Cork - BusConnects

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

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

BusConnects network redesign now live.

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

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'

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The addition of the new town service the 34 is good news for the people of Cobh. It links up with the train station at Cobh which is another plus for people who live in the area & further east of Cobh.

Link to corridors info.

No doubt. The Examiner are already framing it in a negative light going on about parking and gardens to get the nimbys worked up. It doesn't stand a chance unfortunately.

Was there not supposed to be an orbital corridor too?

The corridor that I live near is B and that will be a nightmare. And no it’s not because of NIMBY either. Unless the crowd doing this can find a way to make summerhill and particularly the hill past Dillon’s cross up towards mayfield library magically wider than I’ll tip my hat to them.

There’s supposed to be a dedicated bus lane there already(it’s marked out on the road) but it barely fits a two lanes of traffic as it is. And while you might be able to get some people to move by the library, where they expect people living between Dillon’s cross and the top of the hill where the three horse shoes pub is(was ?) to park if not near their homes then again I’ll tip my hat.

It's barely been published and the usual local nonsense has started.

Hope I'm wrong but I don't think this will ever be delivered as intended. By the time the local nimbys and politicians have their way it'll be completely watered down to the point of being useless.

The cycling provisions on route B to Mayfield have clearly been designed either by a complete non-cyclist or by a very fit sports/racing cyclist who doesn’t even notice hills. It is unrealistic to expect occasional cyclists of average fitness (relative to overall population) to divert up York Hill and Gardiners Hill instead of staying on the mainline with its easier gradients.

Those only interested in the bus aspects of the new plan may well think “I couldn’t care less”. But the relevance to you is that if the prescribed cycling detours are deemed less desirable, cyclists will just stay on the mainline, contending for lane space with buses. And the relevance of the above to private motorists is that unattractive, physically-challenging cycling routes are less likely to precipitate a mode shift, i.e. more people still in cars.

Edit: another issue with the proposed cycling detours on route B (and other routes) is that they introduce T junctions where cyclists have to yield to motorised vehicles. This is something that non-cycling planners never seem to grasp. Ability to maintain momentum is a key criterion in whether a cyclist will see a cycling-specific detour as attractive. This issue is most commonly seen when planners build cycling detours around roundabouts, requiring cyclists to yield multiple times to vehicles entering and leaving the roundabout. Utterly useless.

This might seem like a cycling tangent in the wrong thread, but the appropriateness of an integrated infrastructure to one group of users has the potential to affect all users.

As part of the Dublin project, there were a number of apparent kite flying type proposals, seemingly designed to placate certain interests but ultimately generating enough outrage that a more reasonable solution prevailed (e.g. the parallel cycle route in Rathmines that involved knocking through a couple of schools and the barracks and another bridge over the canal before the sensible online solution at the expense of cars on the main road was adopted). The initial outline is always going to shake the vested interests out of the tree and battle lines will be drawn, doesn't mean that proposals we see now are set in stone.

The thing about those anti rat-run measures, is that the locals are the ones who would stand to benefit most. Lack of through-traffic can make areas a lot more pleasant to live in, and possibly even easier for locals to access (less traffic).

But in reality I suspect that loss of front gardens and parking spaces will heavily dominate the conversation.

A lot of mistakes are made by the designers of Irish cycle infrastructure. The best stuff that's currently available in Cork has been designed for "leisure". That is to say it starts nowhere, meanders around away from anything and ends nowhere. That stuff is generally used, but won't tempt anyone out of cars.

I cycle a lot but can't think of any cycle infrastructure that I regularly use to actually get anywhere. I regularly cycle on the road avoiding existing cycle infrastructure because it puts me at a disadvantage and/or puts me in danger.

Also, much of the existing cycle infrastructure is piecemeal, existing for extremely short stretches where it's least needed. And if someone is confident enough to cycle on the road for a good chunk of their journey, they're also going to be confident enough to stay on the road where the junk cycle infrastructure exists.

Again, as the previous poster has said, if you don't cycle then a lot of what exists may appear to be quite fit-for-purpose. Unfortunately the majority of it is not. It's like able-bodied people designing for those with mobility impairments: if you don't understand the basic needs, you're not going to do it very well.

We do have those types of camera here alright. M50 toll would have been the most obvious. The recent N/M20 team have said that any tolls on their new infrastructure will be done this way. I believe speed averaging is just being brought in on the M7 also, using the same technology.

I'd prefer the pop-up bollards if I'm honest, because the "fine" system allows rich people to do as they please, or allows contractors to price the fines into their project work, both undermining the entire purpose of the system.