Dats me wrote: » Network redesign consultation 2 this month. QBC/cycle paths consultation 2 on detailed design due November - application for planning due 2020 apparently. Network redesign is apparently now going to be phased - so it's probably dead
tom1ie wrote: » when you say consultation, does that mean the period of time the nimbys can put forward their moans and groans and try and torpedo the plan? how long does this phase last do you know? also do you know wheneabouts that application for planning is due? q4 2020?
ohographite wrote: » Was the BusConnects corridor along much of the Luas Red Line (Greenhills - Drimnagh - City Centre) planned to be there to ease overcrowding on the Red Line? I don't know if the Red Line actually has serious overcrowding issues, because I seldom use it, so I'm wondering if that's why the plan was to have a bus corridor with a very similar catchment.
Qrt wrote: » The Greenhills CBC and Red Line are pretty much totally separate, they serve vastly different areas.Also, the Drimnagh one which I assume is the one along the Long Mile Road etc. Serves clondalkin and most of it is in place already I think, just optimisation required.
tom1ie wrote: » Why the hell is it taking so long just to implement the optimization measures? Surely that’s just traffic light transponders to give bus priority plus bus gates etc. this is really starting to drag on.
LXFlyer wrote: » The Greenhills/South Clondalkin Route has major CPO activity - it involves much more than “optimisation”.
Qrt wrote: » I meant the Long Mile/Nangor Roads. Much of the stretches have bus lanes now afaik. The Greenhills Road plan is quite out there, but I can’t imagine much opposition since it’s 95% commercial or open space, and the realignments have been planned for over a decade.
LXFlyer wrote: » Eh did you not look at the plans for the corridors. It’s a hell of a lot more than what you’re suggesting with a lot of potential CPO activity, and relocated traffic (particularly in south central Dublin) which will have serious knock-on effects on orbital routes, some of which are already chock-a-block. The Greenhills/South Clondalkin Route has major CPO activity - it involves much more than “optimisation”. I’m all for improving the lot of public transport users as I’m one myself, but to implement the initial plans as they were would have been crazy. Unfortunately this is going to take time. The consultants produced the initial plans, and in October/November they are going to come back with revised plans following the initial consultation that hopefully will involve reducing the space given to cars as opposed to simply widening roads even more. In the meantime we will see the revised network design published later this month for consultation, taking the massive number of submissions from the original consultation. All the indications are that this will be significantly altered from the first draft with far more direct connections to/from the city centre.
tom1ie wrote: » EH, yes i did. However this was ages ago. I was directly answering a post from a different poster regarding the long mile road section. There are parts of this project that should have started already, trying to do everything as one big project will inevitably end in failure as the nimbys will band together and get the plan scrapped. start with the low hanging fruit. Start with the n4 qbc section direct to the quays, there are only a couple of pinch points on this and when complete can be used as a shinning example of whats possible. We all know greenhills, crumlin, terenure templeogue etc will be a **** show due to nimbys, so show the general public how well it can work so that we take the sting out of the nimbys. EH, what ya think of that!
LXFlyer wrote: » Again you don’t seem to understand how this project is being managed. They are going to apply to ABP for all the improvements on a full individual corridor basis - they aren’t doing parts of corridors piecemeal. That was made clear at the outset. This will involve full EIS preparation. But on this project virtually all of the improvements are interlinked with one another on each of the 16 corridors. There are none of the corridors that can be implemented without statutory ABP approval. Hence we are moving to the second round of consultations on the plans, for which it does seem for the limited public info available that major changes to many of the original plans are happening. The consultations ran from November 2018 to May 2019. It’s clear they have now worked through them all, and are probably ready to go with round 2, but the imminent network redesign phase 2 consultation (delayed so as not to happen during summer months) means that they have to wait until that is finished. People will suffer information overload otherwise. Realistically you aren’t going to see the first works started until 2021 on any of this, and that will be I’m sure the easier corridors first.
tom1ie wrote: » Where are we with this **** show now? Any qbc’s passed planning yet?
tom1ie wrote: » LXFlyer wrote: » Again you don’t seem to understand how this project is being managed. I understand perfectly well. Which is to say it’s not being managed well at all.
LXFlyer wrote: » Again you don’t seem to understand how this project is being managed.
tom1ie wrote: » I understand perfectly well. Which is to say it’s not being managed well at all. The reason bc won’t work is because the nta have taken on such a big project. The overall picture should have been the plan we have with the radial and orbital qbc’s but they should have concentrated on the low hanging fruit first and then go on to tackle the problem areas. That strategy would have seen qbc’s in operation now, and much less political and local opposition to the overall plan. There is no way the nta will ever defeat community not corridor with the political backing that they have, that is solely down to the way the nta have approached this.
CatInABox wrote: » I don't think that there's an easier way of doing it to be honest. Doing it piecemeal might be fine in some areas, but once you get down to land take and CPOs, then there's going to be people out protesting no matter what. There's an argument to be made that if they concentrated on only one area/route, the NTA would find it easier to push changes through as there'd only be protests from that area, but equally they'd lose the argument that this is a major project to revolutionise public transport in the city. Right now, they can point to the time savings from the entire project, instead of just the one or two minutes per street.
cgcsb wrote: » I think there's a valid point here: Most of the infrastructure for bus connects already exists and most of the remainder can be done within the existing powers of DCC/NTA. By that I mean bus gates, more bus lanes, bus priority signalling, banning turns etc. This can be done as part of day to day maintenance, without any fuss. The CPOing of property is where you get into hot water and Rightly or wrongly this has been bundled together with improvements that don't require any planning permission. Why I'm not sure but there is a propensity in the Irish public sphere to create a few glossy brochures for projects that would be ho-hum tweaking and maintenance in most of the rest of the world. But anyway now we have the glossy brochure and absolutely no commitment by government to begin any of the work for at least 2 years. That in it's self is quite damning. We obviously have a broken system when things as simple as a few new bus lanes, traffic lights and banned turns have multiple consultants, public consultations and planning applications costing several multiples of the cost of the road paint and the camera technology. If we were somewhere like China it'd just be done. Not that I'm advocating a totalitarian state but there should be a happy medium. In all honesty how can western society progress if very simple projects take decades in 'planning'.
cgcsb wrote: » The CPOing of property is where you get into hot water and Rightly or wrongly this has been bundled together with improvements that don't require any planning permission. Why I'm not sure but there is a propensity in the Irish public sphere to create a few glossy brochures for projects that would be ho-hum tweaking and maintenance in most of the rest of the world.
Last Stop wrote: » If we’ve gotten to a stage where we are considering doing it piecemeal, we may as well pull the plug and save a few quid. IF Busconnects is to be successfully implemented, it requires full bus lanes along the spines. Anything less than this (and even this is likely to be borderline) will result in spines failing to meet their target frequencies and demand exceeding supply. On some routes, the NTAs own figures suggest that even a QBC will not meet demand. The suggestion that you could add in bits here and there without going through ABP would likely cost more in the long run. I’m still of the view as stated previously that the real solution to Dublin’s problems is an extensive tram network but naturally there isn’t the political will to do something this brave.
Last Stop wrote: » If we’ve gotten to a stage where we are considering doing it piecemeal, we may as well pull the plug and save a few quid.
tom1ie wrote: » An extensive tram network will not work either as it won’t have the capacity, nor the space for it. We need an extensive underground metro system especially in terenure Rathfarnham Greenhills kimmage etc. problem being we just don’t have the money.
sharper wrote: » They already said they're going to do the network redesign in stages. That's far more difficult, more damaging and more confusing than doing the infrastructure in stages.
Last Stop wrote: » Dublin is a city of 1m people and will like max out at 2m due to its geographic location. It does not need an extensive underground metro system. It needs an underground N/S line (I.e. Metrolink) and an east west line (I.e. DART Underground). Anything more than this would be overkill for such a small city and country. A tram Line in terenure Rathfarnham Greenhills kimmage would have sufficient capacity as the NTA have indicated in the GDA strategy there is not really much space for growth. Space for a tram line can be created by removing vehicle traffic. That of course is easier said than done. Look at Nottingham for an example of how it can be done.
tom1ie wrote: » there is no space for buses and we wont move the cars to make room for buses, yet your saying we'll move the cars for trams? really? the only answer is either build the corridors for the bus or go underground for a metro.
Last Stop wrote: » Agree to a point. As I have mentioned the network will only work if the infrastructure is there. Without the infrastructure, Busconnects is a sitting duck just waiting to be shot by those who oppose it. However I do agree that staging the network redesign does not make any sense as people will lose some routes that were there before and will be there after leading to much public outcry etc etc.
Last Stop wrote: » tom1ie wrote: » there is no space for buses and we wont move the cars to make room for buses, yet your saying we'll move the cars for trams? really? the only answer is either build the corridors for the bus or go underground for a metro. A tram line is a much easier sell than a bus lane. The Luas is an incredibly popular service as has been shown by house prices close to Luas stops. A bus lane on the other hand is often viewed as an inconvenience and building a bus lane by taking someone’s front garden is naturally going to be opposed.
