CatInABox wrote: » There's nothing in the project that really jumps out as unreasonable from a planning perspective. So long as they've done the work in terms of environment impact, etc, then it should go through, probably with conditions though. More likely, however, is a string of court cases fighting the CPOs. For those affected, if they want to save their garden, then they might see a court case as essentially "free". Win and save the garden, therefore worth the expense, or lose the case and their garden, but get paid off anyway.
LXFlyer wrote: » It’s a bit rich then to be telling people what’s best for them to be honest, when you don’t personally use the service in question. Large numbers of people use the bus service along that section and blindly telling them it’s better to walk a further 8 minutes is somewhat patronising being honest about it. It does seem to me that most posters here really don’t understand the issues facing the area and seem happy to post broad generalisations about it which don’t deal with the specific issues it faces.
LXFlyer wrote: » I actually suspect that the potential closure of extended sections of certain arteries (one way or both) to general traffic will be a major obstacle. It’s far easier to do this in the city centre, but when it’s in the suburbs the effects are far greater. Some of the proposed closures are fairly major routes, which will have serious knock-on effects on the routes that the traffic is diverted onto and potentially create new “rat runs”. That I think will lead to a significant amount of objections.
Sam Russell wrote: » One aspect of this that is not mentioned - parking. If DCC was able to reduce on-street parking in the city centre, either by increasing the charges couples with enforcement, that could tip the balance towards PT use. If BIK were extended to include all-day parking for workers, this might also tip the balance. Reducing car use increases the speed of buses, which in turn improves the attraction of PT. Speed,frequency, and reliability are the forces that drive the use of PT. [Cost also has an effect].
cgcsb wrote: » You don't have to live there or use the service to know that a)the current set up doesn't work at peak times and b)8 minutes walk for a good service is more than acceptable people walk for well over 2km or even 3km to access luas, DART and Swords Express at present because they are more reliable services.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Terenure, Rathgar and Rathmines all have significant amounts of travellers disembarking on inbound 15s (whether for work, school, college or shopping). I've seen similar in the opposite direction too. A 1200-2000metre walk between the inbound/outbound route would be useless.
citizen6 wrote: » And there would still be busses serving those places in both directions. But passengers coming from further out, and heading for town, could choose a new service that used the bus lane in both directions. I'm not saying it's a great option. But it's better than nothing, if the current proposals are not achievable.
[Deleted User] wrote: » So you want to increase the amount of routes by 50%? Keep existing routes and add busconnects routes on top? That's a terrible idea.
citizen6 wrote: » You would reduce service on some existing routes as appropriate, and add new ones that took advantage of whatever bus lanes actually get built. There used to be a 15X that skipped many of the stops after Templeogue. There would be a demand for something similar that took the quickest route to or from town. Anyone whose destination is Rathgar as you say, can continue to use the 15. Their journey would be quicker in one direction, and possibly worse (reduced frequency) in the other. But I think you overestimate the number of people going from Rathfarnham to Rathgar etc.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Again, you aren't really thinking your idea through. Arguing that "it's better than nothing" is silly. Walking is better than nothing. Better than nothing is in no way relevant to a strategic public transport initiative. I also didn't estimate any number of people who get off or on on any route. I'm not aware of many (any?) one-direction circular public transport lines on any of the 20+ major cities I've travelled to in the UK and EU. There's a reason for that, they're terrible on pretty much every level of providing journies. Lastly, making a public transport system overly complex (let's double the amount of routes, adding new routes that go mostly the same way as existing ones but only in one direction, sometimes and somewhere) isn't 'better than nothing' either. In trying to think how DB could possibly be made worse despite trying to improve things, I think you've hit the nail on the head fairly well.
Deleted User wrote: » So you want to increase the amount of routes by 50%? Keep existing routes and add busconnects routes on top? That's a terrible idea.
bk wrote: » BusConnects proposes making 16 "corridors" high quality corridors.
Deleted User wrote: » Terenure, Rathgar and Rathmines all have significant amounts of travellers disembarking on inbound 15s (whether for work, school, college or shopping). I've seen similar in the opposite direction too. A 1200-2000metre walk between the inbound/outbound route would be useless.
cgcsb wrote: » I'd like to see the bus numbering system work alpha numerically so you can easily work out which route is going where without knowing it. So if the are 10 main corridors say the buses are all A-J working clockwise.
loyatemu wrote: » expect "Save the 46A" type campaigns if they do renumber (though they did manage to kill the 10 without too much fuss).
cgcsb wrote: » I'd like to see the bus numbering system work alpha numerically so you can easily work out which route is going where without knowing it. So if the are 10 main corridors say the buses are all A-J working clockwise. So the current 39/a,37,70 would be E1, E2 and E3, you know all the E's are going to the blanch area and all pass through Stoneybatter, so no need to know the exact route route number. Same with the 25a/b, 40, 66,67,26 etc. befoming the F1, F2, F3 etc. Then have a map with the trunk routes being just a letter 'F' and then thinner lines denoting where the individual routes branch off from the main corridor. So only the main corridors need to be different colours.
BonnieSituation wrote: » Remember that time they had the temerity to stop it going through Monkstown Farm? Fuppin' RBB and his PBP cronies.
Stephen15 wrote: » And to some degree they won when they tried to reroute the 7 away from Sallynoggin ended up coming to a compromise by running every second 7 through Sallynoggin now known as the 7a. They never received the same opposition when they took it out of the somewhat more middle class area of Stillorgan Village and made the sensible decision to run it along the N11.