Advertisement
Private Profiles - an update on how they will be changing here
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.

Dublin - BusConnects

11617192122105

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 15,509 ✭✭✭✭ LXFlyer


    bk wrote: »
    Well some of those things listed have already quietly happened at other locations over the past few years. For instance the recent placement of bollards along the bus lane at Whitehall.

    The widening at the Cat & Cage in Drumcondra was a major project and it has gone extremely well and has been a great improvement.

    I am not disputing that, but there’s no evidence so far that we are going to see measures introduced such as road closures to general traffic / one way routes in the manner and as quickly as cgsb seems to think they will.

    Surely the College Green debacle should tell us that much?

    As a bus user it is utterly frustrating to see much of the existing infrastructure just ignored without penalty by private motorists ad nauseum, be they bus lanes, yellow boxes, parked trucks in clearways/cycle lanes. Sitting on a bus on Rosie Hackett Bridge through 6 changes of lights before getting onto Burgh Quay due to the yellow bus being blocked (several times now) tells me that we have a real problem.

    Full enforcement of existing measures would be a start. The complete lack of enforcement doesn’t fill me with a lot of confidence that we are going to see any massive improvement in the near future.

    Poor design of bus lanes is another issue. Why is the bus lane east of Capel St Bridge operational only on Mon-Sat before suddenly becoming Mon-Sun at the Ha’penny Bridge - where are those cars supposed to go? Utterly appalling.

    There are far too many bodies involved for any significant improvements to happen quickly. Instead it’s going to be a battle for each element in my opinion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,986 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    I'm glad College Green has come up because there's a decision due on Halloween, after much delay. A positive decision, means that The North quays, Parliament St and George's st will all need to have car bans as a result of that decision, separate to Bus Connects. These measures alone will improve journey times.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 20,920 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    Surely the College Green debacle should tell us that much?

    Well College Green is a bit different, since it is actually constructing a new structure and thus falls under planning/ABP's remit.

    I believe just putting up bollards, redirecting traffic, etc. are considered traffic management measures and thus don't come under planning laws.

    For instance, I don't remember the bus gate or the bus only changes on the quays going through planning and ABP.

    Of course those can still face opposition and political interference, but they don't seem to face quiet the same planning requirements, legal issues and delays.
    LXFlyer wrote: »
    As a bus user it is utterly frustrating to see much of the existing infrastructure just ignored without penalty by private motorists ad nauseum, be they bus lanes, yellow boxes, parked trucks in clearways/cycle lanes. Sitting on a bus on Rosie Hackett Bridge through 6 changes of lights before getting onto Burgh Quay due to the yellow bus being blocked (several times now) tells me that we have a real problem.

    I agree completely and totally feel your pain.
    LXFlyer wrote: »
    Full enforcement of existing measures would be a start. The complete lack of enforcement doesn’t fill me with a lot of confidence that we are going to see any massive improvement in the near future.

    The lack of enforcement seems to be why planners are moving more towards hard infrastructure changes to force change, rather then rely on just lines on a road and trusting people to follow those rules. That is why they are trying to do College Green, if there is a square there, then people can't simply ignore the bus gate, etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,509 ✭✭✭✭ LXFlyer


    cgcsb wrote: »
    I'm glad College Green has come up because there's a decision due on Halloween, after much delay. A positive decision, means that The North quays, Parliament St and George's st will all need to have car bans as a result of that decision, separate to Bus Connects. These measures alone will improve journey times.

    Well given DCC councillors have opposed bi-directional buses on Parliament St, there’s still going to be hurdles to climb on that one.

    Where is there any suggestion of a car ban on George’s St in published plans? I’ve not heard any plan for that.

    As for the Quays, there’s still a lot of issues with the cycle route, diverted traffic that DCC still haven’t solved.

    Sadly I don’t share your certainty that car bans will automatically follow. It might seem logical but that doesn’t mean it will happen.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,509 ✭✭✭✭ LXFlyer


    bk wrote: »
    Well College Green is a bit different, since it is actually constructing a new structure and thus falls under planning/ABP's remit.

    I believe just putting up bollards, redirecting traffic, etc. are considered traffic management measures and thus don't come under planning laws.

    For instance, I don't remember the bus gate or the bus only changes on the quays going through planning and ABP.

    Of course those can still face opposition and political interference, but they don't seem to face quiet the same planning requirements, legal issues and delays.

    I agree completely and totally feel your pain.

    The lack of enforcement seems to be why planners are moving more towards hard infrastructure changes to force change, rather then rely on just lines on a road and trusting people to follow those rules. That is why they are trying to do College Green, if there is a square there, then people can't simply ignore the bus gate, etc.

    Re College Green I was referring to the initial decision to route LUAS through it which the EIS stared could be done with minimal impact on bus services.

    Also, permanent road closures and diversions require councillor approval which is a real problem.

    The point that I am making is that this whole process is much more complicated than some posters seem to think, and I honestly believe that it’s going to take significantly longer to deliver the necessary changes than next year!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 918 ✭✭✭ riddlinrussell




  • Registered Users Posts: 15,509 ✭✭✭✭ LXFlyer



    A victory for common sense.

    The plan was fatally flawed by the removal of Parliament Street as a two way bus street.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,301 ✭✭✭✭ blanch152


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    A victory for common sense.

    The plan was fatally flawed by the removal of Parliament Street as a two way bus street.


    The judgment seems to be very criticial of public transport planning over decades.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/plans-to-transform-college-green-into-worldrenowned-pedestrian-plaza-refused-37429914.html

    “There are clearly opportunities lost over the past 40-50 years,” the report said. “Based on the spread of the city, increases in population, employment and tourism, there is a backlog in investment."


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,298 ✭✭✭✭ Muahahaha


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    ]

    Most of your posts on the network design keep referring to the infrastructure improvements as if they’re guaranteed to be in place and simultaneously with the network redesign rollout, which ignores the fact that the infrastructure plan has a 10 year rollout period and most of it is highly unlikely be in place ahead of the network redesign. This is (for me) a critical shortcoming and certainly militates against removing existing direct connections to the city.

    Never knew the infrastructure could take up to 10 years to arrive :eek: Though Im in support of BC in general Ive always felt that a network design without the infrastructure in place is putting the cart before the horse. Im guessing the NTA have realised this but figure that we cannot wait for a decade to redesign the network so must proceed with what is already there. Thing is though without the spines being built out with full bus priority & segregation it is hard to see how peoples journey times are going to improve anytime soon. For those who have to change bus at a hub their journey time is likely to get even longer that what it is at present.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,129 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    Never knew the infrastructure could take up to 10 years to arrive :eek: Though Im in support of BC in general Ive always felt that a network design without the infrastructure in place is putting the cart before the horse. Im guessing the NTA have realised this but figure that we cannot wait for a decade to redesign the network so must proceed with what is already there. Thing is though without the spines being built out with full bus priority & segregation it is hard to see how peoples journey times are going to improve anytime soon. For those who have to change bus at a hub their journey time is likely to get even longer that what it is at present.

    Most likely, the infrastructure will be built in phases, otherwise it'd cause traffic jams on every road in and out of the city. We're likely to see them finish each route one by one, with the Quays being one of the first built.

    The only infrastructure that's truly needed beforehand to get the bus reorg right is the hubs. There are currently buses running on almost all of the routes designated for spines already, so it's not like they're suddenly going from no buses to hundreds.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 20,920 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk


    Thing to keep in mind, during the recession Network Redirect was a major redesign of the network to basically severly cut back on the number of buses and drivers and basically do more with less. It sort of worked because of the big drop in numbers of passengers (folks out of work) and cars on the road.

    It is that same network direct network we have today and it is no longer suitable with the economy back in full swing, bus passenger numbers way up and traffic congestion way up.

    Even without the infrastructure side we still need to redesign the network to go back to a more pre network direct design, with more buses, more capacity and less very long routes going right through the city center and constantly getting stuck and delayed in traffic.

    BC definitely greatly benefits from the infrastructure changes, but it still makes a lot of sense even before that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,509 ✭✭✭✭ LXFlyer


    CatInABox wrote: »
    Most likely, the infrastructure will be built in phases, otherwise it'd cause traffic jams on every road in and out of the city. We're likely to see them finish each route one by one, with the Quays being one of the first built.

    The only infrastructure that's truly needed beforehand to get the bus reorg right is the hubs. There are currently buses running on almost all of the routes designated for spines already, so it's not like they're suddenly going from no buses to hundreds.

    I think that you are underplaying the need for the infrastructural improvements before implementing the network redesign.

    That will entirely depend upon what changes take place in the network redesign when it is published in the New Year.

    There are a number of areas who currently have a direct route to the city which, under the initial plan, would instead have a connecting service which would be running at intervals of 30-60 minutes to a location where they can change to a spine route.

    Depending on the location of the where the interchange is, that connection will generally be fine on the inbound trip, but it has serious implications on the return trip, where passengers will have to judge the connecting service along the spine with a large element of guesswork. Such people will be far more dependent upon the vagaries of Dublin traffic and could end up with waits of 25-55 minutes that they never used to have if the connecting spine service doesn't get to the interchange point on time.

    Given that the spine routes will, in the main, be long cross-city routes, then in the absence of infrastructural improvements the arrival time of said buses at an interchange on the other side of the city is going to be a game of Hobson's Choice. As it is journey times on existing cross-city routes can vary wildly from one day to the next. Hence it will be a game of chance that people making connections into the low frequency (30-60 minutes) connecting service.

    That's not an improvement for those people, who currently have direct services to/from the city, and most likely aren't showing up randomly for buses, but rather are using the timetable, and frankly one of two things is going to have to happen for them to be catered for:

    1) Direct services to/from the city retained
    2) Infrastructure to be put in place that can deliver reliable journey times

    Without this happening, many people's journey times will be extended unnecessarily and frankly that in my opinion isn't acceptable.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,129 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    I think that you are underplaying the need for the infrastructural improvements before implementing the network redesign.

    That will entirely depend upon what changes take place in the network redesign when it is published in the New Year.

    There are a number of areas who currently have a direct route to the city which, under the initial plan, would instead have a connecting service which would be running at intervals of 30-60 minutes to a location where they can change to a spine route.

    Depending on the location of the where the interchange is, that connection will generally be fine on the inbound trip, but it has serious implications on the return trip, where passengers will have to judge the connecting service along the spine with a large element of guesswork. Such people will be far more dependent upon the vagaries of Dublin traffic and could end up with waits of 25-55 minutes that they never used to have if the connecting spine service doesn't get to the interchange point on time.

    Given that the spine routes will, in the main, be long cross-city routes, then in the absence of infrastructural improvements the arrival time of said buses at an interchange on the other side of the city is going to be a game of Hobson's Choice. As it is journey times on existing cross-city routes can vary wildly from one day to the next. Hence it will be a game of chance that people making connections into the low frequency (30-60 minutes) connecting service.

    That's not an improvement for those people, who currently have direct services to/from the city, and most likely aren't showing up randomly for buses, but rather are using the timetable, and frankly one of two things is going to have to happen for them to be catered for:

    1) Direct services to/from the city retained
    2) Infrastructure to be put in place that can deliver reliable journey times

    Without this happening, many people's journey times will be extended unnecessarily and frankly that in my opinion isn't acceptable.

    Wasn't saying that every route will be perfect right at the start, or that some people won't be inconvenienced, just that for most people, BusConnects will be an improvement with or without infrastructure changes.

    The way some people are talking, it's as if the bus network will collapse into a black hole if BusConnects comes in without every infrastructure project completed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,509 ✭✭✭✭ LXFlyer


    CatInABox wrote: »
    Wasn't saying that every route will be perfect right at the start, or that some people won't be inconvenienced, just that for most people, BusConnects will be an improvement with or without infrastructure changes.

    The way some people are talking, it's as if the bus network will collapse into a black hole if BusConnects comes in without every infrastructure project completed.

    Well I think that you were grossly over-simplifying it. To say that the only place that needs infrastructure improvements to be complete before the network redesign takes place are the interchanges is simply not true.

    There will have to be major works done on the corridors before people who currently have direct services to/from the city can be expected to change onto connecting services running every 30-60 minutes. Otherwise their direct services will have to be retained. People are (quite rightly) not going to accept the risk of having a long wait on their commute that they currently don't have.

    I still consider that certain areas, particularly those at the outer end of spines, may face significant service decreases under these plans, and I'm basing that on the current and planned series of Dublin Bus and Go Ahead timetable changes. The "existing" frequencies used in the BusConnects plan for many areas for comparative purposes will be completely out of date by January 2019, with many areas gaining significant improvements. These improved frequencies need to be the benchmark against which BusConnects is compared with going forward.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 20,920 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk


    Having read the plan in detail, most of it could go ahead without the need for major infrastructure IMO. Sure some bus stops need moving closer to junctions, etc. but the whole CPO side isn't needed, but would certainly enhance the benefits of it.

    As I mentioned, much of BC is just rolling back the Network Direct changes that shrunk the network and putting capacity back in place.

    Many of the core concepts can go ahead without major infrastructure:
    - The core routes A, B, C, etc. is simply a smart amalgamation of mostly existing routes, making it simpler to use and more importantly allowing separate routes that share the same route for long distances to be smartly scheduled as one to reduce bunching.

    - The orbital routes can mostly be put in place with just the moving of bus stops that I mentioned, really not a big deal.

    Yes there are some routes and areas that you will want to hold off on if the infrastructure is there. But those certainly don't include the majority of the core of this plan from what I can see.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,509 ✭✭✭✭ LXFlyer


    bk wrote: »
    Having read the plan in detail, most of it could go ahead without the need for major infrastructure IMO. Sure some bus stops need moving closer to junctions, etc. but the whole CPO side isn't needed, but would certainly enhance the benefits of it.

    As I mentioned, much of BC is just rolling back the Network Direct changes that shrunk the network and putting capacity back in place.

    Many of the core concepts can go ahead without major infrastructure:
    - The core routes A, B, C, etc. is simply a smart amalgamation of mostly existing routes, making it simpler to use and more importantly allowing separate routes that share the same route for long distances to be smartly scheduled as one to reduce bunching.

    - The orbital routes can mostly be put in place with just the moving of bus stops that I mentioned, really not a big deal.

    Yes there are some routes and areas that you will want to hold off on if the infrastructure is there. But those certainly don't include the majority of the core of this plan from what I can see.

    The current round of service changes between now and January 2019 will see the capacity cuts from Network Direct reinstated in the main - many routes will see significant improvements including orbital routes.

    The additional orbital routes are the main improvements in BusConnects, which are to be welcomed.

    But for me the question really is whether the capacity cuts on the spines (and particularly at the outer points) as per the original BusConnects plan are too great as compared with the new frequencies being offered by DB and GAI as a result of the current round of changes. I happen to think that they are overestimating the numbers of people who will switch to orbitals off radial routes, which frankly are bursting at the seams currently.

    Compared with the new frequencies on certain routes, there are going to be significant cuts for some locations.

    As for bunching, well Jarrett Walker himself admitted at Fingal CC that BusConnects won't eliminate bunching, but that buses would in the main be scheduled not to bunch. That's quite a difference. Many Dublin Bus routes aren't scheduled to bunch either, but do suffer from that problem to a significant degree due to the poor infrastructure that is in place.

    That's again, why I view the infrastructure as core to delivering the network redesign, along with effective enforcement of bus priority measures. It should not be viewed as a completely separate project. The two are integral to one another.


  • Registered Users Posts: 881 ✭✭✭ Bray Head


    Potential for bunching would be much reduced by use of middle doors and elimination of pay-the-driver.



    This reduces the time buses spend stopped and eliminates the random element (someone digging in their purse for coins for 30 seconds) that causes some buses to slow down and others to catch up.


    None of this needs Bus Connects for implementation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,664 ✭✭✭ tom1ie


    bk wrote: »
    Having read the plan in detail, most of it could go ahead without the need for major infrastructure IMO. Sure some bus stops need moving closer to junctions, etc. but the whole CPO side isn't needed, but would certainly enhance the benefits of it.

    As I mentioned, much of BC is just rolling back the Network Direct changes that shrunk the network and putting capacity back in place.

    Many of the core concepts can go ahead without major infrastructure:
    - The core routes A, B, C, etc. is simply a smart amalgamation of mostly existing routes, making it simpler to use and more importantly allowing separate routes that share the same route for long distances to be smartly scheduled as one to reduce bunching.

    - The orbital routes can mostly be put in place with just the moving of bus stops that I mentioned, really not a big deal.

    Yes there are some routes and areas that you will want to hold off on if the infrastructure is there. But those certainly don't include the majority of the core of this plan from what I can see.


    I dont see how bc can reach any kind of happy outcome without qbc's into and out of the city centre.
    Without the qbc'c we have the equivalent of luas cross city- pt sharing road space with cars, bikes pedestrians, and you can see how well that works!
    bc without the qbc infrastructure, will be a disaster, especially in dublin sw.


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,129 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox


    tom1ie wrote: »
    I dont see how bc can reach any kind of happy outcome without qbc's into and out of the city centre.
    Without the qbc'c we have the equivalent of luas cross city- pt sharing road space with cars, bikes pedestrians, and you can see how well that works!
    bc without the qbc infrastructure, will be a disaster, especially in dublin sw.

    And again, most of the spines already have bus lanes on them, and plenty of buses are already running on those roads.

    There are valid concerns around people travelling from town out to the interchange hubs with scheduling of the less frequent onward buses, but the spines work for buses now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,664 ✭✭✭ tom1ie


    CatInABox wrote: »
    And again, most of the spines already have bus lanes on them, and plenty of buses are already running on those roads.

    There are valid concerns around people travelling from town out to the interchange hubs with scheduling of the less frequent onward buses, but the spines work for buses now.

    nope.
    They are not continuous qbc's.
    The busses do not have transponders fitted to give them green light priority at junctions.
    They are not 24h bus lanes, with people regularly parking in said bus lanes.
    There aren't pull in spots at all bus stops along the qbc's to allow busses take on passengers without blocking busses behind.
    We dont have tag on tag off systems in place.
    We dont have enter front door, exit back door in place.

    These are all items that must be implemented before bc can be called any type of success, and guess what its all infrastructure and policy.
    The routes im basing my observations are coming from greenhills, walkinstown, rathfarnham, via harolds x, terenure, templeogue etc.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 20,920 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk


    Those are all definitely nice to have and many of them are part of the overall BusConnects plan, including the infrastructure side, the ticketing side, etc.

    But those aren't necessary to gain benefits from the network redesign side. They would certainly greatly enhance the usefulness of a redesigned network, but they certainly aren't a pre-requiste.

    It seems to me that some people aren't aware of what a big reduction in service Network Direct was and how just undoing that and doing some other enhancements that are planned under the network redesign of BusConnets would be very welcome in the short term.

    Yes, we then need to follow that up with the infrastructure side, but that will take 10 years. We can't wait 10 years to undo Network Direct and expand the fleet and routes. Action needs to be taken today.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,664 ✭✭✭ tom1ie


    bk wrote: »
    Those are all definitely nice to have and many of them are part of the overall BusConnects plan, including the infrastructure side, the ticketing side, etc.

    But those aren't necessary to gain benefits from the network redesign side. They would certainly greatly enhance the usefulness of a redesigned network, but they certainly aren't a pre-requiste.

    It seems to me that some people aren't aware of what a big reduction in service Network Direct was and how just undoing that and doing some other enhancements that are planned under the network redesign of BusConnets would be very welcome in the short term.

    Yes, we then need to follow that up with the infrastructure side, but that will take 10 years. We can't wait 10 years to undo Network Direct and expand the fleet and routes. Action needs to be taken today.

    but your talking about sending more busses out into already choked up piece meal bus lanes? People will be glad of the capacity, but they wont see any reduction in speed, if anything it could worsen (if thats a word?) the congestion in the cc and hence increase journey times.
    B.k i remember you talking about the improvements done around the cat and cage pub and how it knocked 10-15 mins off your overall journey time. This was only achieved through hard infrastructure.
    Until we all get our own cat and cage job done, and by that i mean bc infrastructure routes, journey times wont decrease.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,509 ✭✭✭✭ LXFlyer


    CatInABox wrote: »
    And again, most of the spines already have bus lanes on them, and plenty of buses are already running on those roads.

    There are valid concerns around people travelling from town out to the interchange hubs with scheduling of the less frequent onward buses, but the spines work for buses now.

    Not in south central Dublin they don’t - the roads aren’t wide enough in places for any bus lanes such as Rathmines, Rathgar and Terenure villages, and in most places can only fit one bus lane.

    There’s a massive infrastructural deficit along the Templeogue and Rathfarnham QBCs and frankly planning a bus network that requires connections based on existing infrastructure in that area is doomed to fail.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,509 ✭✭✭✭ LXFlyer


    bk wrote: »
    Those are all definitely nice to have and many of them are part of the overall BusConnects plan, including the infrastructure side, the ticketing side, etc.

    But those aren't necessary to gain benefits from the network redesign side. They would certainly greatly enhance the usefulness of a redesigned network, but they certainly aren't a pre-requiste.

    It seems to me that some people aren't aware of what a big reduction in service Network Direct was and how just undoing that and doing some other enhancements that are planned under the network redesign of BusConnets would be very welcome in the short term.

    Yes, we then need to follow that up with the infrastructure side, but that will take 10 years. We can't wait 10 years to undo Network Direct and expand the fleet and routes. Action needs to be taken today.

    The fleet capacity will have been expanded pretty much back to pre-Network Direct levels by January 2019 and service levels increased across the DB and GAI route network.

    BusConnects really has nothing to do with that.

    What it does deliver is more orbital services, but at a cost of less radial services. There is a real danger that the capacity reductions on those radial routes (yes they are reduced overall, not increased, even based on the pre-current service expansion levels) will be too great, especially at outer ends - I honestly think they’re overestimating the numbers that will switch from radial services.

    If anything these current service expansions are going to make some of the BusConnects proposals even more difficult to implement as the service cuts on spines will have a greater impact compared to the newly improved service levels on many routes - are people going to be happy to gain services now and then lose them?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭ Stephen15


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    The fleet capacity will have been expanded pretty much back to pre-Network Direct levels by January 2019 and service levels increased across the DB and GAI route network.

    BusConnects really has nothing to do with that.

    What it does deliver is more orbital services, but at a cost of less radial services. There is a real danger that the capacity reductions on those radial routes (yes they are reduced overall, not increased, even based on the pre-current service expansion levels) will be too great, especially at outer ends - I honestly think they’re overestimating the numbers that will switch from radial services.

    If anything these current service expansions are going to make some of the BusConnects proposals even more difficult to implement as the service cuts on spines will have a greater impact compared to the newly improved service levels on many routes - are people going to be happy to gain services now and then lose them?

    Tbh I think some of the frequencies need to be increased on the radial routes. The revised plans need to take into account the increased service levels. We need to remember that the bus connects proposals were drawn up on the assumptions that the service levels would be at the same as they were as of last summer.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,509 ✭✭✭✭ LXFlyer


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Tbh I think some of the frequencies need to be increased on the radial routes. The revised plans need to take into account the increased service levels. We need to remember that the bus connects proposals were drawn up on the assumptions that the service levels would be at the same as they were as of last summer.

    This was a flaw that I identified from the outset.

    Knowing full well that there was going to be a massive service expansion in Autumn 2018 including new routes, particularly the 175 route which the NTA themselves were planning, it was quite misleading to be comparing proposed service levels against those existing service levels knowing full well that they were going to be massively changed within a couple of months.

    That will have to be addressed in the revised proposals.

    Otherwise the comparisons will be totally meaningless.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭ Stephen15


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    This was a flaw that I identified from the outset.

    Knowing full well that there was going to be a massive service expansion in Autumn 2018 including new routes, particularly the 175 route which the NTA themselves were planning, it was quite misleading to be comparing proposed service levels against those existing service levels knowing full well that they were going to be massively changed within a couple of months.

    That will have to be addressed in the revised proposals.

    Otherwise the comparisons will be totally meaningless.

    I would agree with you there to an extent however when it comes to these type of plans I would imagine it is better to under estimate these types of proposals than over estimate them. It was likely that the NTA and DB were still drawing up the plans for expanded services while the plans for bus connects were still being drawn up.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 20,920 Mod ✭✭✭✭ bk


    It is important to keep in mind, that this isn't about building a network that would then be set in stone!

    It is about realigning the network to make more sense and to create a solid basis from which future changes and frequency increases would absolutely be built upon.

    Of course the new BusConnects routes would gain greater frequency in time as more buses are bought and levels of demand on the new routes are assessed.

    This seems to be a fatal assumption that people seems to be making and I don't understand why. It seems people think the BC changes will happen and then it is set in stone.

    Of course that isn't the case, what will happen is the BC changes happen, the NTA/DB/GA carefully monitor the impact, make tweaks and changes where they are needed and then expand on that BC network and routes over time and take advantage of the infrastructure changes as they come online too.

    BC certainly isn't a one time thing, it is just the start of a long and ongoing evolving process.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,509 ✭✭✭✭ LXFlyer


    bk wrote: »
    It is important to keep in mind, that this isn't about building a network that would then be set in stone!

    It is about realigning the network to make more sense and to create a solid basis from which future changes and frequency increases would absolutely be built upon.

    Of course the new BusConnects routes would gain greater frequency in time as more buses are bought and levels of demand on the new routes are assessed.

    This seems to be a fatal assumption that people seems to be making and I don't understand why. It seems people think the BC changes will happen and then it is set in stone.

    Of course that isn't the case, what will happen is the BC changes happen, the NTA/DB/GA carefully monitor the impact, make tweaks and changes where they are needed and then expand on that BC network and routes over time and take advantage of the infrastructure changes as they come online too.

    BC certainly isn't a one time thing, it is just the start of a long and ongoing evolving process.

    Anyone who has witnessed these kind of network changes before in detail will know that getting things right can end up taking for ever.

    Last time round DB got running times badly wrong in the first and second phases of Network Direct and buses ended up being cancelled and curtailed ad nauseum. It took almost 5-6 months to fix. By that time many people just gave up.

    The same thing is happening with GAI where they clearly have not enough running time and departures are all over the place, particularly on the 75.

    The 184 has no increase in weekday frequency, but capacity was halved by switching to single decks, with repeated reports of people not being able to use it. This kind of thing is basic.

    People are rightly annoyed and I don’t share your confidence that the NTA can get this right. They’re clearly understaffed and don’t have sufficient operational expertise in place.

    Reducing capacity on the routes through the city centre by the magnitude planned is a recipe for disaster in my view, particularly at a time when Dublin Bus is currently ramping up frequency.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,664 ✭✭✭ tom1ie


    Infrastructure needs to be built first then everyone can see the benefit straight away and people get fully onboard with the idea.
    For example,
    Stage 1:
    we start off with the n4. Fully expand the qbc’s all the way up to Hueston, and up the quays. That won’t take much. Bus gates at Palmerston and kilmainham.
    Introduce tag on tag off for the n4 routes and any orbital routes that would bisect it plus Luas.
    Use this as the shining light for everyone else in dublin.
    Stage 2:
    We pick the next easiest route, m11, m1?

    Stage 3:
    All the while developing radial bus corridors in the sw area.


    Only when the infrastructure is in place will bc work, if you try and put the re-org in place first people will say it’s made things worse and wont see the infrastructure project as part of the overall bc plan, they’ll just see it as a fix to the bc fiasco.


Advertisement