Last Stop wrote: » 2 of the 3 issues you mentioned in the final sentence (wait time and crowding) are directly linked to buses bunching. While there are benefits to Busconnects and it will improve things, if buses continue to bunch the benefits will be outweighed.
cgcsb wrote: » Bunching is caused by buses being held up in road traffic Separation from road traffic where possible will reduce this
is_that_so wrote: » Not true. For example, it happens on the Swords Road/Drumcondra route at almost any time of day. I have no doubt other routes encounter the same scenario.
SortCrude wrote: » Busconnects will improve the overall bus network, which will reduce bunching. Reduced bunching is better than the current setup, even if bunching isn't entirely eradicated. So no, continued bunching does not mean that the benefits of Busconnects will be outweighed.
donvito99 wrote: » Only on Boards could somebody find a way to make out that more bus lanes will not deliver a better bus service...
Last Stop wrote: » Your first sentence is just a generic statement with nothing to back it up.
Last Stop wrote: » How will Busconnects improve the overall bus network and more specifically how will it reduce bunching?
SortCrude wrote: » You're venturing into wacky conspiracy theory territory if you think a plan that "aims to deliver 230kms of dedicated bus lanes and 200kms of cycle tracks along 16 of the busiest corridors in Dublin" won't improve the overall bus network. This has been explained well by other posters in in this thread. Go look it up on Wikipedia or something.
gjim wrote: » Btw - don't read the above a defence of LastStop's arguments. Without bus segregation and improved route infrastructure (i.e. Bus Connects), you're screwed anyway in terms of capacity. Dealing with bunching on a segregated system is much easier than on one where buses mingle with general traffic.
gjim wrote: » A more radical - or future BusConnects - plan should get rid of double decker buses and replace them with articulated 4 or 5 door buses and use Luas style ticketing and fare protection.
Last Stop wrote: » The biggest benefit of Busconnects is the redesigned network. Along a number of the CBCs there already is a large percentage of the route covered by bus lanes. N11, Lucan and Finglas for example. The drawback of the redesigned network is it concentrates on the 16 CBCs (actually 14 as Terenure to Tallaght is on the A spine and Ringend is on no spine). As I have already stated, unless there is continuous bus lanes until the end each route on the spine, there will be delays and this will lead to bunching.
SortCrude wrote: » Nobody is claiming the Bus-Connects is a silver bullet that will end bunching. However, every meter of road where buses have their own lane rather than being held up sharing with general traffic contributes to it's reduction. That said; whether or not, or how much, Bus-Connects reduces bunching isn't a metric for whether or not it's a worth while project.
Last Stop wrote: » But bunching is one of the key issues with the current network and as has been explained bunching has significant knock on consequences.
Your very first sentence on here stated Busconnects will reduce bunching and with such high frequencies I firmly believe if anything it will increase it. I mean we struggle with bunching on some QBC corridors with 10min frequencies, even with CBCs 3-4 minutes looks virtually impossible without bunching for reasons other than segregation from general traffic.
Last Stop wrote: » But bunching is one of the key issues with the current network and as has been explained bunching has significant knock on consequences. Your very first sentence on here stated Busconnects will reduce bunching and with such high frequencies I firmly believe if anything it will increase it. I mean we struggle with bunching on some QBC corridors with 10min frequencies, even with CBCs 3-4 minutes looks virtually impossible without bunching for reasons other than segregation from general traffic.
gjim wrote: » Even with complete segregation, without central control, buses will bunch. There is a feedback loop - the longer a bus is trailing behind it's schedule, the more passengers are likely to be waiting at the next stop (e.g. there are likely to be twice as many passenger waiting if the leading bus is 20minutes ahead instead of 10). As a result the bus will have to stop for longer, further slowing down a trailing bus and causing buses behind to catch up further. The ones behind, in turn will have LESS passengers to deal with and will speed up - sometimes they will end up so unloaded that the driver will be in a position to skip stops causing further bunching. Here's a nice visual simulation which demonstrates the effect: http://setosa.io/bus/ You can deal with the problem by monitoring the situation centrally and forcing extra delays on all the buses behind a lagging bus ahead but this reduces the overall throughput of the system. A practical way to alleviate the problem is to make loading/unloading passangers as fast as possible. This means using articulated buses and NOT double deckers as artics can have double the number of doors. Also, no ticket checking on entry or exit which slows entry/exit down. And certainly no driver cashbox/ticket sales - all ticket sales occur off-bus. Many other European cities use urban buses like this. All BART style systems and trolley buses have these features for this reason. Are double-decker buses used anywhere outside the UK or Ireland? It's also a key part of why the Luas is a much more efficient people carrier. If the Luas operated like the buses in Dublin do, then I'm guessing trams would be stuck at each stop for maybe two minutes longer? That doesn't sound so bad until you realize that this would add 48 minutes to an end-to-end trip on the Green line. Given Bloombridge to Bride's Glen is currently about 1 hour 9 minutes, with the same number of trams in operation, your passengers/hour capacity of the system would drop by a shocking 42%. A more radical - or future BusConnects - plan should get rid of double decker buses and replace them with articulated 4 or 5 door buses and use Luas style ticketing and fare protection.
donvito99 wrote: » Bunching is a issue on a network without comprehensive bus lanes on the sections of routes prone to delays. You suggest that increased frequencies will increase bunching, despite the fact that an increased frequency completely negates the effect of bunching. Bus Connects will substantially address the cause of delay on the network which occurs on the approaches to the city's centre, not on the extremities of the city as you suggest without any evidence (typically).
SortCrude wrote: » That's like saying "twice as many buses will produce twice as many opportunities for bunching to happen", which is technically correct, I suppose. Upgrading the network to reduce overall journey times is the key issue addressed by Bus-Connects.
Last Stop wrote: » Journey times is only one factor in people’s decision to use public transport. Reliability is another
SortCrude wrote: » An unreliable bus schedule where you can expect a bus after waiting for 20 minutes being upgraded to an unreliable schedule where you can expect a bus after waiting for 10 minutes is somehow worse, because there are now twice as many unreliable buses?
Last Stop wrote: » If that’s the case why don’t they just add more buses now and save the €2bn?
Last Stop wrote: » Unreliable is unreliable and what you’re now saying is that Busconnects is great; yes the buses will be delayed but they’ve added more so you won’t notice the difference! If that’s the case why don’t they just add more buses now and save the €2bn?
SortCrude wrote: » Because Bus-Connects is not a €2bn investment to make buses stick to their schedule as well as trains do.
machaseh wrote: » Because we need extra infrastructure for more buses.
Last Stop wrote: » So if it’s not an investment to make buses reliable (which would involve sticking to schedules) then what is it?
Last Stop wrote: » And we need more buses to provide additional capacity which could be provided by other modes?
SortCrude wrote: » It will make buses more reliable. More importantly, it will reduce journey times.
machaseh wrote: » Such as which other modes? The car?
SortCrude wrote: » If the government decided to quadruple investment in infrastructure over the next 10 years, and nimbys weren't an issue, then yes, ditching Bus-Connects for better alternatives would be on the table. Unfortunately that's not reality.
