SortCrude wrote: » A single underground metro line could also run at lower frequency to start. It would also have the advantage of not requiring the insane levels of CPOs your proposed routes would have. And it would be a better investment in the long run. Why is your preference a Luas rather than an underground Metro? Isn't that preference a little cheap and shortsighted?
Last Stop wrote: » A metro would probably have more CPO given the size of stations and the fact that Luas could run on street.
Last Stop wrote: » Can you point out where there would be insane levels of CPO?
Last Stop wrote: » My preference for Luas is that based on current demand, a Luas would have roughly 50% spare capacity and arguably be comfortable for the next 30 years. A metro would struggle to ever reach even half its capacity.
SortCrude wrote: » I disagree. I wasn't cc'ed detailed maps for this proposed infrastructure re-haul that exists in your imagination. Why is 30 years an acceptable time limit for capacity growth. I'd much rather 70 years and I don't like your cost cutting cheap alternative.
donvito99 wrote: » The same person flogging a Rathfarnham Luas can't figure out where massive CPO would be required...
dublinman1990 wrote: » Does anyone know what time is the revised network redesign being published tomorrow?
Sam Russell wrote: » Just a thought. A bus is about 12 metres long and can carry about 70 passengers. A car is about 5 metres long and generally only carries the driver. So, one bus occupies the road space of 2.5 cars, and carries 28 times as many people in the same road space. If the average speed of commuter traffic is 10 km per hour, a bus will pass you in about one minute, but the cars will take 28 minutes to pass. Makes you think. We need to get commuters out of cars and into buses. Maybe they should look at making the buses free and the parking very expensive as an experiment, with a possible congestion charge at the canals. With no cars on the roads, buses could average two or three times their current speed, which would have the effect of having two or three times as many buses. Just a thought.
Chiparus wrote: » The congestion charge in the port tunnel seems to be very effective. Charging car 10 euro to cross the canals from 730-930 in the mornings could prevent the need for Bus connects.
machaseh wrote: » Anti car measures should only be done in combination with an expansion of public transportation infrastructure and biking infrastructure. Otherwise it's only going to get people angry and that will do no good to our cause of improving public transportation in this city.
cgcsb wrote: » Experience from London shows the charge to be ineffective in the long term and the amount charged is a political football. It's a temporary measure. Permanently removing n street parking and replacing it with bike lanes and wider footpaths is permanent. Slap a tax on work place parking.
machaseh wrote: » Anti car measures should only be done in combination with an expansion of public transportation infrastructure and biking infrastructure. Otherwise it's only going to get people angry and that will do no good to our cause of improving public transportation in this city. I also believe that busconnects corridors should be constructed in such a way that these corridors could relatively easily be converted into LUAS in the not so distant future (say 15-25 years). Where will the new detailed transit maps of busconnects be published?
Zebra3 wrote: » The people who you say will get angry are just those that want to drive their pollution box around wherever they want, right?
Sam Russell wrote: » Bus connects publish revised plans today.https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/1022/1084854-bus-connects-dublin/
machaseh wrote: » Further thoughts: Clongriffin - Still no direct bus to the airport. Quite sad. Couldnt the 280 local bus route run clongriffin - R139 - Airport - Swords - Swords bus. park instead? And then make a separate local route from clongriffin to dcu.
devnull wrote: » Dublin Coach have been granted a license for a commercial route covering the journey.
machaseh wrote: » That's better than nothing, but why not a public bus. The 280 route could easily take a direct route to the Airport from Clongriffin, and from there continue on to swords and swords business park. Yes it will add a lot of time to the clongriffin - swords journey, but currently there is literally 0 buses on that route (very annoying when I used to live in clongriffin, as the road is also way too dangerous to bike on), so a slower bus with an airport detour is better than nothing.
CatInABox wrote: » Disappointed in the H spine, it's essentially the same as it is now, would have like to have seen them do something with the city centre end of it. Also disappointed with the timeline, 2021 before it starts, 2023 before it's all in place.
devnull wrote: » Dublin Coach route is: Clongriffin - Clare Hall - Clonshaugh Business Park - Dublin Airport Since a license has been granted to a commercial operator, then the NTA for such a route which is similar, would have questions to answer in relation to state aid and state resources being used against a private enterprise being considered unfair competition unless the route was quite different. I agree there is a need for a bus service though, so lets hope that Dublin Coach get that route up and running soon as they were granted the license a good few months ago.
Joker2019 wrote: » Can a commercial route be replaced by a PSO service? It would seem to me it would be better if it was ran as a PSO service with either DB or GAI.
I don't think there should be commercial services operating alongside DB and GAI services with similar services in terms of distance and style of operations bar a few exceptions such as the likes of the Swords/Fingal Express or Aircoach which operate a service which is different to an ordinary DB service.
