Advertisement
Private Profiles - an update on how they will be changing here
We've partnered up with Nixers.com to offer a space where you can talk directly to Peter from Nixers.com and get an exclusive Boards.ie discount code for a free job listing. If you are recruiting or know anyone else who is please check out the forum here.

Cork - BusConnects

1246

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,774 ✭✭✭ donvito99


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    The problem with that approach was, as I said, that the Dublin Choices report was simply too high level, and to be honest the population responding was rather skewed towards those with a specific interest in the topic.

    It clearly wasn’t what people wanted as the result of the first draft proved in relation to existing journeys to/from the city.

    This just demonstrates that the public really don't know what they want and that there's only so much use to a public consultation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,540 ✭✭✭✭ LXFlyer


    donvito99 wrote: »
    This just demonstrates that the public really don't know what they want and that there's only so much use to a public consultation.

    Well actually, they generally do know what they want when a detailed plan is presented.

    When extremely high level and simplistic options (or questions) are presented or posed, you can get a very skewed response because people don’t fully understand the implications.

    That original choices report was far too high level and simplistic.

    The number of responses to the first draft network proposal I think would counter your theory didn’t know what they wanted. They didn’t want changing to the degree it required, that much was clear.


  • Registered Users Posts: 73 ✭✭ densification


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    Well actually, they generally do know what they want when a detailed plan is presented.

    When extremely high level and simplistic options (or questions) are presented or posed, you can get a very skewed response because people don’t fully understand the implications.

    That original choices report was far too high level and simplistic.

    The number of responses to the first draft network proposal I think would counter your theory didn’t know what they wanted. They didn’t want changing to the degree it required, that much was clear.

    I’ve been changing buses on my commutes for years. It’s grand when there both frequent and have enough capacity. Maybe it’s a fear of the unknown?

    I wonder how much opposition was stoked up by opportunistic politicians who thought they could start a local campaign and get their name out there .


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,540 ✭✭✭✭ LXFlyer


    I’ve been changing buses on my commutes for years. It’s grand when there both frequent and have enough capacity. Maybe it’s a fear of the unknown?

    I wonder how much opposition was stoked up by opportunistic politicians who thought they could start a loca
    l campaign and get their name out there .

    I would agree with the emboldened section.

    However, without digressing too much, the original BusConnects network proposal, while developing the Spines and introducing many new orbital routes:

    * Involved removing many existing direct connections to/from the city centre
    * Actually reduced the number of buses going through the city centre (thereby reducing capacity)
    * Redirected many routes to local DART/LUAS stations/stops onto rail based services that were already jammed
    * Often featured low frequency connecting services (30/60 mins) at outer areas replacing direct links to/from the city
    * Was introducing these without putting the necessary infrastucture in place to guarantee that the connecting service from the city would arrive on time to meet that low frequency outer route
    * Removed bus services from many existing routes altogether redirecting people onto main roads

    That was all produced on the basis of an online survey which asked very simplistic, high level questions, about attitudes towards changing en route, but didn't mention removing existing direct connections to/from the city centre, low frequency connecting routes for certain areas, enforced transfers to/from LUAS/DART etc.

    My point being that if you ask a set of simple questions, you can get a desired result very easily from the questionnaire.

    The devil, especially when it comes to public transport networks, is in the detail. That's what led to the far superior network in the final proposal.

    Hence I think they need to just get on with this and focus on producing the revised network in Cork that:

    *Delivers Spines with integrated timetables on them at high frequency
    *Greatly enhances the number of orbital services (and at high frequency) - these are key as these are the ones that really aren't served by public transport in any of our cities - they are the ones that can deliver results through changing with Spine services

    If the "Choices" report is just a statement towards that, then fine, but if it is another high level online survey, then frankly I view it as pointless, as it would be nothing more than a box ticking exercise.

    The design team will learn far more from the responses to the detailed plan that they produce about what people want, and it's important that at the same time that they make it clear that the plan can be changed to meet those needs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,540 ✭✭✭✭ LXFlyer


    And the Choices Report has been published.....

    https://busconnects.ie/busconnects-cork/


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 952 ✭✭✭ Rulmeq


    Trains are very expensive to run


    Wow.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,033 ✭✭✭ snotboogie


    I thought the routes were supposed to be published in October?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,217 ✭✭✭ hans aus dtschl


    I was thinking same. Another missed schedule deadline..



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,999 ✭✭✭ cgcsb




  • Registered Users Posts: 16,721 ✭✭✭✭ namloc1980


    Being published today according to the Examiner.

    This part in the article is a bit of a concern though:

    The infrastructure element of BusConnects Cork, the delivery of more than 100km of bus lanes, is being addressed through a separate process.


    Post edited by namloc1980 on


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 9,136 Mod ✭✭✭✭ CatInABox


    Same as the Dublin one really, the network rejig is separate to the infrastructure works. If you think about it, tying the two together would just delay the network rollout unnecessarily. There'll probably be infrastructure that comes with the network as well, like the bus interchange at Liffey Valley that they've started work on.



  • Registered Users Posts: 80 ✭✭ sheff_


    Details including route maps are up on the bus connects website now



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,217 ✭✭✭ hans aus dtschl


    Yep I was just going to say the same: what's on the site now is definitely new:

    https://busconnects.ie/busconnects-cork/



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,671 ✭✭✭✭ markodaly


    The infrastructure side of things will be a real challenge. I hope they succeed.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,721 ✭✭✭✭ namloc1980


    BusConnects network redesign now live.





  • Registered Users Posts: 16,721 ✭✭✭✭ namloc1980


    No bus service proposed on South Terrace, George's Quay, Grand Parade or South Mall. Those are busy bus corridors at the moment but will not have any buses under BusConnects.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,217 ✭✭✭ hans aus dtschl


    No obvious sign of any new P&R, but maybe that will be in a later stage.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,721 ✭✭✭✭ namloc1980


    Direct link from Kent to UCC and MTU seems to be gone (currently the #5). The new 2A from MTU bypasses both the train station and the bus station. Strange one.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,999 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    Fares: 90 minute fare including rail and luas.


    First official document I've seen referring to corks proposed light rail as 'luas' at least that's settled. Still no branding hints for the 'CART'



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,033 ✭✭✭ snotboogie


    Unless I'm reading this wrong it looks like a massive scale down from what was proposed in CMATs and initial drafts. No orbital routes at all and for Douglas, where I live there, seems to be significant reductions of frequency on the 206 and 220 with the only new route being a second bus taking a different route to Carrigaline :/ Hugely underwhelming from what I can see



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,721 ✭✭✭✭ namloc1980


    The only orbital that comes close to what was in CMATS is the new 14 from Little Island to CUH via the tunnel and Douglas. On the corridor from Douglas to the city there is a 10 minute frequency for midday on a weekday and likely higher at rush hour. Frequency looks ok to me there.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,033 ✭✭✭ snotboogie


    Regarding the two main spines out of Douglas to the city, the South Douglas Road and the Douglas Road, CMATs had 6 routes on the South Douglas Road and 4 on the Douglas Road, this plan has one route on each. CMATs would have resulted in a bus about every 2 minutes on each road. This plan will have one every 20 minutes on the South Douglas Road (down from every 15 minutes currently) and one every 10 minutes on the Douglas Road (up from every 15 minutes currently) leaving essentially the same frequency as is in place now. Its an extraordinary downgrade from what was planned.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,721 ✭✭✭✭ namloc1980


    CMATS wasn't really a plan but just an indicative although take the point BusConnects appears to fall well short of it. Having looked again the Douglas Road will actually have a much higher frequency than 10 per min and has more than 1 route on it. It'll have the:

    • 3 from Carrigaline @ 10 minute frequency
    • 8 from Grange @ 15 minute frequency
    • 12 from Carrigaline via Passage @ 30 minute frequency

    That should translate to a c.5 minute frequency. The South Douglas Road is definitely a bit lacking at 20 minute frequencies.



  • Registered Users Posts: 456 ✭✭ KrisW1001


    It seems crazy that not one bus will serve South Mall or Grand Parade, given the investment in making those streets amenable to public transport.

    Also, not keen to see that the bus network hub has been moved out to City Hall - dumping pedestrians who want to go into the city centre right on the most pedestrian-hostile set of roads in Cork.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,033 ✭✭✭ snotboogie


    Ya but you also currently have the 207 every 30 mins, the 216 every 30 minutes, the 220 every 15 minutes and the 223 every hour. It's going from 9 buses an hour to 12 buses an hour on the Douglas Road and from 4 buses an hour to 3 buses an hour on the South Douglas Road. An overall upgrade in frequency of 2 buses per hour covering the entiretity of Douglas, Passage, Rochestown and Carrigaline.

    It is remarkably unambitious for the population and lack of other options in the regions. Its really a minor adjustment rather than any sort of overhaul. Arguably the 220 going from every 30 minutes to every 15 minutes was bigger than this plan.



  • Registered Users Posts: 456 ✭✭ KrisW1001


    I think you’re comparing peak-time now with off-peak under the new plan. The times quoted in the brochure and other materials are for daytime during weekdays - between the morning and evening peak periods



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,721 ✭✭✭✭ namloc1980


    Yeah it's a bit wild. A lot of the cross city buses are all being funnelled down Patrick St in this redesign. Panaban will need to be enforced full time otherwise it will be chaos down there.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,721 ✭✭✭✭ namloc1980


    The frequency quoted in the documents is at 12 midday on a weekday so you would assume it would be higher again at morning and evening rush hour.



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,540 ✭✭✭✭ LXFlyer



    To be fair to snotboogie, they are quoting current off-peak frequencies and comparing them with the same frequencies in the new plan.

    The full frequencies over the entire day are in the full report (https://busconnects.ie/media/2292/report-on-the-draft-new-network-print-quality.pdf) at page 47-49 and existing frequencies at pages 50-52.

    Comparing morning peak frequency between 07:00 and 09:00:

    206 - 8 buses

    207 - 5 buses

    216 - 4 buses

    220 - 8 buses

    220X - 4 buses

    223 - 4 buses

    The new proposal will have departures between 07:00 and 09:00:

    3 - 12 buses

    7 - 6 buses

    8 - 7 buses

    12 - 8 buses

    41x - 3 buses

    42x - 2 buses

    Also the new 6 will operate from Grange Road via Kinsale Road (buses having previously been an outbound 8) - 7 buses

    Also the 14 orbital would be 4 departures versus 2 currently on the 219.

    Remember also that most single deck vehicles (if not all) in the Cork city fleet are going to be replaced by double decks, so frequency isn't the only capacity change happening.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,999 ✭✭✭ cgcsb


    It's funny the comments here are almost a carbon copy of the comments that were made on the first draft of the Dublin bus connects scheme, some areas left with a de facto reduction in service and generally underwhelming compared to the city strategy. With most people coming to concensus on the second draft and near universal support on third draft. I wonder is it deliberate, a way to get acceptance, albeit long drawn out.


    Thw infrastructure proposals will make a bigger hit.



Advertisement