College Green Plaza -- public consultation open

suicide_circus wrote: »

I would imagine the plethora of barriers can be attributed to our old friend Compo Culture. DCC gets the arse sued out of it on a daily basis. If barriers offer them some protection, they'll lash out the barriers. this is why we cant have nice things.

wakka12 wrote: »

Is suffolk street definitely going to be pedestrienised regardless? Because it always seems to be closed to cars the last few times Ive been in town

Thread bump. Anyone hear anything about this?

I get the feeling it's one of those projects, great public support, funding available etc. quietly dumped because someone powerful no likey.

Same with Liffey cycle route and the Clontarf Cycle route (now quietly dumped forever).

Is 'autumn' an official update given somewhere or is this inside info?

Clontraf construction was pegged to start this August...radio silence for months and no contractor appointed so not sure what the public is supposed to think.

which will happen first - the CG pedestrianisation, the opening of the Metro, or the engulfing of the Earth as the Sun becomes a red giant?

I don't get the rationale behind the delay. Its a fairly straightforward scheme from a planning point of view. Even if you had to move a bench or 2 afterwards. What am I missing. I guess like all the other DCC schemes it's on the never never.

This isn’t news.

It was already stated that it needed BusConnects to happen.

The revised city centre network plan allows for the plaza to extend up to George’s Street.

Right now there are too many routes using George’s Street and Dame Street to do it without causing a lot of lengthy diversions and longer journey times

.

Simply put:

Every phase requires additional buses - that needs capital funding approval. The buses have to be ordered and manufactured.

Each phase also requires extra drivers - that needs more PSO funding.

That has to come out of government funding and that is limited to three phases a year.

Another reason is the length of time it takes to create and revised rosters for drivers (and then to get them agreed with staff) and buses that allow for the new schedules to be operated. That is a very time consuming task (it can take months for one set of routes) and requires specialist staff. Dublin Bus and GoAhead would have limited numbers of these staff.

The schedulers were up to their eyes last year keeping the buses operating during that period and at the same time keeping all staff working. DB didn’t lay off driving staff so that in itself would have required a lot of work as it meant reworking existing staff rosters .

The notion that you could also at the same time then come up with brand new working timetables and rosters for a completely network in the timeframe suggested in the post above is beyond ridiculous. It just isn’t possible. This sort of work is exceptionally complex.

The final network was only published in September 2020 so it would have been a tad difficult to do it in April 2020 even allowing for the issues that I mentioned above. You can’t implement something that hasn’t been finalised.

Well maybe you should talk with the Minister for Public Expenditure then. He’s the one holding the purse strings.

As for the rest, well perhaps you can share your personal knowledge of how quickly bus and driver rosters and working timetables can be drawn up that are in compliance with EU driving hours, and then agreed with the unions, and that match the available resources. The phasing also is dependent on bus manufacturers being able to deliver the required buses in time.

There’s also capex required for all the new physical bus stops as they are rolled out.

They are all valid explanations - not one of them is “an excuse”. Just because you don’t like the sound of them, doesn’t mean that they are not valid.

The network redesign is a hell of a lot more work than changing numbers on the displays on the front of buses, which some people seem to think is all that is involved.

Before posting something as daft as that, perhaps check your facts first. Network Direct was implemented "in a matter of weeks" you think?

The first phase was implemented on Sunday 19th September 2010.

The final phase was implemented on Sunday 18th November 2012, which is over two years later.

Not in any way, shape, or form, was it implemented "in a matter of weeks".

And Network Direct was nothing like as radical as BusConnects. It didn't involve service expansion and staffing increases which this project certainly does, nor did it involve a completely different way of scheduling than used before. It was contracting the bus service rather than expanding it.

The orbitals and the Swords areas were never changed in that project.

What are the main responses from the businesses located around the proposed plaza in GG? Have they expressed any sense of disappointment that it will be delayed for another 3 years?

There was a road closure today at Christchurch / Winetavern Street, to conduct an experiment to see if two buses can pass one another while going under the archway, and what kind of clearance they have. I know, I always moved out when going down that hill and I don't think another bus would have been able to pass me.

This is one of the routes proposed for buses when the College Green plaza is closed completely and would enable routes to cross the city.

Someone mentioned back up the thread that the plaza has been delayed for 3 years- anyone know the reason given?

The key bit is the revised bus network and the changes that bus routes will take through the city centre and in particular matching different corridors up for cross-city routes.

The revised network makes avoiding College Green a lot easier as it removes all of the right turns at O’Connell Bridge, and would eliminate the need for the long dog-legs/detours that would be required for the routes currently using Dame Street and Sth Great George’s St. It would also mean not putting everything onto the Quays as the original DCC proposal did.