Green Party: Ossian Smyth wrote: » The document below contains the latest evolution of plans from the NTA on the UCD-city centre and Blackrock-Merrion routes.http://www.ossiansmyth.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/UCD-Ballsbridge-to-City-Centre-Blackrock-to-Merrion-Community-Fourm-18-Sept-2019.pdf Let me know what you think of the various options presented - or any other options you can imagine.
Last Stop wrote: » Frequencies isn’t just about the number of buses but the even spacing between them. You could run 30 buses per hour but you wouldn’t get an even 2 minute frequency near the city centre. If one bus gets delayed by say 2 minutes it means that instead of 5 minutes between buses there’s 7 minute between the first and second bus and only 3 minutes until the 3rd bus. This leads to buses becoming unreliable. One of the main benefits of Luas is that you can rock up to any stop and be guaranteed that the longest you’ll have to wait for a tram is 15 minutes. This makes it extremely reliable as people know that it will take then x minutes to get into town and they can leave a 15 minute buffer on top of this. If you were to do that with buses and the advertised frequency is 5 minutes or better but it could be 7 minutes or more then you don’t trust it.
LXFlyer wrote: » My point was that you seemed to be suggesting that the planned infrastructure couldn’t cope with the planned number of buses per hour. My point is that it already does.
Last Stop wrote: » Those who suggest that delaying cars is a good thing are ignoring the fact that the GDA strategy targets an increase of modal share for public transport of 30% of current demand and 100% of future demand. On a number of corridors this will mean car modal share is still around the 50% mark.
Podge_irl wrote: » I don't follow your calcs here considering buses currently account for marginally more share than cars.
Last Stop wrote: » Those who suggest that delaying cars is a good thing are ignoring the fact that the GDA strategy targets an increase of modal share for public transport of 30% of current demand and 100% of future demand. On a number of corridors this will mean car modal share is still around the 50% mark. Keep in mind that that was with plans for significantly more capacity improvements such as BRT and Lucan Luas. While I’m all for reducing car traffic, you have to provide a viable and sufficient alternative, which Busconnects is not.
monument wrote: » Only crossing the canals? But just looking at crossing the canals is about as valid as look at the GDA area when it comes to within the M50.
LeinsterDub wrote: » I thought you thought the GDA was discredited. I don't know when we are expected to use the GDA as a source and when we can choose to ignore it? How do improve the bus aka a viable and sufficient solution without reducing car without reducing car traffic You can't it's impossible. A metro for all of Dublin isn't a realistic. You constantly hear this cart before the horse argument from people who have no intention of using public transportation even if a metro stop was in their basement
Last Stop wrote: » Where have I said the GDA strategy was discredited? I said it lacked ambition and doesn’t go far enough but that’s completely irrelevant to this argument. You can’t say that the bus is viable and sufficient when it clearly isn’t on a number of corridors. Case in point is the Lucan area.https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/West_Corridor_Study.pdf One of the options looked at was to provide only the 2 QBCs proposed under Busconnects (Lucan and Liffey valley). It ruled out the option of providing QBCs alone as “providing bus services required to meet the demand will not be possible on a roadway network that is already significantly constrained”. It was based on this that the Lucan Luas was brought forward as the preferred option in addition to DART Expansion. This scenario is repeated on a number of other corridors. The south east corridor for example doesn’t even consider the option of providing buses alone because of the number required to meet demand (54). Busconnects tried to account for this by providing a number of additional peak hour services bringing the total to 48. So what do you say to the 400 people who will be left stranded every day? The preferred option under GDA was metro south but that certainly isn’t getting built before 2035 so some of the other options proposed may need to be reconsidered. I think you’ll find that I have never bought into the nonsense of a metro for all and instead advocated for a number of additional Luas lines which would be sufficient to meet demand and certainly realistic given the cost of Busconnects. Saying I’m crying “putting the cart before the horse” would be fine but this isn’t putting the cart before the horse, this is overloading an already full cart and expecting the horse to keep going with no issues because you gave him some extra food.
Last Stop wrote: » Where have I said the GDA strategy was discredited?
Last Stop wrote: » You can’t say that the bus is viable and sufficient when it clearly isn’t on a number of corridors.
LeinsterDub wrote: » You said we should ignore it's predictions on cycling because you had figures from a different survey that suited your agenda. Now that the GDA suits your agenda we are expected to take it as gospel? Aka the bus is viable and sufficient for vast areas of Dublin
monument wrote: » You’re again talking as if BusConnects is the only transport project going ahead when you know it’s not. Under Ireland 2040, Luas extensions planned to Lucan, Finglas, Poolbeg and Bray. Metro is planned and Dart expansion is planned. And, as you also know, cycling routes are also going ahead outside of BusConnects. So, you seem to be using a lot of text to say again that BusConnects should be scrapped for tram lines to be built elsewhere and sooner.
Last Stop wrote: » To summarise what I believe would be an appropriate and achievable plan for Dublin: Phase 1 - Luas Line to Knocklyon via Harold’s Cross etc. Phase 2 - Luas Line to Lucan Phase 3 - Luas Line to Clongriffin Phase 4 - Luas Line to UCD Phase 5 - Luas from UCD to Kilmacud Phase 6 - Green Line upgrade to metro including extension south to Bray - only possible following phase 5 On top of this, there would be minor upgrades to some QBC corridors to allow them provide a reliable service. I’m assuming that Finglas Luas, Metro, DART expansion and cycle network investment proceed as planned.
MJohnston wrote: » Why are people entertaining such blatantly unachievable nonsense? Some car drivers just want to keep setting the bar higher and higher for what will get them off their selfish arses and onto public transport/their feet/a bike. Their time is over, and we need to stop debating the necessity of car reduction measures, and start discussing exactly what form they'll be. It's the only way car drivers will change behaviour.
LeinsterDub wrote: » And what should people do while they wait till 2160 for your fictional network?
Last Stop wrote: » The original Luas started construction in 2001 and by the end of 2018 had a length of 42km so to build the 50km as proposed above using that as a timeline would bring it to around 2040. Talking about 2060 is scaremongering.
LeinsterDub wrote: » We've been talking about dart expansion since the 80s and metro since the 90s. Luas Finglas isn't set to be delivered before 2035. Don't deny the reality of the political process which these will be delivered
Last Stop wrote: » And what gives you such optimism for the 16 Busconnects corridors?
Last Stop wrote: » And what gives you such optimism for the 16 Busconnects corridors? Justifying not building something because we’ve been slow to build in the past is very pessimistic. If we are to, and we need to, take congestion and climate change seriously then we need to up our game.
LeinsterDub wrote: » It's not pessimistic it's realistic. Because a lot of bus connects is minor tweaks or isn't controversial. The recent engagements by the NTA has shown a lot of the issues can be addressed and at the end of the day it's not a binary choice we need both buses and other modes. Bus is still the backbone of public transportation in London despite their 100's of km of rail
Last Stop wrote: » I love how you’ve assumed that I drive as justification for your argument and that could be the only possible reason that I would oppose Busconnects. Let’s clear that one up straight away... I don’t drive and ideally I won’t have to drive in the future. I’m guessing someone else will now claim I’m one of those NIMBYs whose front garden is being taken... not one of those either. It says it all when opposing a system which will not provide adequate capacity is seen as setting the bar higher and higher. As I have said before, all for car reduction measures IF there is a viable alternative. As pointed out on a number of corridors, Busconnects is not sufficient.
MJohnston wrote: » I don't care a jot whether you drive or not (never claimed you did, as you'd see if you would read or represent people's posts properly) you're still talking out your rear with utterly terrible Luas crayon routes. As others have already pointed out, you'll still need BusConnects to fill the gap for the next few decades before such a system would get built. This idea of having to wait for the bus system to improve before cars can be removed is demonstrably nutso. You can never achieve the former in Dublin without doing the latter first. If you set that as a precondition, you're clearly NOT interested in the bus system improving, because you've just set circular reasoning which ensures it never can. We can't wait around for car drivers to get comfortable with using public transport. They are literally poisoning us and future generations every day. **** them. Time to make them so uncomfortable in their X5s and Discoveries that they have to do what everyone else does - walk, cycle, park and ride, or use public transport.
Why are people entertaining such blatantly unachievable nonsense? Some car drivers just want to keep setting the bar higher and higher for what will get them off their selfish arses and onto public transport/their feet/a bike.
Last Stop wrote: » If the above wasn’t in relation to my proposal then who was it directed at? What makes the proposed routes terrible? They are all based on proposed Luas or BRT routes? Busconnects will take until the end of the next decade to be delivered. Others on here have suggested it will be delivered in parts extending the length of time. I’ve already pointed out that such a network could easily be delivered by 2040 and even sooner if required. As I have pointed out multiple times at this stage, by providing tram lines you significantly reduce the number of corridors effected as trams have a much larger catchment area. Building Busconnects in its current form and then putting in tram lines would have an impact on far more corridors than you need to. You cannot force people out of their cars by putting in a system which won’t have the capacity to handle them. What part of that don’t you understand? The fact that you refer to park and ride and public transport as two separate modes shows your ignorance of this. What do people ride when they park? If we were to proceed as you suggest, what do you do with the 400 people who cannot get on a bus along the n11 corridor because that’s what the modelling is saying will happen? Do you just let them be late for work on a daily basis? The Luas and DART are already full! As a final attempt to try and make you understand the problem... You have a leaky roof. So you put a bucket under the leak. Now the bucket is filling up. You can’t keep emptying the bucket all day so you have 2 choices which cost roughly the same. Do you either buy a bigger bucket and hope that it holds enough water until you can empty it or do you fix the roof? Suggesting Busconnects as the interim solution is just buying a bigger bucket hoping it will solve the problem. What we need to do is fix the problem and the only way to do that is providing public transport with enough capacity to cater for demand. Then you can start to look at restricting cars because they have a viable alternative. At this stage I’ve given up trying to explain the problems with the project. I will save my energy for the next round of public consultations and An Bord Pleanala because I cannot sit idly by while the proposed works go ahead which will change Dublin irreparablely only to realise in 20 years time it was the wrong option.
Last Stop wrote: » I cannot sit idly by while the proposed works go ahead
Last Stop wrote: » You cannot force people out of their cars by putting in a system which won’t have the capacity to handle them. What part of that don’t you understand?
Last Stop wrote: » As a final attempt to try and make you understand the problem... You have a leaky roof. So you put a bucket under the leak. Now the bucket is filling up. You can’t keep emptying the bucket all day so you have 2 choices which cost roughly the same. Do you either buy a bigger bucket and hope that it holds enough water until you can empty it or do you fix the roof?
