Dublin - BusConnects

CatInABox

cgcsb wrote: »

Noel Rock wanted this, no? he seemed to comment negatively on the one way system, unless he had another alternative in mind?

It's the standard of politician in Ireland, sadly. Oppose something without considering the consequences of said opposition, and then when the alternative is worse, also oppose that.

I honestly think it's a toss up between the CPO route, and routing 90% of the buses down the bypass, could end up either way.

LeinsterDub

jd wrote: »

It was a meeting I was at where a number of options were discussed regarding transport options for North Dublin/Fingal. It was in the context of one option to have the BRT turning at Coolock Lane and running down the Santry By-pass. This would have left Santry with a much reduced bus service, and one resident opined the BRT should run through Santry, with a tunnel from the Omni down to Whitehall Church.

Fair enough . I thought I'd heard it repeated more recently

cgcsb

loyatemu wrote: »

didn't he want to build a tunnel?

That'd be some fund raiser in the swiss. You'd have to have quite a few raffles. Wouldn't building a tunnel be much more disruptive during construction phase?


Perhaps a tax on owning gardens on that stretch is better?


Perhaps Noel Rock doesn't have a better solution but just likes talking.

jd

Santry Option was released by NTA for forum members. People are sharing on social media so I may as well post it here.

Busman Paddy Lasty

jd wrote: »

Santry Option was released by NTA for forum members. People are sharing on social media so I may as well post it

That's great. Can't see it on the phone but guessing that's a bus priority junction at Shantalla rd.

Taking out the island at Larkhill/Shanrath junction should free up a lot of road space too.

tom1ie

Again with the in line bus stops. What a disaster that’ll be. If we are going to spend so much money on building bus infrastructure then do it properly!
Bus stop set down areas should not impead the bus lane corridor and should be set back from the qbc. If that requires more land aquasition, then fine. If we are going to do it go all in!

tobsey

tom1ie wrote: »

Again with the in line bus stops. What a disaster that’ll be. If we are going to spend so much money on building bus infrastructure then do it properly!
Bus stop set down areas should not impead the bus lane corridor and should be set back from the qbc. If that requires more land aquasition, then fine. If we are going to do it go all in!

More of someone else's land though. People waiting at the stop would be sitting on people's window ledges if that much land was taken.

Spanish Eyes

Will take ten years minimum to complete this plan, which I am all in favour of BTW.

But the time scale is quite disappointing, unless parts can be completed that do not involve CPOs etc. If it can be completed incrementally, the benefits to be seen might be a good PR move.

jd

tobsey wrote: »

More of someone else's land though. People waiting at the stop would be sitting on people's window ledges if that much land was taken.

Not on the Swords Rd, though.

Busman Paddy Lasty

tom1ie wrote: »

Again with the in line bus stops. What a disaster that’ll be. If we are going to spend so much money on building bus infrastructure then do it properly!
Bus stop set down areas should not impead the bus lane corridor and should be set back from the qbc. If that requires more land aquasition, then fine. If we are going to do it go all in!

That should be done but at what cost, financially and operationally? Some areas too many stops too close together. Are the public willing to pay for the upgrades and maybe reduce the number of stops to save some cash.

Stop 1623 is currently set back from the road, it's inline on the NTA drawing. CPO of land from the Omni would be needed in addition to CPO on the far side of the road as proposed.

tom1ie

Busman Paddy Lasty wrote: »

That should be done but at what cost, financially and operationally? Some areas too many stops too close mtogether. Are the public willing to pay for the upgrades and maybe reduce the number of stops to save some cash.

Stop 1623 is currently set back from the road, it's inline on the NTA drawing. CPO of land from the Omni would be needed in addition to CPO on the far side of the road as proposed.

Well I’ll flip that answer and say, not setting bus stops back from the qbc is akin to building two Lucas lines and not connecting them to begin with, and then deciding to connect them via an at grade tram link through a densely packed city centre whilst not banning cars!
Think of all the private busses, taxis and nta busses that’ll use these corridors. To think the qbc won’t get backed up if a bus has to stop in line for passenger movements is ridiculous to be honest.
Bus stops must be offset for this project to work.

tom1ie

tobsey wrote: »

More of someone else's land though. People waiting at the stop would be sitting on people's window ledges if that much land was taken.

Not in the vast majority. I think your scaremongering there.

Busman Paddy Lasty

tom1ie wrote: »

Well I’ll flip that answer and say, not setting bus stops back from the qbc is akin to building two Lucas lines and not connecting them to begin with, and then deciding to connect them via an at grade tram link through a densely packed city centre whilst not banning cars!
Think of all the private busses, taxis and nta busses that’ll use these corridors. To think the qbc won’t get backed up if a bus has to stop in line for passenger movements is ridiculous to be honest.
Bus stops must be offset for this project to work.

I agree 100%, this should be done. Not keeping the Omni stop set back is a mistake but it saves money and CPO effort. I should have made that clearer.

Stops must be set back and reduced in number to help get people from A to B quickly.

Kevtherev1

I listened back to pat kenny show newstalk show from yesterday. The discussion being on dublin plaza, Dublin bus connects and killarney bypass requirement.


Pat Kenny mentioned for Bus Connects the design of new routes is based on Dublin population 2011 census data. Bus connects to be delivered by 2027 (new road infrastructure)


With all the population increased and 8 year delivery time will any benefit of bus connects be wiped out/ negligible.


Bus Connects failing to make a different due to the pop growth and snail like delivery. Discuss

Spanish Eyes

Kevtherev1 wrote: »

I listened back to pat kenny show newstalk show from yesterday. The discussion being on dublin plaza, Dublin bus connects and killarney bypass requirement.


Pat Kenny mentioned for Bus Connects the design of new routes is based on Dublin population 2011 census data. Bus connects to be delivered by 2027 (new road infrastructure)


With all the population increased and 8 year delivery time will any benefit of bus connects be wiped out/ negligible.


Bus Connects failing to make a different due to the pop growth and snail like delivery. Discuss

Am with you on the snail like delivery. But such is life, nothing we can do now.

Ten years to fruition! and it will be out of date even then. But something is better than nothing.

I just hope they incrementally introduce this where they can.

cgcsb

Kevtherev1 wrote: »

I listened back to pat kenny show newstalk show from yesterday. The discussion being on dublin plaza, Dublin bus connects and killarney bypass requirement.


Pat Kenny mentioned for Bus Connects the design of new routes is based on Dublin population 2011 census data. Bus connects to be delivered by 2027 (new road infrastructure)


With all the population increased and 8 year delivery time will any benefit of bus connects be wiped out/ negligible.


Bus Connects failing to make a different due to the pop growth and snail like delivery. Discuss

Pat Kenny would be incorrect

sharper

In the report they reference demand based off the Census Small Area report projected up to 2018 which I guess is this Census from 2016 https://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2016reports/census2016smallareapopulationstatistics/

So demand is based off a Census in 2016 with some attempt to guess at 2018 being delivered in 2027. Not amazing by any means but better than 2011 at least.

cgcsb

Regardless of what the population is in 2027, propose a better bus system. If your were to be that mathematical about it, you'd be building metros on 6 corridors already, but that's just not going to happen.

Sam Russell

cgcsb wrote: »

Regardless of what the population is in 2027, propose a better bus system. If your were to be that mathematical about it, you'd be building metros on 6 corridors already, but that's just not going to happen.

Essentially Busconnects is building a number of spine routes that are like putative metro lines in that they go from one side of the city to the other through the CC. Irrespective on shift in population or employment centres, the basic design is fairly obvious and changes in population or employment locations can be catered for by frequency changes. Current bus routes have their origin in the tram network of a century ago.

LeinsterDub

Kevtherev1 wrote: »

Bus Connects failing to make a different due to the pop growth and snail like delivery. Discuss

Doing nothing will be ten times worse . Discuss.

sharper

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Doing nothing will be ten times worse . Discuss.

There are people who have various motivations for doing nothing but in the case of those that don't like how long it'll take it's more of a case of finding ways to do it faster.

We risk the bus service of 2027 being as bad or worse than the 2019 bus service because it's still mismatched with the needs of the city.

Also remember that with a long running project the odds of us hitting a recession between now and 2027 mean it's likely sections of the infrastructure will be cancelled entirely and never delivered.

tom1ie

Sam Russell wrote: »

Essentially Busconnects is building a number of spine routes that are like putative metro lines in that they go from one side of the city to the other through the CC. Irrespective on shift in population or employment centres, the basic design is fairly obvious and changes in population or employment locations can be catered for by frequency changes. Current bus routes have their origin in the tram network of a century ago.

They are building sub standard spine routes that will cause busses that don’t need to stop,to merge with traffic in the regular driving lanes, due to a previous bus having stopped at a bus stop. Ludicrous setup.

Sam Russell

tom1ie wrote: »

They are building sub standard spine routes that will cause busses that don’t need to stop,to merge with traffic in the regular driving lanes, due to a previous bus having stopped at a bus stop. Ludicrous setup.

One solution to this is to make it mandatory for cars etc to give way to buses indicating to pull out. [In other words - hit a bus from behind and you are to blame].

I am not suggesting this as a serious way of solving the Busconnects design problems, but if drivers gave way more, traffic flows would improve.

jd

tom1ie wrote: »

They are building sub standard spine routes that will cause busses that don’t need to stop,to merge with traffic in the regular driving lanes, due to a previous bus having stopped at a bus stop. Ludicrous setup.

This will be less of an issue as people tag on and off the buses.
We need to go cashless asap.

tom1ie

Sam Russell wrote: »

One solution to this is to make it mandatory for cars etc to give way to buses indicating to pull out. [In other words - hit a bus from behind and you are to blame].

I am not suggesting this as a serious way of solving the Busconnects design problems, but if drivers gave way more, traffic flows would improve.

That’s the problem though, driving habits in this country are so below par it’s not funny. You can’t put the emphasis on the driver to give way to a bus as the driver would be to selfish to realize there’s 80+ commuters on that bus and if I don’t let the bus out that might impede the following bus etc etc.
now factor in private busses and taxis on top of a 3 min frequency in some cases! The mind boggles!

LeinsterDub

Sam Russell wrote: »

One solution to this is to make it mandatory for cars etc to give way to buses indicating to pull out. [In other words - hit a bus from behind and you are to blame].

I am not suggesting this as a serious way of solving the Busconnects design problems, but if drivers gave way more, traffic flows would improve.

Ask any cyclist how making anything mandatory works out.

Heartbreak Hank

Sam Russell wrote: »

One solution to this is to make it mandatory for cars etc to give way to buses indicating to pull out. [In other words - hit a bus from behind and you are to blame].

I am not suggesting this as a serious way of solving the Busconnects design problems, but if drivers gave way more, traffic flows would improve.

I think that is the law in Toronto.

tobsey

tom1ie wrote: »

They are building sub standard spine routes that will cause busses that don’t need to stop,to merge with traffic in the regular driving lanes, due to a previous bus having stopped at a bus stop. Ludicrous setup.

The whole point of the spine routes is to reduce the volume of buses on these routes bunching together because they all came from different side streets onto one main route. The routes are designed to have a more even spread of buses to improve the frequency rather than just the capacity. The spines are designed to get rid of the waiting ages for a bus and then three come along at once scenario.

dfx-

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Doing nothing will be ten times worse . Discuss.

That's precisely what they are doing until 2027 in the best case scenario. Are we still going to have the 2011 network in 2026?

cgcsb

dfx- wrote: »

That's precisely what they are doing until 2027 in the best case scenario. Are we still going to have the 2011 network in 2026?

CBC improvements are hardly going to be ALL delivered in the 12 month window at the end of an 8 year project. The improvements will be incremental.