BusConnects - Cyclist Support Vital

LennoxR

I've been trying to read up on this but can't form a view yet. In theory it sounds like a good plan but in practice many people seem to think it will make their local service worse as they lose their local bus.

From a cycling perspective, frankly I can't particularly see why it would be in our interest.

The bottom line here is that the layout of the bus routes and cycling infrastructure are two different things. I can't see why one should necessarily support the re-orienting of the bus system in order to build cycle lanes? Surely these are two separate issues?

Moreover if, as was suggested earlier this year, cyclists would be banned from thoroughfares such as Rathmines and Harold s Cross, to accommodate new bus lanes, that would be a retrograde step as far as cyclists were concerned.

magicbastarder

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

No way I'd support the current changes to the network. OP mentions misinformation. The 67 and 1 buses for example will be affected detrimentally. There may be some scaremongering but a lot of these changes are not for the best.

They've already announced a couple of changes I think. Jarrett walker, the chap behind the design, was stressing that it's a first draft and that they would certainly be taking constructive criticism on board for modifications.

RayCun

The connection is that part of the plan is to change the road layout on the primary routes. The new road layout is path, bike lane, bus lane, car lane.
This is why there are compulsory purchase orders, to make the road wide enough for those lanes.
Taking road space away from cars !!! can only be justified if the new bus lanes get a lot of traffic - which they will if they are primary routes, and won't if the existing routes are kept.

There are also bike routes in some places separate from the bus lanes. Ask yourself how likely it is that the whole project is sent back to the drawing board for five years, but these new bike lanes go ahead anyway.

magicbastarder

Even without bus connects, there are pinch points which simply have to be fixed. The bottom of the malahide road, for example, especially in the evenings. Cars queuing outbound back up in fairview, and block the road for buses. But any remediation would involve widening the road.

Even if the issue of the actual bus routing was accepted, it's the above work which will be the next hurdle.

LennoxR

RayCun wrote: »

The connection is that part of the plan is to change the road layout on the primary routes. The new road layout is path, bike lane, bus lane, car lane.
This is why there are compulsory purchase orders, to make the road wide enough for those lanes.
Taking road space away from cars !!! can only be justified if the new bus lanes get a lot of traffic - which they will if they are primary routes, and won't if the existing routes are kept.

There are also bike routes in some places separate from the bus lanes. Ask yourself how likely it is that the whole project is sent back to the drawing board for five years, but these new bike lanes go ahead anyway.

Can you point me in the direction of a link to the plan that lays all this out?

I mean, as a cyclist, good quality bike lanes mirroring good quality bus lanes would be good. If the lanes concerned were of a good surface, wide enough to overtake, did not yield to intersections and took practical, i.e fairly direct, routes. On the other hand, if the bike were poorly designed (e.g. the existing ones on the N11) or diverted one into impractical routes, that would be no advantage to cyclists.

And again, the overriding issue for would be; do bus lanes mean cyclists cannot use the roads in question? (e.g. there was a proposal banning cyclists from Rathmines road and re-routing them through Cathal Brugha barracks!)

But the other thing is, this is mainly about a fundamental redesign of Dublin bus. The main issue I'd have before giving my support is, would it actually improve the bus service? This is not clear to me yet. I'm hearing a lot of conflicting things.

Harrybelafonte

magicbastarder wrote: »

They've already announced a couple of changes I think. Jarrett walker, the chap behind the design, was stressing that it's a first draft and that they would certainly be taking constructive criticism on board for modifications.

The changes made to the buses I mentioned, in my mind at least, show a fundamental lack of understanding of the system. The 67 for example is a nightmare to take into town, to add a journey to Leixlip into it... IDK. Anyway, cycling, not sure that it matters

RayCun

On my phone, can't link, but on the site there were diagrams of the proposed road layout.

Qrt

RayCun wrote: »

On my phone, can't link, but on the site there were diagrams of the proposed road layout.

https://busconnects.ie/media/1174/busconnects-figure-4-typical-road-layout-01.pdf

nomdeboardie

brianomc wrote: »

... I prefer to use the road, if there are slow cyclists in front of me, I have more space to overtake than in a segregated lane. Also the usual, keeping priority at junctions, roads are better condition in general etc
... I agree with having segregation to encourage nervous/inexperienced cyclists but don’t want their construction to lead to a mandatory use situation, or an assumed mandatory-use which is even worse.

LennoxR wrote: »

... If the lanes concerned were of a good surface, wide enough to overtake, did not yield to intersections and took practical, i.e fairly direct, routes. ...

+1

Macy0161 wrote: »

... I don't really know about the being stuck behind slower cyclists as a reason not to use them. That's what we give out to motorists for having no patience? ...

But cyclists travel at a huge variety of speeds, and most off-road (raised) cycle tracks are too narrow to allow safe passing at any point - is it really reasonable to expect a mass of cyclists to accumulate behind the slowest over potentially many miles, especially as the popularity of cycle commuting continues to increase? At least motorists rarely have to go longer than a small proportion of their total journey before getting a chance to overtake/pass over a broken central line.

Macy0161

nomdeboardie wrote: »

But cyclists travel at a huge variety of speeds, and most off-road (raised) cycle tracks are too narrow to allow safe passing at any point - is it really reasonable to expect a mass of cyclists to accumulate behind the slowest over potentially many miles, especially as the popularity of cycle commuting continues to increase? At least motorists rarely have to go longer than a small proportion of their total journey before getting a chance to overtake/pass over a broken central line.

I misunderstood the point to be honest. If we're talking proper infrastructure they'll be wide enough to pass, as opposed to some so narrow that a bike packer wouldn't fit!

Harrybelafonte

nomdeboardie wrote: »

But cyclists travel at a huge variety of speeds, and most off-road (raised) cycle tracks are too narrow to allow safe passing at any point - is it really reasonable to expect a mass of cyclists to accumulate behind the slowest over potentially many miles, especially as the popularity of cycle commuting continues to increase? At least motorists rarely have to go longer than a small proportion of their total journey before getting a chance to overtake/pass over a broken central line.

Really? I have never encountered this issue, let alone for many miles

magicbastarder

It sounds a little to much like a claim motorists make which cyclists are quick to rubbish.

cdaly_

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

The changes made to the buses I mentioned, in my mind at least, show a fundamental lack of understanding of the system. The 67 for example is a nightmare to take into town, to add a journey to Leixlip into it... IDK. Anyway, cycling, not sure that it matters

I'm not clear on where your start point for the existing 67 is. Was it Chapelizod? In that case you take a 14 westbound (15 min peak frequency) up the hill towards Palmerstown, change to a C1-4 (3 minute peak frequency) for the priority run into city centre.

If Celbridge, a C4 direct to city centre (10 min peak frequency) is within 15min walk of anywhere.

cdaly_

brianomc wrote: »

It will be starting at Liffey Valley, backroads into Palmerstown and into Chapelizod and running every 30 minutes, instead of the usual 5-10 minutes as it stands now. Outside of peak commuting times I always got on board on any bus and wouldn't even check the next one before walking to the stop. They had to add a 6:25, 7:25 and 8:25 bus from the West County in Chapelizod last year to give us any chance of getting a bus in the mornings. Prior to that, if the one went passed at 6:30 without stopping then it could be anywhere from 20-40 minutes before getting on the next one that stopped as the rest were all full. I usually only got the bus once a week and luckily I can cut the bus out completely and cycle in if it comes to it. I'm in work so early I've never seen the queues at their worst at the Chapelizod stops.

The fear is that if the bus is less frequent then the buses will fill up before they reach us and instead of maybe getting one in 5 or 10 mins you will have to wait 30 minutes for the next one and maybe get on. There's a post on the local facebook page that says that the number 26 went passed full. The number 26 starts at Cherry Orchard, down through Palmerstown and into Chapelizod which is very similar to the new route.

Implicit in your case above is the idea that you must board only one bus for the full journey. The idea with BusConnects is that you make connections to the fastest route as early as possible. For the case of Chapelizod, the fast route is the C spine just up the hill. Take a 14 westbound towards Palmerstown, change to a high-frequency C1-4 on a priority bus route and you're done.

brianomc

cdaly_ wrote: »

Implicit in your case above is the idea that you must board only one bus for the full journey. The idea with BusConnects is that you make connections to the fastest route as early as possible. For the case of Chapelizod, the fast route is the C spine just up the hill. Take a 14 westbound towards Palmerstown, change to a high-frequency C1-4 on a priority bus route and you're done.

I've nothing against multiple connections. I love the underground system in London/New York, I find it a fantastic way of moving around. And maybe if Bus Connect goes ahead here I will appreciate it. But for now, I don't.

You can't blame people for getting disappointed when their off-peak options go from every 5-10 minutes to every 30 minutes. How is that an improvement? If I "just miss" my bus now I will wait for the next one. If I just miss my bus in the future well I may as well start walking. I can walk from my home to Heuston station (Parkgate St side) in 30 minutes. This way I can pick up a bus and have gotten some exercise.

There are currently 8 buses showing as arriving in the next hour at my nearest bus stop.

And that's for getting away from home where you can check the times and leave at a time that gets you to the stop. Different story coming home, just miss the bus, great, now I have 30 minutes to wait at a bus stop doing nothing.

On a lighter note, I am happy to be getting the C4 route out to my parents house. That route is da bomb yo!

Personally speaking, I think an underground system with orbital routes is the only way to go. We're wasting our time and money re-numbering all the buses. (Paying consultants etc)

And from a cycling point of view, I hope they do a good job. They have their get out of jail free card on their website already though. "On each of the Core Bus Network corridors, we will provide high quality cycling facilities, segregated from the bus lanes and general traffic lanes as far as is practicable.". Didn't built it? Yeah mate, it wasn't practicable.

Harrybelafonte

cdaly_ wrote: »

I'm not clear on where your start point for the existing 67 is. Was it Chapelizod? In that case you take a 14 westbound (15 min peak frequency) up the hill towards Palmerstown, change to a C1-4 (3 minute peak frequency) for the priority run into city centre.

If Celbridge, a C4 direct to city centre (10 min peak frequency) is within 15min walk of anywhere.

How is going through Leixlip and Lucan “direct”. You seem pretty onboard with this plan and I agree there seem to be a lot of positives, but don’t start defending every element of it as though it’s unquestionably good.

As regards your statement of it being 15 minutes from anywhere, it’s fifteen minutes to just get to the main road in some estates, etc. in Celbridge, don’t oversell it.

The 67 is already a nightmare to get into town on from a Celbridge. Shoving it through Leixlip and Lucan will do it no good. Whether more frequent or not.

LennoxR

Interesting article here, apparently this hasn't worked too well in New Zealand.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/lessons-from-down-under-how-not-to-do-busconnects-1.3661640

Qrt

LennoxR wrote: »

Interesting article here, apparently this hasn't worked too well in New Zealand.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/lessons-from-down-under-how-not-to-do-busconnects-1.3661640

Wellington is an absolute s***storm. They take Jarrett Walker's model and mess it up so badly that it's (apparently) front page news every day. Thankfully the NTA have renewed DB's contract until 2024, meaning that there will be no change of operator while BusConnects is implemented.

Auckland on the other hand seems to be benefitting quite a bit from their revamp.

LennoxR

Qrt wrote: »

Wellington is an absolute s***storm. They take Jarrett Walker's model and mess it up so badly that it's (apparently) front page news every day. Thankfully the NTA have renewed DB's contract until 2024, meaning that there will be no change of operator while BusConnects is implemented.

Auckland on the other hand seems to be benefitting quite a bit from their revamp.

Meaning that there might be a change of operator after that date?

magicbastarder

LennoxR wrote: »

Interesting article here, apparently this hasn't worked too well in New Zealand.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/lessons-from-down-under-how-not-to-do-busconnects-1.3661640

well, that's a **** article. tell us that it's a mess in wellington, and just mention in passing that it worked in auckland, without explaining what the differences are.

however, to be fair, the gist seems to be that the actual implementation is partly to blame.

LennoxR

magicbastarder wrote: »

well, that's a **** article. tell us that it's a mess in wellington, and just mention in passing that it worked in auckland, without explaining what the differences are.

however, to be fair, the gist seems to be that the actual implementation is partly to blame.

I gather it's not all plain sailing in Auckland either.



https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/10/37-buses-removed-after-gridlock-at-stations-on-auckland-s-north-shore.html


But to be fair, going that report it's only been in operation or two weeks in Auckland, too early to say surely, one way or the other?

Qrt

LennoxR wrote: »

Meaning that there might be a change of operator after that date?

There could be. AFAIK, Dublin Bus can't automatically "get" the contract after this current one expires, which was just extended. EU legislation I believe. The thing is, is that Wellington changed operators mid reorganisation, with a less reputable company taking over a fair few of the routes. Like any science experiment you'd do in school, you can only change one thing at a time.

magicbastarder

LennoxR wrote: »

I gather it's not all plain sailing in Auckland either.



https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/10/37-buses-removed-after-gridlock-at-stations-on-auckland-s-north-shore.html


But to be fair, going that report it's only been in operation or two weeks in Auckland, too early to say surely, one way or the other?

a former car user (forced out of his car due to health issues) reports on auckland changes:

It's good. Quite startlingly good.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12141349

Qrt

magicbastarder wrote: »

a former car user (forced out of his car due to health issues) reports on auckland changes:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12141349

Auckland's bus stations look nice...very nice. If BC can stick to this, AND the cycle paths, that'd be great.

magicbastarder

First images of bendy detour for cycling in Rathmines under BusConnects plan



http://irishcycle.com/2018/12/11/first-images-of-bendy-detour-for-cycling-in-rathmines-under-busconnects-plan/

Hurrache

I saw the plan for the N3 into the city last night, I think there's about 6 car lanes, 2 bus lanes, a grass verge and a nothing for cyclists, apparently they'll be catered for on off street routes.

Can't find it now but if I do I'll post it.

edit: here it is. I was wrong, 8 lanes for cars.
https://twitter.com/CiaranCuffe/status/1072117727085686784

magicbastarder

my initial reaction was 'that *has* to be a pisstake'.
why would budget on busconnects upgrade the N3 to four car lanes?
where on the N3 is that supposed to be?

Hurrache

I'm sure it's just before the M50 roundabout itself city bound.

Weepsie

magicbastarder wrote: »

my initial reaction was 'that *has* to be a pisstake'.
why would budget on busconnects upgrade the N3 to four car lanes?
where on the N3 is that supposed to be?

I was assuming it's around Blanchardstown, but who knows. It's become chaotic there, and there's far too much traffic. They should really be looking at getting the train line from Navan operational asap (it's at least 12 years away).

A route serving Navan, Dunshauglin and Dunboyne and then onto City Centre would probably remove an awful lot of cars from the roads.

magicbastarder

https://twitter.com/ccferrie/status/1072496492877922309