Dublin - BusConnects

Dats me

Is there any chance at all that these restrictions on cars will be allowed to happen?

The garden CPOing in Santry seems to have actually gone down well which shows people's attachment to their cars

donvito99

I'm worried that this project is heavy with CPO and the politics of this will kill investment in these corridors leaving us with the same old commutes for longer.

Like, why does Rathgar Rd (three lanes at present, inbound bus lane only) need to have two dedicated bus lanes? Bus priority signalling is already touted, so why not instead have gantries (like the ones already used for conventional traffic lights at larger junctions) to advise cars what lanes they may use? So you'd get a dedicated peak bus lane and two general traffic lanes all day, and we'd avoid CPO.

Rulmeq

Iditotic headline from the indo: "Traffic ligths on the M50"
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/traffic-lights-on-m50-part-of-disruptions-under-bus-connects-plan-37744021.html

prunudo

Rulmeq wrote: »

Iditotic headline from the indo: "Traffic ligths on the M50"
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/traffic-lights-on-m50-part-of-disruptions-under-bus-connects-plan-37744021.html

Typical modern day media, click bait headlines and loose facts.

cgcsb

The Indo's little poll: Do you think this would work? lol, talk about baiting the great unwashed. No chance of them prefixing the question with 'how many years traffic modelling have you?' and no mention of what they mean by 'work'.

markpb

The writer is on Twitter.

CatInABox

That's an exceptionally stupid headline.

Next we'll have as a headline:
Dublin Airports new plan will have planes on the M50!

While the text will say:
More planes will fly over the M50 at a height of hundreds of feet, under Dublin Airports new plan.


In fairness to the article writer, they usually don't write the headlines.

Marcusm

cgcsb wrote: »

Given the cost of Parking in the Swan, it seems that they have the power to attract more car journeys if they wish.

€3 for 2 hours is cheaper than on street parking although not if you only stay 30 mins

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Presumably they haven't read the considerable international evidence showing how retailers tend to do much better when cars are removed or reduced and people get to enjoy spending time in a place, instead of living in a car park.

There’s a major supermarket in the centre refurbished at significant expense. It’s not unknown for people to require a car to do a large household shop!

The recent addition of Fallon & Byrne makes it more of a destination for some (not me) and Elephant & Castle likewise for suburban parents who want to relive the 1990s student experiences.

I live close enough that I need to use the car park infrequently but I can recognise that there will be complaints. That being said, BusConnects is the future of transportation in Dublin.

cgcsb

Marcusm wrote: »

€3 for 2 hours is cheaper than on street parking although not if you only stay 30 mins

They could make it free if they think that attracting more car trips is that important.

Marcusm wrote: »

There’s a major supermarket in the centre refurbished at significant expense. It’s not unknown for people to require a car to do a large household shop!

The recent addition of Fallon & Byrne makes it more of a destination for some (not me) and Elephant & Castle likewise for suburban parents who want to relive the 1990s student experiences.

I live close enough that I need to use the car park infrequently but I can recognise that there will be complaints. That being said, BusConnects is the future of transportation in Dublin.

The car access is on Castlewood avenue which will still have 2 way access.

Marcusm

cgcsb wrote: »

They could make it free if they think that attracting more car trips is that important.



The car access is on Castlewood avenue which will still have 2 way access.

I don’t think that offering a free car park would attract anything other than commuters!

There are entrances to the car park on both Castlewood Avenue and Rathmines Road Lower (between cinema and McDonald’s). There is no exit onto Rathmines Road.

Perhaps i’ve Led too much focus on there. The residents of Leinster Sq and thereabouts would also have to take some detours on a inbound only car route, especially since the changes to Mount Pleasant Avenue. These are only small items.

As an interim measure, it would be nice to see a clear way created and enforced rather than the crazy parking on street between 10am and noon.

I see that not only did they bottle extending the inbound QBC on the section of Templeogue Road between Terenure College and the junction with Terenure Road, they're actually removing 700m and only adding 190m at the section leading up to the junction with Terenure Road.

That's a huge net-loss at peak on that section as compared to current movements, and the houses fronting onto the street could all easily still fit two cars in driveway even with significant CPO.

Don't get me started on the madness of the Rathfarnham cycle path diversion, just make the bus lane for that section only a shared space for cyclists and buses with clearly marked priority for bicycles with no overtaking. It's not optimal but at least it's a realistic bloody solution.

Morons.

Dats me

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I see that not only did they bottle extending the inbound QBC on the section of Templeogue Road between Terenure College and the junction with Terenure Road, they're actually removing 700m and only adding 190m at the section leading up to the junction with Terenure Road.

That's a huge net-loss at peak on that section as compared to current movements, and the houses fronting onto the street could all easily still fit two cars in driveway even with significant CPO.

Don't get me started on the madness of the Rathfarnham cycle path diversion, just make the bus lane for that section only a shared space for cyclists and buses with clearly marked priority for bicycles with no overtaking. It's not optimal but at least it's a realistic bloody solution.

Morons.

But surely there's nothing to stop people cycling in the bus lanes anywhere if they want to?

Thanks, I never would have imagined. That doesn't help with the issue of cyclists (or potential cyclists) being intimidated by cycling in bus lanes, nor does it help with the money/time/effort being expanded on ludicrous cycle routes that no-one will use, nor with even more added local opposition to the plan.

LXFlyer

Deleted User wrote: »

I see that not only did they bottle extending the inbound QBC on the section of Templeogue Road between Terenure College and the junction with Terenure Road, they're actually removing 700m and only adding 190m at the section leading up to the junction with Terenure Road.

That's a huge net-loss at peak on that section as compared to current movements, and the houses fronting onto the street could all easily still fit two cars in driveway even with significant CPO.

Don't get me started on the madness of the Rathfarnham cycle path diversion, just make the bus lane for that section only a shared space for cyclists and buses with clearly marked priority for bicycles with no overtaking. It's not optimal but at least it's a realistic bloody solution.

Morons.

Given that general traffic would be banned from heading towards Terenure Village along Templeogue Road north of Olney Place under this plan, and no right turns allowed off Templeogue Rd the need for an inbound bus lane on Templeogue Road is somewhat academic I would suggest.

Dats me

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks, I never would have imagined. That doesn't help with the issue of cyclists (or potential cyclists) being intimidated by cycling in bus lanes, nor does it help with the money/time/effort being expanded on ludicrous cycle routes that no-one will use, nor with even more added local opposition to the plan.

But your solution of having the only cycling path be a shared bus lane hardly solves that problem?


If that's the only alternative providing the diversion at least adds a cycling route.

sharper

Dats me wrote: »

But surely there's nothing to stop people cycling in the bus lanes anywhere if they want to?

That's probably what will happen since people will always follow the most sensible path regardless of signage.

The downside is though bikes in the bus lane severely limit the buses and slow them down. They did a lot of great work on the chapelizoid bypass a couple of years ago to enhance the bus priority but it's all wasted when a bus (and soon several buses) get stuck behind a cyclist. If they'd made it just a teeny bit wider buses would be able to pass them.

I can't imagine it's a lot of fun for the drivers either. Watching them drive up the quays is like watching a while surrounded by a school of fish.

tobsey

sharper wrote: »

That's probably what will happen since people will always follow the most sensible path regardless of signage.

The downside is though bikes in the bus lane severely limit the buses and slow them down. They did a lot of great work on the chapelizoid bypass a couple of years ago to enhance the bus priority but it's all wasted when a bus (and soon several buses) get stuck behind a cyclist. If they'd made it just a teeny bit wider buses would be able to pass them.

I can't imagine it's a lot of fun for the drivers either. Watching them drive up the quays is like watching a while surrounded by a school of fish.

Whenever cyclists in a bus lane is mentioned the Chapelizod by-pass is mentioned. However it is a unique stretch of road in the DB network that has a buslane, no traffic lights, and no stops for a long distance. Pretty much every other part of any other route would have the bus stop at stops and lights and the cyclists would be just as quick over the route. The times that a bus may be faster, such as off-peak when there's fewer people alighting, the bus can probably pass in the driving lane anyway.

sharper

tobsey wrote: »

Whenever cyclists in a bus lane is mentioned the Chapelizod by-pass is mentioned. However it is a unique stretch of road in the DB network that has a buslane, no traffic lights, and no stops for a long distance. Pretty much every other part of any other route would have the bus stop at stops and lights and the cyclists would be just as quick over the route. The times that a bus may be faster, such as off-peak when there's fewer people alighting, the bus can probably pass in the driving lane anyway.

It's definitely a noticeable section but I think it has less obvious impacts elsewhere. Like when trying to pull into a stop or let passengers off safely without them getting hit by a cyclist. I'm honestly amazed there aren't more accidents on the quays and that's mostly down to some quality bus driving because naturally most cyclists have no idea where the stops are or which buses stop where so they're often taken a little by surprise when a bus turns in.

I'm not criticising cyclists (though some are far better at sharing the road just as some drivers are) since they often have no other choice. I'm just pointing out a lot of value in bus infrastructure can be lost by not spending that little bit more to get a separate cycle lane or by a lack of continuous lanes.

Kfagan10

It's amazing how there is plenty of green space on the outbound side of the Chapelizod bypass to widen the road/add a seperate cycle track, but nothing in the Busconnects proposals to do this. They could even tarmac the path/cycle lane they never finished when the bus priority measures were put in a couple of years ago.

This should also be reverted back to a National road so TII can do something with the Kennelsfort Road Junction, because the council have no interest in improving things there.

LXFlyer

LXFlyer wrote: »

Given that general traffic would be banned from heading towards Terenure Village along Templeogue Road north of Olney Place under this plan, and no right turns allowed off Templeogue Rd the need for an inbound bus lane on Templeogue Road is somewhat academic I would suggest.

My bad, I thought Terenure Place was one of the sidestreets off Templeogue Road, I had no idea Terenure Road East/West were divided by another streetname.

A plan mooted in 2006 was to make both Templeogue Road & Terenure Road West one way only (with contraflow bus lane on Templeogue Road) from Fortfield Road to Terenure Village. Nothing happened due to local opposition, even though at that time buses were regularly 45 minutes getting from Templeogue Village to Terenure Village.

CatInABox

The Irish Times are doing their Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde thing again, every article finds the worse angle to misrepresent BusConnects, but when it comes time for the Irish Times to put their own opinion out there? A necessary inconvenience

AngryLips

Can anyone help me with this - I read somewhere that the NTA plans for north county Dublin, like Rush, Skerries and Balbriggan was to remove them from the Dublin Bus catchment because they were too far out to be adequately served by such a service. Did I imagine this? What is the alternative if they're to be moved out of Dublin Bus? Go Ahead? Bus Eireann?

cgcsb

AngryLips wrote: »

Can anyone help me with this - I read somewhere that the NTA plans for north county Dublin, like Rush, Skerries and Balbriggan was to remove them from the Dublin Bus catchment because they were too far out to be adequately served by such a service. Did I imagine this? What is the alternative if they're to be moved out of Dublin Bus? Go Ahead? Bus Eireann?

Not true

fionnsci

I can't imagine the one way Rathmines plan will be a runner. The locals won't accept it, especially where an alternative has been offered that doesn't end two way traffic. Castlewood Avenue is a nightmare for traffic as it stands.

LXFlyer

Deleted User wrote: »

My bad, I thought Terenure Place was one of the sidestreets off Templeogue Road, I had no idea Terenure Road East/West were divided by another streetname.

A plan mooted in 2006 was to make both Templeogue Road & Terenure Road West one way only (with contraflow bus lane on Templeogue Road) from Fortfield Road to Terenure Village. Nothing happened due to local opposition, even though at that time buses were regularly 45 minutes getting from Templeogue Village to Terenure Village.

It’s pretty obvious from the maps what is planned, but many people like yourself don’t seem to have copped it. People really need to study the maps carefully before making comments on it. The devil is in the detail with this stuff.

The plans completely change the traffic dynamic in the area with significant northbound diversions onto alternative routes. That has serious implications for a lot of commutes and until I’ve gone through all of the changes in the south central area I will hold fire on judging it, except for saying that to say though that the proposed diversion for cyclists north of Rathfarnham Village is unenforceable.

LXFlyer

AngryLips wrote: »

Can anyone help me with this - I read somewhere that the NTA plans for north county Dublin, like Rush, Skerries and Balbriggan was to remove them from the Dublin Bus catchment because they were too far out to be adequately served by such a service. Did I imagine this? What is the alternative if they're to be moved out of Dublin Bus? Go Ahead? Bus Eireann?

What you are thinking of is the recent consultation on the five year direct award to Dublin Bus.

A member of the public suggested that they re-examine awarding the 33 and 65 to Dublin Bus and re-evaluate the two routes into something like the Bus reann model of operating route 101 - as semi-express within the city area.

Whether that gains traction with the NTA or not is another question.

monument

fionnsci wrote: »

I can't imagine the one way Rathmines plan will be a runner. The locals won't accept it, especially where an alternative has been offered that doesn't end two way traffic. Castlewood Avenue is a nightmare for traffic as it stands.

It will be a fight between locals who want the car status quo and locals who want better cycling provision and stop worse cycling provision.

Rathmines and the nearby areas have the highest levels of cycling in the country — more commuters cycling towards the city centre than traveling by car, more people commuting by bicycle than bus etc.

LXFlyer

monument wrote: »

It will be a fight between locals who want the car status quo and locals who want better cycling provision and stop worse cycling provision.

Rathmines and the nearby areas have the highest levels of cycling in the country — more commuters cycling towards the city centre than traveling by car, more people commuting by bicycle than bus etc.

While there has been a noticeable increase in the number of cyclists along Rathmines Road, I’m not sure that there are more cyclists than people travelling along Rathmines Road on the buses. That’s quite a claim!

Marcusm

fionnsci wrote: »

I can't imagine the one way Rathmines plan will be a runner. The locals won't accept it, especially where an alternative has been offered that doesn't end two way traffic. Castlewood Avenue is a nightmare for traffic as it stands.

Is there a connection between BusConnects and MetroLink? If the Dunville Avenue closure proceeds, the only motor crossing point between Milltown and the canal will be at Charleston Road. Pushing all the non-bus traffic from Rathmibes Road and Dunville Avenue down Castkewoid/Charleston would seem to be coercive rather than necessary. An offline bike route as described in option B sounds like it might have attractions but might upset residents and, if not designed properly, be a hazard for pedestrians given the number of routes it has to traverse (unlike theo RRL bike lane).

LXFlyer

LXFlyer wrote: »

It’s pretty obvious from the maps what is planned, but many people like yourself don’t seem to have copped it. People really need to study the maps carefully before making comments on it. The devil is in the detail with this stuff.

The plans completely change the traffic dynamic in the area with significant northbound diversions onto alternative routes. That has serious implications for a lot of commutes and until I’ve gone through all of the changes in the south central area I will hold fire on judging it, except for saying that to say though that the proposed diversion for cyclists north of Rathfarnham Village is unenforceable.

It's not that obvious looking through it on mobile! Even zoomed in the maps aren't the highest quality at times and for some reason load incredibly slowly.

I've had a look properly now, and as someone who cycles into the city via either the 15 bus route (Templeogue Bridge > Templeogue Road > Terenure Road > Rathmines Road) or via Willbrook Road > Rathfarnham Road > Terenure Road > Rathmines Road, the improvements are limited and a lot of the cycling stuff is just plain stupid.

Inbound on Templeogue Road sends you through housing estates, Terenure Road East has spotty cycle lanes that stop and end higgledy piggledy, and Rathmines Road looks like it just won't have cycle lanes. The Rathfarnham diversion is risible.

Tallaght to Terenure to Richmond Street is the route of the old Blessington Steam Tram, and should be an obvious choice to create a high quality direct cycle lane straight in and out of the the city following arrow straight roads with few bends. Somehow though, they've managed to create a hilariously bad mess out of it.

Carawaystick

LXFlyer wrote: »

except for saying that to say though that the proposed diversion for cyclists north of Rathfarnham Village is unenforceable.

When I was at the consultation re the Swords road corridor, the bus connects people said that what is marked as bus only on the maps always will permit cycling.

So the route in Rathmines should be thought of as poor *alternative* to the direct bus lane route

Dats me

Carawaystick wrote: »

When I was at the consultation re the Swords road corridor, the bus connects people said that what is marked as bus only on the maps always will permit cycling.

So the route in Rathmines should be thought of as poor *alternative* to the direct bus lane route

What was the atmosphere like at the consultations? Were many in favour?

LXFlyer

Carawaystick wrote: »

When I was at the consultation re the Swords road corridor, the bus connects people said that what is marked as bus only on the maps always will permit cycling.

So the route in Rathmines should be thought of as poor *alternative* to the direct bus lane route

Which makes a mockery of the project.

The whole point of this is to speed buses up - if they have to continue to share space with cyclists then that won’t happen.

They need realistic segregated cycling options that don’t involve mammoth and unattractive detours.

donvito99

LXFlyer wrote: »

The whole point of this is to speed buses up - if they have to continue to share space with cyclists then that won’t happen.

It's not the cyclists slowing the buses down in the existing bus lane on Rathmines Road.

Carawaystick

LXFlyer wrote: »

Which makes a mockery of the project.

The whole point of this is to speed buses up - if they have to continue to share space with cyclists then that won’t happen.

They need realistic segregated cycling options that don’t involve mammoth and unattractive detours.

Buses slow me down, when I cycle to work. I bet they still will after busconnects too.

LXFlyer

donvito99 wrote: »

It's not the cyclists slowing the buses down in the existing bus lane on Rathmines Road.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Buses slow me down, when I cycle to work. I bet they still will after busconnects too.

So both of you think it’s better for buses and cyclists to share the same space?

Grassey

LXFlyer wrote:

So both of you think it’s better for buses and cyclists to share the same space?

Well its preferable to sub standard infrastructure that won't be used and just pisses away public funds.

LXFlyer

Grassey wrote: »

Well its preferable to sub standard infrastructure that won't be used and just pisses away public funds.

With all due respect if you read my original post - I was saying precisely that the proposed cycle route in Rathfarnham was a crazy diversion which would end up being a complete waste of money as it would never be used.

But the onus is on the planners to come up with a solution that provides segregation for cyclists, buses and cars.

Mixing them simply does not work and makes a mockery of the stated objectives of this plan.

Grassey

I did read your post. And I do agree with you.

In the above I assumed you were makinng a general statement about the 2forms of transport mixing, and in general terms I was saying its preferable than pissing money away.

Amirani

LXFlyer wrote: »

With all due respect if you read my original post - I was saying precisely that the proposed cycle route in Rathfarnham was a crazy diversion which would end up being a complete waste of money as it would never be used.

But the onus is on the planners to come up with a solution that provides segregation for cyclists, buses and cars.

I don't see any possible solution for cyclists that could be put in place on Rathfarnham Road that would not involve a significant diversion.

Grassey

Amirani wrote: »

I don't see any possible solution for cyclists that could be put in place on Rathfarnham Road that would not involve a significant diversion.

Remove both right hand turn lanes for cars turning onto the R112 (both east & west direcctions) would free up an awful lot of road space here and not require a new bridge or diversion.

Amirani

Grassey wrote: »

Remove both right hand turn lanes for cars turning onto the R112 (both east & west direcctions) would free up an awful lot of road space here and not require a new bridge or diversion.

That makes things easier at the junction for cyclists for sure. But the rest of the road still doesn't have space for 2 dedicated cycle lanes, 2 traffic lanes and 2 bus lanes. At the moment there's 1 bus lane, 1 cycle lane and 2 traffic lanes, and that's pretty much all the space used?

CatInABox

The Irish Times: "The NTA are coming to take every inch of our gardens, won't someone think of the poor, disabled, elderly people??!?!?!?"

Also The Irish Times: "Far too many commuters drive to and from their workplaces, even from areas that are well served by public transport"

Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde doesn't begin to describe their opinion.

Dats me

There were lots of people here pointing out that the SW has the worst bus commuting times in the city. Busconnects would probably be needed with or without a metro in 10 years time.

https://mobile.twitter.com/DeirdreConroyIE/status/1097274041294032901

Councillors are starting to campaign against the busconnects corridors it seems, I'm not from the area so don't know what sort of groups there are but I thought I'd post in case people wanted to counteract it etc

cgcsb

phase 3 was to be out today afaik

marno21

Jim O'Callaghan both in the Dail and on Today FM today about Terenure residents having their gardens taken off them.

Think that'll be the end of that too.

cgcsb

If we can't close Dunville for cars (maintaining pedestrian and cyclist access) then just forget busconnects and go with the status quo. The majority of the CBCs contain proposals that are just too radical. It'll be more of the status quo until we can have serious reform of how these projects are run.

LXFlyer

I’m not surprised about this one iota. I predicted the level of objections from the outset. I’ve said all along that the plans will end up being watered down considerably.

That’s before you actually analyse the claimed improvements in journey time from the NTA which certainly in south Dublin seem to be far greater than likely. I welcome any improvement but I think they’re being a tad over optimistic.

What is surprising me is that many people don’t seem to have grasped the proposed effective closure of Templeogue Road inbound to general traffic by putting a bus gate on the approach to Terenure village just before Fergus Road, coupled with new right turn bans off Templeogue Road inbound. That will cause massive disruption on other corridors which doesn’t seem to be sinking in yet.

schemingbohemia

I'm looking at buying a house on Lower Kimmage Road. Lots of "Community not Corridor" signs in local houses - I really don't get this, they're maintaining local access and removing through car access, why don't locals want this it will lead to a reduction in car traffic outside their house, there's no CPO there.
I really think the locals haven't read anything themselves and are just taking at face value the fake news being peddled by the usual suspects.

is_that_so

Carawaystick wrote: »

Buses slow me down, when I cycle to work. I bet they still will after busconnects too.

Bikes slow me down when I'm sitting on a bus!:D