /bus/coach stations... As close to junctions as possible...

Stephen15

Markcheese wrote: »

I reckon an orbital BRT route on the m50 (using hard shoulder running where possible and segregated platforms and stops at every junction and overpass, combined with a transport hub (for buses, trains, coaches, bikes and park and rides at as many of the junctions as possible) and if possible get industrial estates/large employers to operate feeder buses to these...

I have to disagree the M50 IMO should be kept for cars it is a motorway at the end of the day. We should keep the M50 for cars as it is needed to keep the roads off the M50 inbound free of large amounts of car traffic. Your plan would require widening the M50 as hard shoulder running would not be practical as the hard shoulders are needed in case of emergency and for blue light vehicles.

tabbey

Deleted User wrote: »

Here is a video I came across the other day, might offer a solution for the smaller towns and cities that can't justify a full tram system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2i3aVMKBgFU

The quality of the video is quite poor (all expense spared), but best to try to look beyond that.
edit:
Well let's forget the Chinese copy, here's an active system in use in France.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6Th8q9WQUc

I saw something similar in Metz.

There is one problem with guided buses running on tarmac;

where the wheels consistently run over the exact same inches of road surface, longitudinal grooves develop in the road.
An example is outside Dun Laoghaire station, where the rutted surface is dangerous for cyclists.
The only way to avoid this, is to place a heavy duty concrete bed a few inches under the tarmac.

tabbey

tabbey wrote: »

I saw something similar in Metz.

There is one problem with guided buses running on tarmac;

where the wheels consistently run over the exact same inches of road surface, longitudinal grooves develop in the road.
An example is outside Dun Laoghaire station, where the rutted surface is dangerous for cyclists.
The only way to avoid this, is to place a heavy duty concrete bed a few inches under the tarmac.

I know of quite a few motorway sections like that in the UK (may be fixed now), but the trucks could almost be driven hands free as the "tram lines" held the vehicles in the track.
As they say, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing properly.

Markcheese

An example is outside Dun Laoghaire station, where the rutted surface is dangerous for cyclists.
The only way to avoid this, is to place a heavy duty concrete bed a few inches under the tarmac.

And if you're going to have to put down a heavy concrete base might you be as well putting in rails and and running a tram.. 😀

Idbatterim

tom1ie wrote: »

To reduce the traffic on the m 50 we have to reduce the amount of cars. We can only do this by reducing the amount of cars coming onto the m50 via the main arterial roads m1 n7 etc etc.
we do this by funneling people into p+r’s and running top quality public transport out the other side of the p+r’s.
If we used your proposal the problem is how would people from Naas, swords etc get to the orbital brt?
There’s just no room at these junctions for large p+r’s. Plus navigating into the p+r’s at a main arterial junction would cause some people to have a breakdown!
Glad you see the benefit of brt though.

What is stopping us build above the m50? Or cpo if necessary ...

Macy0161

Whatever about segregation, I really don't see why hard shoulders couldn't become bus lanes on some of our motorways and major arterial routes. The UK have them as driving lanes on some sections at some times of the day! It could be that we have them only as bus lane at peak times/ changable which is my experience of them in the UK.

As for no demand for Park and Ride, speaking of the N11 a number of villages/ businesses have had to put in restricted and/or paid parking to stop commuters parking to get Bus Éireann, and I know capacity is also an issue in and out at peak times. Demand is there, capacity on the transport and for the parking isn't. Even around Foxrock and Stillorgan people park up to get the bus!

I'll use the N11 as my example - hard shoulders to bus lanes, park and rides in Wicklow, Ashford, Newcastle/ NewtownMountkennedy, Kilpeddar (and Kilmac, but then it always should've had one and kept the 145 going that far!). Bus lane through Glen of the Downs through to Kilmacanogue would drastically reduce journey times for buses, and making it more attractive than the car. Link with Luas at Cherrywood (Sandyford link), and then on to the city centre. A Sandyford route would also be an option.

tom1ie

Idbatterim wrote: »

What is stopping us build above the m50? Or cpo if necessary ...

Build what? P+r’s? But then you’d be bringing more traffic closer to the m50 junctions. The idea would be to reduce traffic further back on the system.

tom1ie

Macy0161 wrote: »

Whatever about segregation, I really don't see why hard shoulders couldn't become bus lanes on some of our motorways and major arterial routes. The UK have them as driving lanes on some sections at some times of the day! It could be that we have them only as bus lane at peak times/ changable which is my experience of them in the UK.

As for no demand for Park and Ride, speaking of the N11 a number of villages/ businesses have had to put in restricted and/or paid parking to stop commuters parking to get Bus Éireann, and I know capacity is also an issue in and out at peak times. Demand is there, capacity on the transport and for the parking isn't. Even around Foxrock and Stillorgan people park up to get the bus!

I'll use the N11 as my example - hard shoulders to bus lanes, park and rides in Wicklow, Ashford, Newcastle/ NewtownMountkennedy, Kilpeddar (and Kilmac, but then it always should've had one and kept the 145 going that far!). Bus lane through Glen of the Downs through to Kilmacanogue would drastically reduce journey times for buses, and making it more attractive than the car. Link with Luas at Cherrywood (Sandyford link), and then on to the city centre. A Sandyford route would also be an option.

Yeah this is what we should be thinking of. The qbc should run from these places into the cc, with interchanges in 5 areas to allow for orbital movements around the city. All the busses using the qbc should be part of a brt system.

Markcheese

Markcheese wrote: »

An example is outside Dun Laoghaire station, where the rutted surface is dangerous for cyclists.
The only way to avoid this, is to place a heavy duty concrete bed a few inches under the tarmac.

And if you're going to have to put down a heavy concrete base might you be as well putting in rails and and running a tram.. ��

There's a world of difference between reinforcing a road bed with a concrete sub base and laying a trackbed and rails and all the other stuff that goes along with constructing a tram line.

donvito99

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a world of difference between reinforcing a road bed with a concrete sub base and laying a trackbed and rails and all the other stuff that goes along with constructing a tram line.

But there's also a world of difference in x amount of people carried on y buses and the 2x people carried on y trams. If we had the dosh, we'd be building trackbed where we're not digging tunnels for Metro.

BowSideChamp

They should run a bus service on the Metro West route - inc building a dedicated bridge across Liffey.

Markcheese

What was the metro west route?

Hugh Jampton

Markcheese wrote: »

What was the metro west route?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Metro#Metro_West