nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Dublin - BusConnects

marno21

Two weeks after a similar publication for Metrolink, the NTA have published a tender for design of 16 Core Bus Corridors for the BusConnect project:

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=127159&B=ETENDERS_SIMPLE&PS=1&PP=ctm/Supplier/publictenders

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

LXFlyer

Muahahaha wrote: »

Did anyone see the RTE report on this yesterday? They reported that there was 70,000 submissions for the public consultation on BusConnects and that it was "controversial". What rubbish, just because a few hundred people were giving out about cutting down trees doesnt make it controversial. Huge numbers of people are in support of this yet the report gave the opposite impression.

Also I noticed the brand new buses have steel rails on their exterior at the upper deck front on the bus, left and right sides. Are these to protect the windows from tree branches or something or whats their purpose?

They’re talking about the proposed network - not the infrastructure in this context.

The original network proposal in 2018 did prove controversial in that it proposed removing bus services from certain estates and required a lot of people to have to change to get to/from the city. Indeed the then Taoiseach is quoted in the Dáil as having told Ann Graham that it would have to be changed as it was unacceptable.

That being said, it was a first draft. The next version of the network plan produced a year later was much much better, and just needed relatively small changes before the final plan was published in September 2020.

I think that most people are happy to see that plan put into operation.

The silver rails are branch deflectors - most of the existing fleet have them already albeit usually only on the near side.

yascaoimhin

LXFlyer wrote: »

Indeed the then Taoiseach is quoted in the Dáil as having told Ann Graham that it would have to be changed as it was unacceptable..

It was stupid for him to say that, because it further the lie that the First Draft was ever intended to be final. The First Draft was specifically and intentionally designed to be bare bones and be wrong, because the designers knew from the state that they arent from the city and so can't have developed a network without the input of the people in the city.

"It will have to be changed"
"Yes, we know, we always intended to change it"

LXFlyer

yascaoimhin wrote: »

It was stupid for him to say that, because it further the lie that the First Draft was ever intended to be final. The First Draft was specifically and intentionally designed to be bare bones and be wrong, because the designers knew from the state that they arent from the city and so can't have developed a network without the input of the people in the city.

"It will have to be changed"
"Yes, we know, we always intended to change it"

Well actually it wasn't really. He did pretty much sum up the general mood and reaction at the time to the requirement for many people to have to change, particularly onto already full DART or LUAS services (that particular requirement was forced on the planners by the NTA themselves which was never going to work), instead of their existing direct bus to/from the city.

It is fair to say that the NTA communications associated with the first draft was frankly atrocious, with a lot of general confusion about spines and routes, and was overly focussed on people who didn't use the bus to the detriment of those that already did.

Jarrett Walker in particular did not help matters by saying that the plan could only be changed by a relatively small measure if it was still to work, otherwise it would fall apart. That particular statement brushed a lot of people up the wrong way, and got their backs up unnecessarily.

He subsequently admitted that they got the communications strategy with the first draft badly wrong, and were on the back foot from the word go.

But thankfully, the resultant furore meant a lot of lessons were learned, and that the next draft was significantly changed from the first, with most direct links to/from the city reinstated by adding additional routes and re-routing existing ones. It was much better communicated too.

By and large the final plan satisfies most of the concerns and it's a much better network for the city than the original proposal.

AngryLips

LXFlyer wrote: »

Jarrett Walker in particular did not help matters by saying that the plan could only be changed by a relatively small measure if it was still to work, otherwise it would fall apart. That particular statement brushed a lot of people up the wrong way, and got their backs up unnecessarily.

I honestly don't know where this guy earned his credentials with that initial proposal because it put ideology over practicality. And I'm no sure how suggesting a network with fewer direct services to the city centre would encourage modal shift. The benefits of his approach are a complete mystery

LXFlyer

AngryLips wrote: »

I honestly don't know where this guy earned his credentials with that initial proposal because it put ideology over practicality. And I'm no sure how suggesting a network with fewer direct services to the city centre would encourage modal shift. The benefits of his approach are a complete mystery

Bear in mind that the NTA set a lot of the parameters at the outset within which he and his team were supposed to work - namely reducing the number of direct services going to/from the city, and encouraging more transfers to DART and LUAS services despite them being already full at peak times.

A lot of it stemmed from pre-conceived notions held by certain people within the NTA, and also them not necessarily believing what they were being told by Dublin Bus.

But hey, it was a basis to start with, and it produced the biggest reaction to any consultation held, and most of the bizarre elements of that first plan were changed. It was certainly a learning curve for some within the NTA.

AngryLips

LXFlyer wrote: »

But hey, it was a basis to start with, and it produced the biggest reaction to any consultation held, and most of the bizarre elements of that first plan were changed. It was certainly a learning curve for some within the NTA.

In a way, it was quite politically astute of them to put forward an extremely radical plan so that the compromise option would be seen as much more palatable in comparison, even though the version of BusConnects that we're getting is still an absolutely massive change.

Muahahaha

LXFlyer wrote: »

The silver rails are branch deflectors - most of the existing fleet have them already albeit usually only on the near side.

Are those rails the norm now with double deckers in the UK as well? And why the need to fit the fleet with them, is there an acceptance that they cant cut branches quick enough when they grow out in the summer or something?

Im wondering as well how long it will be before some young lad climbs up there to ride the bus and sticks the video up online

LXFlyer

Muahahaha wrote: »

Are those rails the norm now with double deckers in the UK as well? And why the need to fit the fleet with them, is there an acceptance that they cant cut branches quick enough when they grow out in the summer or something?

Im wondering as well how long it will be before some young lad climbs up there to ride the bus and sticks the video up online

They are a standard feature on double deck buses just to protect the bodywork and front window from low hanging or outlying branches.

There will always be the odd branch not cut back - remember that only happens when the tree lopper bus goes out once a year.

As I said before, they are not a new feature. Go and look at any other double deck operated by Dublin Bus or Go Ahead.

They all have them already - mostly on the near side. In fact the EV Class have had them since delivered in 2007.

You just never noticed them before! :-)

Thelonious Monk

https://twitter.com/ccferrie/status/1408848474842480640

I despair for this country sometimes. Sometimes we are going to just have to push projects through for the greater good, we keep getting held up by these poxy NIMBYs.

LXFlyer

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://twitter.com/ccferrie/status/1408848474842480640

I despair for this country sometimes. Sometimes we are going to just have to push projects through for the greater good, we keep getting held up by these poxy NIMBYs.

Hopefully the planning application to ABP will set out exactly how those fears above about rat running will be dealt with through the traffic management plan.

donvito99

BusDisconnects wrote: »

<snip> Mod:Post Deleted

Ha, loving this new angle.

donvito99

BusDisconnects wrote: »

<snip>

<snip> Mod: Commenting on a deleted post.

donvito99

BusDisconnects wrote: »

<snip>

I smell a re-reg.

specialbyte

I suspect many of you here will find this presentation from a former NTA project manager on the BusConnects Core Bus Corridors. It's mostly focused on how they are designing the junctions to maximise the number of people they can move through them versus the number of vehicles. There's lots of other small tidbits of information in there too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odNl5gRwbxo

densification

specialbyte wrote: »

I suspect many of you here will find this presentation from a former NTA project manager on the BusConnects Core Bus Corridors. It's mostly focused on how they are designing the junctions to maximise the number of people they can move through them versus the number of vehicles. There's lots of other small tidbits of information in there too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odNl5gRwbxo

I can’t believe they’re going to put traffic lights at a bus stop island. So completely unnecessary. Maybe they’re struggling to use the €1m per day on cycling.

CatInABox

densification wrote: »

I can’t believe they’re going to put traffic lights at a bus stop island. So completely unnecessary. Maybe they’re struggling to use the €1m per day on cycling.

What's hilarious is how they show a junction that's a total death trap, and then show their own design, eschewing all international design knowledge, and be like "here's our great new junction", while it's still mostly a death trap.

Really, hilarious...

densification

CatInABox wrote: »

What's hilarious is how they show a junction that's a total death trap, and then show their own design, eschewing all international design knowledge, and be like "here's our great new junction", while it's still mostly a death trap.

Really, hilarious...

BusConnects round 1: terrible junctions with death strip cycle lanes

Round 2: some excellent Dutch style segregated junctions

Round 3: half arsed Dutch junctions with left hook conflict and no ‘free’ left turns

CatInABox

densification wrote: »

BusConnects round 1: terrible junctions with death strip cycle lanes

Round 2: some excellent Dutch style segregated junctions

Round 3: half arsed Dutch junctions with left hook conflict and no ‘free’ left turns

The worst thing is that they're not saying, "oh, this was a compromise that we were forced into, and we'd love to do better", they seem to be saying "yes, we're great for coming up with these ideas, and other countries will soon look to us".

Bizarre how out of touch with reality they are.

yascaoimhin

densification wrote: »

I can’t believe they’re going to put traffic lights at a bus stop island. So completely unnecessary. Maybe they’re struggling to use the €1m per day on cycling.

Disability groups are presenting the perceived threat to their members by bikes instead of the measured actual threat
Evidence shows from London, that all that is needed is zebras and bikes slow down, they tested and as time went on people with disabilities reported a reduced perception of threat.

densification

yascaoimhin wrote: »

Disability groups are presenting the perceived threat to their members by bikes instead of the measured actual threat
Evidence shows from London, that all that is needed is zebras and bikes slow down, they tested and as time went on people with disabilities reported a reduced perception of threat.

There already are a couple of island bus stops on S2S, the N11 etc without any issues. They are a compromise for sure but they’re better than cyclists nearly getting hit by buses.

Disability groups were also against Dutch style junctions where bikes cross paths without signals. As a result, this design was abandoned by the NTA and now we have a significantly less safe design with left hooks.

There are a few individuals in the disability community who unfortunately hate cycling and active travel as they see it as ableist.

Their complaints to the NTA etc have increased the cost and complexity of cycle lanes while making them less safe for cyclists. Extremely frustrating.

yascaoimhin

densification wrote: »

.

Disability groups were also against Dutch style junctions where bikes cross paths without signals.

The Irish Wheelchair Associations submission to the Greater Dublin Transport Strategy stated "cycle lanes should never cross footpaths", no mention of signals or anything, just they should never cross.

Effectively banning cycling.

xper

There may be a problem with the latest cycle path/bus stop designs. Twice in the last week I have stumbled while crossing one of the new bike paths built behind the reconfigured bus stops on the N11 northbound immediately north and south of the Fosters Ave junction (rebuilt as part of the new UCD cyclist entrance scheme). its very difficult to perceive the height difference between the concrete pedestrian surface raised just 1-2 inches above the tarmac cycle path and the lowered/dished section where it is flush with the tarmac at the 'intended' crossing point which is fairly narrow and not particularly aligned with direction of travel. It may be exacerbated but the fact that it was middle of a sunny day with no significant shadow cast and no detritous gathered against the lip of the concrete on the pristine new surface.

loyatemu

yascaoimhin wrote: »

The Irish Wheelchair Associations submission to the Greater Dublin Transport Strategy stated "cycle lanes should never cross footpaths", no mention of signals or anything, just they should never cross.

Effectively banning cycling.

I understand the concerns of the visually impaired, but I fail to see how cyclists are a significant danger to people in wheelchairs. Whereas there are plenty of people in wheelchairs as a result of unsafe road design. Cycle lanes are surely a of benefit to people in motorised chairs and mobility scooters as well (not to mention hand-cycles etc.)

Thinkingaboutit

loyatemu wrote: »

I understand the concerns of the visually impaired, but I fail to see how cyclists are a significant danger to people in wheelchairs. Whereas there are plenty of people in wheelchairs as a result of unsafe road design. Cycle lanes are surely a of benefit to people in motorised chairs and mobility scooters as well (not to mention hand-cycles etc.)

That I don't understand for I see a fair few hand cycles and trikes. They have voices.

Honestly they should just give the design and implementation to a Dutch man or woman and just ignore these too many cooks who spoil the broth.

loyatemu

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

That I don't understand for I see a fair few hand cycles and trikes. They have voices.

advocacy organisations are often dominated by a small number of people who may have fairly fixed views (I include cycling advocacy groups in this observation).

yascaoimhin

Interchanges, now Bus Stations, will be delivered ahead of the Core Bus Corridors to help with the delivery of the Bus Network Redesign.

Some stations; Tallaght, Blanchardstown, Liffey Valley and UCD are already commenced planning and design for construction by private land owners, which will be then handed over to the NTA without the need for CPO

https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1410561427656617984?s=20

Sam Russell

Pity that the DAA would not build a decent bus station at the airport, with proper management with arrival and destination boards - just like they do for those things that fly around there.

AngryLips

Sam Russell wrote: »

Pity that the DAA would not build a decent bus station at the airport, with proper management with arrival and destination boards - just like they do for those things that fly around there.

They could call it Terminal 3 ...bus's on time

punisher5112

Will these have toilet facilities for drivers and the public??

VeryOwl

Sam Russell wrote: »

Pity that the DAA would not build a decent bus station at the airport, with proper management with arrival and destination boards - just like they do for those things that fly around there.

Agreed. The bus station at Dublin Airport is scattershot, messy, amateurish and very unfriendly if you're unfamiliar with it. I hope if Metro North isn't cancelled again they take the opportunity to fix it.