Dublin - BusConnects

In my opinion , the construction of bus corridors (as in the physical bus lanes and right-of-way) should have been an entirely separate project to the redesign of the bus network. I don't think there are many stretches of road where bus corridors would be constructed on roads that currently don't have at least one single bus line already on them (and even so, there are in fact bus lanes already on roads without buses, such as in Clongriffin).

They were trying to do too much at the same time in a country where the government has very little power to override NIMBY's.

Once the bus corridors would be built it would be a logical conclusion to then slowly redesign the network to make better usage of these corridors.

loyatemu wrote: »

they are mostly separate - the network redesign looks like it's going to go ahead (albeit it's been watered down).

There would have been no point in going through the design and consultation on the infrastructure only to find some of the roads involved were losing their bus routes, so there had to be some connection.

It is fair to say though that the original network plan was over-reliant on connections for certain journeys on radial routes to/from the city which, without the infrastructure being in place could not be reliably guaranteed. That was never going to work.

I would also have had separate project names. The current all encompassing “BusConnects” brand confuses significant numbers of people, who also got confused with the route tendering that happened at the same time.

Sam Russell wrote: »

One good suggestion/proposal coming from Busconnects is the 90 min fare. There is no reason why that cannot come into force before the rest of the project.

Also, bus lane enforcement should start now, with the full force of the Force behind it. It is incredible the number of cars that travel down the bus lane with impunity. ANPR might find not only that these drivers are in the bus lane, but the driver should not even be driving the car, and perhaps the car should not be on the road at all*.


*[No NCT, banned or no licence, no insurance, no L plates or unaccompanied, etc.]

Well the introduction of the 90 minute multi-mode fare needs to be planned Sam - otherwise the operating companies could end up with a jolt to their income and not in a good way. That potential funding gap would need to be bridged.

The NTA have repeatedly said in the fare determinations that the fare adjustments are being made in a staged manner to avoid either customers or the operating companies being subjected to a significant change.

I would imagine that it will be introduced next year.

We may get a clearer indication in the next fare determination report due to be published in March 2020 which will set out the revised single/return fares to be implemented from April 2020 (only the monthly and annual tickets were changed in December).

The summary on page 4 of the last determination linked to below sets out the NTA’s approach to this.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/191120_Fares_Determination_2019_MA_-_FINAL.pdf

As for the ANPR on bus lanes, that’s going to need legislation of some form and a political will to implement it - until a government is formed that’s not going to happen - I’d love to see a commitment to it, but I’m not holding my breath.

cgcsb wrote: »

The revised corridors are up. Some improvements on the last iteration and quite a few disapointments including a climb down in design in Rathmines and mobhi road. Frustratingly the designs continue to refuse to tie in to the proposed liffey cycle route and vice versa. Cycling seems to have improved at many locations. Many improvements to public realm proposed and one glaring missed opportunity at Phibsboro cross roads which will remain heavily trafficked for the foreseeable. Maybe this will be addressed in the future when designing the orbital corridors.

Are bus lanes still continuous though? As in either through lanes or queue relocation signalling? I’m in work and can’t read the docs.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Am I missing something in your post?

Here's Heuston as part of the Lucan Road proposals:

Have a look at where queen st meets the quays the designs don't match

I note that the media is distracted with corona. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to you. The media usually do hatchet jobs on pt infrastructure. And write from the point of view of low iq skoda drivers who only read headlines.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Am I missing something in your post?

Here's Heuston as part of the Lucan Road proposals:

Wow that’s an awful design. Losing 2 bus stops outside the station and converting it to 2 way traffic.
This indicates the plans to proceed with buses coming down the hill from James and across the Luas bridge which will be a complete disaster.

And the staggered junction for pedestrians to the Quays still remains and if anything the island has gotten smaller to accommodate cyclists.

Why are they proposing to realign the Luas platform??

That Luas platform at Heuston Station is normally 3 platforms. The NTA must be cutting off the extra platform in the middle there with that CBC proposal with the Liffey cycle route. Are there no trams that terminate at Heuston anymore? I'm thinking that it is Connolly - Red Cow for short journeys rather than Connolly - Heuston.

The 2 way traffic with the bus shelters outside Heuston is confusing to note as well. One of the proposed bus stops located right outside Heuston is near a road marking which goes onto the Heuston car park. It will be a disaster if buses terminate there like the Airlink & will have the potential to hold up traffic behind them unless it was for buses only? I don't get why there is a right turn available at the lights as soon the Luas leaves for/arrives from St James Hospital. And there is no left turn available coming in from the N7. Why is that? It seems very pointless having that no left turn restriction there. If a bus comes down from the Ballyfermot or N7 direction it will have to continue to drive straight ahead when it gets to the next stops on the quays.

Last Stop wrote: »

Ahhhh I see the cycle lane now.
All I can say is wow!!
So what they are actually doing is removing the platform nearest the station (the one currently used to travel to the city centre) to accommodate a cycle lane.
They seriously expect that the massive crowds who use that platform every morning are now going to have to cross the cycle lane and the Luas track to board.

That’s an accident waiting to happen!! I mean there is often security on that platform due to the amount of people. Add in the fact that there is no ticketing machines on the island and it’s just idiotic.

There still is a service between Heuston and Connolly every morning too using the middle platform.

Yep. I can see it. That is a really awful design. It is way too thin, going from the map drawings, to have the cycle lane pass the Luas in that section of the line.

They aren't removing any platforms, I'm not sure why Last Stop is saying that.

Realign does not mean remove.

MJohnston wrote: »

The realignment looks to me to move the middle island about 5m south - you can see the outline of the existing island, as well as the filled grey new position.

They aren't adding a cycle lane there either - what you've done here is not bothered to actually go looking at the proper plans:

So what is the red line being shown running alongside the platform. The exact same colour as the cycle lane?

It's just a line, probably from another layer in their drawing software which should have been turned off. It is not supposed to be a cycle lane.

Pretty amateur mistake to make.