Qrt wrote: » True, but I didn’t hear too much from that crowd when the last plans came out. Their whole arguments seemed to orbit around trees and gardens, which are drastically drastically less affected in the latest plans. Maybe I’m just oblivious.
tom1ie wrote: » Huh? I thought all the local residents groups were kicking off in templeogue etc? Community not corridor and all that jazz?
Qrt wrote: » I had a burst of optimism today about the CRCs. I think the strategy of aiming high by the NTA has worked in their favour. I can’t see any major hurdles to getting bus priority on the sixteen routes. The way it boiled down to trees vs detours really showed the hypocrisy of some of the specific community groups. I have some reservations about the bike junctions, but overall I’m fairly happy with the way the city is going. There’s no real point to this post but I just thought I’d say it anyway.
Dublin Bus Opens Historic Broadstone Bus Depot Following €15M Investment Published on Wednesday, March 03, 2021 Today, Wednesday 3 March, Dublin Bus officially launched the historic Broadstone Depot, Phibsboro, following a significant investment of €15.2M, restoring the site to become a modern bus fleet maintenance facility for the capital of Ireland. A part of Ireland’s transport infrastructure since 1850, Broadstone Depot is now one of eight Dublin Bus depots and has the capacity for up to 120 buses and 300 employees. The depot is located within a larger Broadstone transport hub that provides direct employment to 1,500 people. Dublin Bus is Ireland’s largest sustainable public transport service provider carrying 142M in 2019 (pre-Covid restrictions). The redevelopment of Broadstone Depot is a part of the company’s long-term growth strategy in preparing for the future and working to create a more sustainable European capital city. The new depot brings additional capacity within the Dublin Bus network and supports the company’s ability to expand its bus services across the Greater Dublin Area. It improves the service Dublin Bus delivers to its customers across Dublin and supports further job creation. The depot will not only cater for the vehicle maintenance requirements of the existing Dublin Bus fleet but is also equipped to maintain future vehicle specifications, such as full battery electric vehicles and is also flexible enough to suit hydrogen vehicles into the future if required. Minister for Transport Eamon Ryan TD said: “As we transition towards a cleaner and greener urban bus fleet, Broadstone Depot will be home to these new, low emission buses. It is fitting that this historic depot will play a role in maintaining these vehicles which will have a positive environmental impact for the communities which they serve. The fact that the depot is equipped to manage future vehicles specifications means it is ready to support Dublin’s shift towards a more sustainable public transport service.” Commenting on the opening Ray Coyne, Chief Executive of Dublin Bus said “I am delighted that Dublin Bus is investing over €15 million in Dublin’s transport future. Broadstone Depot is owned by future generations and we’ve been careful to preserve it and bring it back to life for the purpose it was built. This new depot is another step forward in our contribution to enhancing the lives of the people we proudly serve, socially, economically and sustainably, whilst providing a reliable, safe, efficient and well-run bus service. We change with the pace of the city, connecting new communities with new routes, new buses and new technologies. Our low emission fleet, sustainability initiatives and depot investments mean we are set to meet Dublin’s transport needs now and into the future.” Significant care and attention was given by Dublin Bus to preserve Broadstone Depot and every restoration detail has been considered. Dublin Bus worked closely with conservation architects to ensure the restoration at the transport hub adds to the long industrial and transport history. The use of natural materials, where possible, and reuse and restoration of existing structures such as the old overhead gantry cranes and the original cast iron structure helped reduce the carbon footprint. In consultation with Phibsboro Village Tidy Towns and Dublin Swift Conservation Group, and with funding from the Community Environment Action Fund (Local Agenda 21) of Dublin City Council, Dublin Bus has incorporated swift nesting boxes onto the site, the first semi-state in Ireland to do so, to help preserve and expand the swift population. Broadstone Depot is once again a large and proud employer in the area and is very much part of the community. The entire site which also features the company’s Phibsboro Depot, Central Control, Procurement Department, Driver Training Centre, Technical Training Centre, Bus Éireann’s nationwide headquarters and Greater Dublin Area bus depot and a Luas stop is a strategically important transport hub enabling growth of the city. This redevelopment of Broadstone Depot, funded directly by Dublin Bus, is a significant part of the overall sustainability focussed investment in the future of public transport in Ireland by the Government and the National Transport Authority (NTA).
LXFlyer wrote: » I just don't think you'd get the two extra bus gates that you're suggesting through to be honest.
BobbyMalone wrote: » I'd prefer a change in the streetscape on Rathfarnham Road over what they're planning for that area south of Bushy Park/the Dodder (the cycle/pedestrian overpass). If, as you're saying Rathfarnham Road is already due a realignment, then best to alter one route than mess up two. It might be tight, but definitely doable. The alternative is an expensive under-used cycleway that doesn't actually resolve the problems - will possibly even make it worse.
donvito99 wrote: » Again, I'm not denying that, but there are alternatives. I think the 14 may benefit from restrictions in Rathmines which may force traffic currently converging on Orwell Rd from Churchtown and Bushy Park Road elsewhere. If the 14 is stuck at the moment, it's not going to be made any less stuck in this scenario. The A spine and S4, on the other hand, would have a whale of a time and fly through Terenure and Rathgar, with no tortuous CPO required, and with cyclists fully segregated in line. And to be quite honest, there is "no more room for traffic" in most parts of the city. This has necessitated the likes of Bus Connects. It remains to be seen whether measures restricting traffic will have a major, noticable impact on alternative routes. If implemented correctly, Dublin can be another city benefiting from traffic evaporation.
LXFlyer wrote: » That would make gardens very small south of the Dodder, particularly between the Texaco garage and Brookwood, and I would be reluctant to see the streetscape along that road change even more than is envisaged. There is already CPO going on between Texaco and Rathdown Park.
LXFlyer wrote: » I think that two cycle lanes, two bus lanes and two road lanes between Rathfarnham Village and Bushy Park Road isn't a realistic option. The space just isn't there.
LXFlyer wrote: » The only trouble with that is that (in normal times) Orwell Park in the mornings is full from one end to the other as is Orwell Road back from Orwell Park to south of Dodder Road Lower. There simply isn’t room for more traffic there. The 14 bus can get stuck on Orwell Road for extended periods of time as it is.
donvito99 wrote: » Yes. Well if you're heading via TRW at the moment, the diversion from the KCR is Wainsfort, Templeville Rd, Rathfarnham Bypass, Dodder Park Rd and then Orwell Rd or Orwell Pk, or Churchtown Rd. This isn't too much of an ask for existing Terenure - Highfield Rd traffic as I imagine most of that is going to Milltown and not to Ranelagh.
LXFlyer wrote: » East/West journeys would be "orbital east/west journeys", which I suspect is what you mean?
Spawell traffic is being diverted by these plans in any case - that's not the issue. I was thinking more of the Terenure Road West-Highfield Road traffic that would have to divert somewhere else if your suggestion of closing Terenure Road East and Terenure Road West were to happen?
BobbyMalone wrote: » I agree - I just think a badly planned cycle bypass route (one that I think won't be used) isn't the answer. Perhaps radical solutions like a CPO of front gardens is the answer, because the current idea (for the Rathfarnham route anyway) doesn't look like it will alleviate traffic.
LXFlyer wrote: » The further you get out from the city, the harder it is to implement one way systems - you do have to faciltate traffic flow in some form. For many people making orbital trips, public transport will never facilitate them as the majority of trips have unique starting and end points - it's a really tough one. There's a balance to be struck. Closing Templeogue Road to traffic in one direction, you can't really close Rathfarnham Road off too. There is nowhere else for the traffic to go. The only other option is to CPO all the front gardens on Rathfarnham Road, and I just don't see that happening. Space sadly is not in sufficient supply.
donvito99 wrote: » That's all true, but I believe it is absolutely necessary to draw a line in the sand - in order to improve the bus service, drivers will have to make the greatest sacrifice. In my view, limited private vehicle access would be more effective than bus lanes as the general congestion which bus lanes can't paint away is reduced. An alternate main cross city route from Spawell is Rathfarnham Bypass, Dodder Park Road, Braemor Rd and Churchtown Rd towards Milltown, Donnybrook. Its a bit longer, but we're making people sitting quite comfortably in a car do this, not someone on a bike or bus makin the effort. That's a reasonable compromise in my books. Bushy Pk Rd and Orwell Pk are a disaster area, no doubt. But again, bus gates in Rathmines would do a lot for this area. It would displace some existing capacity for cross city journeys.
LXFlyer wrote: » What about the not insignificant east/west general traffic flow from Terenure Road West - Terenure Road East - Highfield Road and on to Milltown and Donnybrook? That's a lot of diverted traffic onto already congested roads and other local roads such as Bushy Park Road/Zion Road. Orwell Park for example is already horrific at peak times. It's also quite a distance between through east/west routes if you move down north/south along the map of the city. I do get what you are trying to do. But I hesitate, as it's a lot easier to restrict citybound traffic as public transport can offer a realistic alternative. When you're talking about orbital traffic, that becomes far more difficult, as very few individual trips will have the same start and end points and public transport will have more limited appeal.
donvito99 wrote: » My preference in this case on corridor 10 is a tidal flow bus gate either sided of Terenure (both Terenure Rd East side and Terenure Rd West/Templeogue Rd side). Drop the outbound bus lane and Templeogue Rd and there's no need for the dismount diversion into Rathdown + Bushy Park. The A spine and the S4 orbital route benefit. Through traffic needs to go via the Rathfarnham bypass, then Rathfarnham Rd or avoid this area as a through route altogether.
LXFlyer wrote: » Genuinely can I ask, what solution do you have? A general traffic lane is being dropped on each of Templeogue Road and Rathgar Road, and the bus gates at Terenure and Rathmines will mean general traffic being diverted. Two principal routes towards the city are effectively being removed or significantly restricted, and traffic refocussed onto Clogher Road, Terenure Road North and Ranelagh. That's a pretty massive change, while still allowing traffic to flow (albeit in a more circuitous manner) across the area. Short of huge CPO activity, it's very difficult to see how you can achieve a continuous cycle route?
BobbyMalone wrote: » I think it will be a problem if people don't use the proposed bypasses. Maybe they work better elsewhere but the Rathfarnham bypass just plonks cyclists at a junction to get back on to the Rathfarnham Road - I imagine most of us will just continue using the old route, bar people coming from Butterfield Avenue. Even this would be curtailed, imo, by the fact that the proposed pedestrian/cycle route is very narrow in a particular spot, so I imagine it will be in part/whole a 'shared' space, which would further lessen its attractiveness. So, we are left with an underused bypass that reinforces the idea that cyclists should be separated from traffic (where possible) and probably won't be a dedicated cycle track. Yeah, it's a difficult one, but I think there should've been more thought given to one-way systems throughout the suburbs, with contraflows for buses and cyclists. I'm not sure if the charge on private vehicles in London was considered a success, but if so, perhaps something along those lines could be introduced here.
donvito99 wrote: » My experience is the opposite - taxi drivers are as impatient and blinkered as they come and take as many liberties with the laws as my fellow cyclists - the difference being that they are in a Prius/Caddy van and not a spindly little thing with a bell. Back on topic, my submission as part of consultation #3 was that one of the central objectives of Bus Connects is a big modal shift towards cycling. Circuitous, parallel alternative routes may suit parents with kids with time to kill but won't in my view deliver on that objective. Where there is no space for bus lane + cycle lane + general traffic lane, the latter ought to be dropped. The latest plans are becoming too much of a fudge in this regard.
cgcsb wrote: » It's not really a massive problem though. The cyclists who will be following the diversions will be the fast lycra or deliveroo types. Those using the alternative route will be kids, the elderly, the inexperienced and people carting washing machines in their basket. It's a really big improvement on what's available at the moment. Also bus connects will cause a dramatic drop in car journeys to the city because driving a car in will become a real pain in the hoop.
LXFlyer wrote: » Short of mass CPO along Templeogue Rd it is difficult to see what else can be done due to the lack of space.
Pete_Cavan wrote: » taxi drivers are professional drivers and obviously spend a lot of time on the roads, many are more passive than general traffic as they are well used to it, are not rushing to get somewhere else and their livelihoods depend on not killing/maiming cyclists.
[Deleted User] wrote: » If you know any people with bikes but that don't use them, ask why. I'd suggest that many will say they're terrified of buses and taxis - the two types of vehicles that cyclists will be sharing roadspace with, even with the reduction in other traffic volume.
Deleted User wrote: » If you know any people with bikes but that don't use them, ask why. I'd suggest that many will say they're terrified of buses and taxis - the two types of vehicles that cyclists will be sharing roadspace with, even with the reduction in other traffic volume.
BobbyMalone wrote: » Some of the proposed cycling/pedestrian routes are absolutely bizarre and will not be used - so we'll be back to the same 'problems' of cyclists using the old routes and ignoring the diversions.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6d8a632a9fb85629e1cafb0fd27003c4.svg)
