roadmaster wrote: » When the bus corridor construction works actually start who will be in charge of the works will it be TII or each individual local authorities looking after sections that are in there area?
Last Stop wrote: » <snip>
Last Stop wrote: It’ls an NTA project so it’ll be NTA. Nothing to do with TII. The local authorities will be consulted similar to members of the public but beyond that they have little say
Last Stop wrote: » Great summary of the options available. Based on the application of DMURS and putting all them in an Irish context you’d have to say that the best option is the “Dublin style”. Which begs the question. Why in God’s name did the NTA develop an inferior design when there was a better version produced as part of another NTA funded project? Honestly the mind boggles. As regards the other soundbites coming out of these meetings, there are rumours of certain corridors such as the Crumlin one going from 4 lanes (I.e. a full QBC) to 3 lanes (2 car and 1 bus lane) with bus priority signals for the direction without a bus lane. If that’s the case then we’re screwed. The Crumlin corridor is planned for a frequency of 5 mins or better. There is absolutely no way that can be done without a full QBC and even with a QBC then it’s questionable. To explain the above; buses struggle to achieve high frequencies for a number of reasons including 1) on board ticketing (we’ll still all have to tag on) 2) Ramps requiring mechanical deployment for disabled passengers 3) frequent stops and irregular stopping patterns 4) interaction with other modes of transport Other modes of transport don’t have this problem due to off board ticketing, platform level access, fixed stopping patterns and typically a reasonable amount of segregation/priority. The reason we need high frequencies is because capacity is a function of vehicle capacity x frequency. It is is quite clear that because of the high frequencies proposed under Busconnects that a number of corridors have demand far in excess of what can be provided by buses. A radial solution is needed.
Qrt wrote: » I’m too lazy to unquote the unnecessary stuff, but where have you heard about the crumlin corridor? Are they talking about “queue relocation facilities”? I mean, it’s less than desirable, but it’s a heck of a lot better than what we have now!
specialbyte wrote: » The NTA are proposing to make changes to a number of National Roads. TII are the National Roads Authority under the Roads Act so NTA must get agreement from TII before making changes to the road. This is even though the NTA is a Roads Authority (under the same act) for the Greater Dublin Area (GDA). TII's National Roads Authority trumps that. The NTA can't steamroll councils it needs them onside. If the NTA doesn't have the councils on board at the ABP hearings it will make it super hard for them to get approval.
CatInABox wrote: » I believe that this person was at another NTA meeting.https://twitter.com/transportdublin/status/1174022571349696512
Peregrine wrote: » How does the reclassification of these roads to regional roads inside the M50 (except the N11) affect this? Does TII maintain authority over those sections?
specialbyte wrote: » Inside the M50 there's only the N1, N11 and the N31 left. The N1 is the Drumcondra Road, but also Dorset Street to Church Street to the quays.
LXFlyer wrote: » I’m not sure that the frequencies are going to be that much different along the Crumlin Road from what is there currently - there are currently 13-15 buses per hour in each direction for most of the day.
Bambi wrote: » Wonder how much the cost of bus connects would drop if they axed the cycle infrastructure? By a third? A half?
donvito99 wrote: » Cost would drop, utility would drop massively also, mixing cyclists and buses. We could do it properly or we could drop the cycle lanes. Sure why not drop the bus lanes and stick in free on street parking
Qrt wrote: » I quite like it, not as good as full bus lanes, but it keeps the trees, so I'm happy with that.
sharper wrote: » If the NTA gets the power to run ANPR cameras and they actually use it I think it'll really allow measures like this to get their full effectiveness. The junction looks great but when I think of that layout in operation all I can imagine is the stream of traffic ignoring the bus signal without penalty. The bus priority junction on the chapelizoid is one if the nicest pieces of work I've seen built in the last few years and overall it works very well but I regularly see motorists block everything up by chancing it against the light signals so they can through a bit faster. Very very occasionally you see someone pulled over on the side of the road by the traffic corps possibly for that reason or possibly not who knows. I can't find the status of the legislation that's supposed to enable this though.
LeinsterDub wrote: » Maybe 10%. There is no way it's costing 1 billion for bike lanes
Bambi wrote: » I reckon you cut out the cost of road widening and CPOs for those dedicated bike lanes and you'll find a huge chunk of the cost of "bus" connects disappears, we already have hundreds of miles of bus lanes. Actually if you look at the bus connects marketing they use nearly the same amount of miles of cycle lanes as bus "priority" but fail to mention that most of that bus "priority" already exists, what they're actually building is new cycle lanes. Massive cost saving to a bus project and Joe pedestrian isn't reduced to using glorified gangways for footpaths. Wins all round for the key stakeholders bar the high viz lads, who don't pay a red cent towards transport but expect dedicated infrastructure to be provided for them . On yer bike , as they say. :pac:
Qrt wrote: » Cycling is part of traffic reduction, pretty essential in a European city really. It ain’t going away, despite the “they don’t pay” argument (which is wrong anyway.)
Bambi wrote: » You're not going achieve traffic reduction in a city with a booming population. Basic enough. Needs investment in mass transport, rather than a niche mode or a vendetta against cars.
Qrt wrote: » Which they’re doing...and also relieving pressure on buses by letting people cycle. I’m not gonna get into it.
Bambi wrote: » I reckon you cut out the cost of road widening and CPOs for those dedicated bike lanes and you'll find a huge chunk of the cost of "bus" connects disappears, we already have hundreds of miles of bus lanes. Actually if you look at the bus connects marketing they use nearly the same amount of miles of cycle lanes as bus "priority" but fail to mention that most of that bus "priority" already exists, what they're actually building is new cycle lanes.
Bambi wrote: » Wins all round for the key stakeholders bar the high viz lads, who don't pay a red cent towards transport but expect dedicated infrastructure to be provided for them . On yer bike , as they say. :pac:
