Dublin - BusConnects

prunudo

L1011 wrote: »

The parking bays outside Kate O'Connells pharmacy are to be removed apparently

Michael McDowell owns a rental property adjacent to the Metrlolink upgrade zone at Ranelagh station.

The media here seem to be utterly incapable of using the public register of interests to notice conflicts of interest and effectively stop public reps protecting their own interests in the media.

I had heard about McDowells interests but thats shocking about O'Connell. That information needs to be in the public domain if she's out there publicly opposing Bus Connects.

L1011

Idbatterim wrote: »

Can’t stand the sight of these idiots any more. Will happily vote ff or sf out of spite at this stage.

Have you see what the FF reps in "leafy" South Dublin are up to? One is going around finding photogenic gardens and trying to claim they're all the worst affected 4m landtake ones (they aren't) and if you point that out you're told you're "ATTACKING A WOMAN!!".

SF don't seem quite as bothered as they'll never get more than nominal representation there, and no TDs.

Idbatterim

L1011 wrote: »

Have you see what the FF reps in "leafy" South Dublin are up to? One is going around finding photogenic gardens and trying to claim they're all the worst affected 4m landtake ones (they aren't) and if you point that out you're told you're "ATTACKING A WOMAN!!".

SF don't seem quite as bothered as they'll never get more than nominal representation there, and no TDs.

I don’t doubt the alternatives are rubbish. But I’d vote them out, out of spite!

CatInABox

Idbatterim wrote: »

I don’t doubt the alternatives are rubbish. But I’d vote them out, out of spite!

Sadly, the most pro infrastructure investment politician seems to be Varadkar himself.

Kermit.de.frog

We need a China approach here.

No compensation. Take whats needed for the greater good.

matrim

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We need a China approach here.

No compensation. Take whats needed for the greater good.

No we don't

prunudo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We need a China approach here.

No compensation. Take whats needed for the greater good.

While that may be a bit draconian, there definitely needs to be a better approach. Its far too easy for projects to be derailed at present.

cgcsb

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We need a China approach here.

No compensation. Take whats needed for the greater good.

Or just stop inviting comment from amoeba

LeinsterDub

Idbatterim wrote: »

Can’t stand the sight of these idiots any more. Will happily vote ff or sf out of spite at this stage.

FF oppose the entire plan they are as bad if not worse

marno21

The NTA crusade to destroy Rathmines continues

https://dublingazette.com/news/news-city-edition/rathmines-busconnects-44929/

Idbatterim

Is there much congestion on that stretch into town at peak hours? I use it off peak and it always moves quick enough ...

Kermit.de.frog

There must be a case to be made for special legal provisions at this stage to bring the country's infrastructure up to standard.


I think we should consider suspending some planning rights for 10 years.


In the 10 years we can get done what needs to be done. After this period we could return NIBMY rights.


We are in a bit of a state with our infrastructure and something radical like this should be considered in my opinion.

LeinsterDub

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

There must be a case to be made for special legal provisions at this stage to bring the country's infrastructure up to standard.


I think we should consider suspending some planning rights for 10 years.


In the 10 years we can get done what needs to be done. After this period we could return NIBMY rights.


We are in a bit of a state with our infrastructure and something radical like this should be considered in my opinion.

Ban parking in town in both public and private offices and workplaces. You'd soon see these people change their mind on BusConnects

CatInABox

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Ban parking in town in both public and private offices and workplaces. You'd soon see these people change their mind on BusConnects

Start by taxing employer provided parking spaces as a benefit in kind, remove the on street parking around the city centre, and make more of the near city centre suburbs parking permit.

That'd go a long way on it own.

prunudo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

There must be a case to be made for special legal provisions at this stage to bring the country's infrastructure up to standard.


I think we should consider suspending some planning rights for 10 years.


In the 10 years we can get done what needs to be done. After this period we could return NIBMY rights.


We are in a bit of a state with our infrastructure and something radical like this should be considered in my opinion.

In fairness we've come a long way with roads but those cpo's didn't effect as many people so you didn't hear about their impact as much.
Its now that they're planning for the urban areas where there is limited space and more individuals effected that we're starting to see opposition. I also believe that there are more 'connected' people in leafy suburbs who are using their circles to get their grievances aired. Nobody in Rathmines cared if a farmer with 100 acres lost 10 acres to a motorway as long as they could get to the weekend away half an hour quicker and in comfort.

L1011

The motorway network CPOs involved full houses being demolished or left vacant, as did the Kildare Route Project quad tracking and neither got a tenth of the coverage of some gardens being shaved down in an area lots of journalists either live or wish they lived

Even the very minor scheme to widen the n56 beyond Mountcharles required CPOing houses

cgcsb

marno21 wrote: »

The NTA crusade to destroy Rathmines continues

https://dublingazette.com/news/news-city-edition/rathmines-busconnects-44929/

Opening line:

"Rathmines, one of the biggest suburbs of the City Centre"

I'm going to request a copy of that junior cert. I just hope they don't attack busconnects as viciously as they do the English language.

sharper

“Alleged savings of seven to eight minutes commuting time for an estimated €120 million can be achieved in different and cheaper ways. It will be a disaster for local communities, businesses and taxpayers.

I'm curious if this is the same quote being reproduced in different articles (if so, why?) or the same person saying the same thing multiple times, if so why are they not being asked to clarify these better solutions?

cgcsb

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Ban parking in town in both public and private offices and workplaces. You'd soon see these people change their mind on BusConnects

Oslo removed almost all public parking in the city save a few disabled spaces, loading bays and ecar charging points. They're lovin life at the min.

cgcsb

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

There must be a case to be made for special legal provisions at this stage to bring the country's infrastructure up to standard.


I think we should consider suspending some planning rights for 10 years.


In the 10 years we can get done what needs to be done. After this period we could return NIBMY rights.


We are in a bit of a state with our infrastructure and something radical like this should be considered in my opinion.

I'm not convinced democracy works, technocracy is the way forward. There has to be complete political separation from this process.

cgcsb

where does the 7-8 minutes claim come from? The busconnects website claims an estimated 25 minute journey, that's at least 20-25 minutes faster than now. A 2 way commute will save almost a full hour for someone on the outer end.

Qrt

cgcsb wrote: »

where does the 7-8 minutes claim come from? The busconnects website claims an estimated 25 minute journey, that's at least 20-25 minutes faster than now. A 2 way commute will save almost a full hour for someone on the outer end.

It’s probably the total saving time divided by the proportion of route from their area to the city centre. In short, they’re completely disregarding the needs of others in further-out suburbs.

CatInABox

Qrt wrote: »

It’s probably the total saving time divided by the proportion of route from their area to the city centre. In short, they’re completely disregarding the needs of others in further-out suburbs.

What's worse is that they're only talking about the time savings from their section, but are using the price of the entire corridor at the same time.

They're also disregarding the fact that the 7 minutes is from the current time it takes, and not from the predicted time in the future. By the time 2027 rolls around, the congestion through there without the Core Corridors will be so much worse. That 7 minute saving will probably be closer to 15 minutes then.

Also, a seven minute saving is nothing to sniff at. That's 14 minutes a day for the average commuter going through there, or over an hour a week. Over the course of a year, that's saving commuters two whole days of sitting in traffic.

cgcsb

:eek:

Like why are they allowed air with this I'm alright jack attitutde. Like what they think, ah there's other ways to save that small amount time for us and shure who cares about everyone else.

Qrt wrote: »

It’s probably the total saving time divided by the proportion of route from their area to the city centre. In short, they’re completely disregarding the needs of others in further-out suburbs.

CatInABox

Public consultation for phase 1 closes in one week.

https://twitter.com/BusConnects/status/1109033709867618304

Dats me

Mixing of cyclists and buses at bus stops, and terrible junction design for cyclists are the big things for me. As well as them not following their own Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets, if space is needed cyclists shouldn't be redirected, private car should always lose out.

Also that is an incredibly long consultation time for Phase 1, published in November, nearly 5 months!

Another thing I noticed when reading some of the background information reports on the website, I forget which route it was I think the UCD one. But they specifically mentioned the Bus Rapid Transit plans. The report said something along the lines of 'the long-term plan is to upgrade this route to a BRT route' which is interesting.

cgcsb

Dats me wrote: »

Mixing of cyclists and buses at bus stops, and terrible junction design for cyclists are the big things for me. As well as them not following their own Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets, if space is needed cyclists shouldn't be redirected, private car should always lose out.

Is there an alternative for cyclists going through bus stops in those locations though?Often there isn't the space to just route the bike lane around the back of the bus stop. Obviously segregation is the aim but it's not always 100% possible. I don't see an alternative really in some of the tighter locations.

RE the design manual: it's a pragmatic document, not the bible.

Dats me wrote: »

Another thing I noticed when reading some of the background information reports on the website, I forget which route it was I think the UCD one. But they specifically mentioned the Bus Rapid Transit plans. The report said something along the lines of 'the long-term plan is to upgrade this route to a BRT route' which is interesting.

Not sure what the point of BRT at that time would be assuming that busconnects achieves all of the segregation and junction priority possible.
The only further advantage of BRT would be off board ticketing, with cash fares gone and only one dublin fare in operation, I don't even see value in that.

After bus connects light rail is the only further improvement on the cards. I would suggest that the Malahide Road and Stillorgan Road would be good candidates for conversion to luas in the future.

CatInABox

Dats me wrote: »

Also that is an incredibly long consultation time for Phase 1, published in November, nearly 5 months!

It is, but it was originally only three months. They were asked to extend it, and they did.

Markcheese

Isn't BRT, just advanced bus routes?
Preferably with a stop similar to a luas, and ticketing at the stop,( the rapid bit)

I was on a few city buses in Bristol last week (first I think), buses were good, information on next stop Ect was very clear, but man were they slow, front door only..
Bus came to a halt, engine stopped, passengers started dis embarking.. Coming downstairs took awhile, then passengers coming on got their ticket, sat down, bus started, each stop must have been more than 5 mins

Stephen15

Markcheese wrote: »

Isn't BRT, just advanced bus routes?
Preferably with a stop similar to a luas, and ticketing at the stop,( the rapid bit)

I was on a few city buses in Bristol last week (first I think), buses were good, information on next stop Ect was very clear, but man were they slow, front door only..
Bus came to a halt, engine stopped, passengers started dis embarking.. Coming downstairs took awhile, then passengers coming on got their ticket, sat down, bus started, each stop must have been more than 5 mins

That would be pretty much standard on all UK buses outside of London single door buses with all payment through the driver. Driver also gives change in most cities apart from some operators such as Lothian in Edinburgh, First Glasgow and National Express West Midlands in the Greater Birmingham Area who operate exact fare only policies similar to DB.

Having the driver giving change certainly slows things up considerably I don't know why so many bus operators in the UK still do it as I'm sure there's rough areas where buses get held up and robbed. That being said in some ways UK operators are more advanced than here as many are now taking contactless payments.

The Luas is quite advanced ticketing wise in some ways for a tram system by continental standards with ticket machines which are quite high spec but card payments and notes accepted at every stop aswell as Leap validators on platforms more akin to something more likely to be found at a more heavy rail system. Most tramways I've used on the continent have had validators on board trams with off board ticketing bought in shops or onboard coin ticket machines.