Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dublin - BusConnects

1126127128129130132»

Comments

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,326 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    It is incorrect that Swords will be the 3rd or 4th one since it is being JRd. Ringsend is more likely. Lucan is also clear to go but it's too close to Liffey Valley CBC.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,326 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    I've updated post #2 on this thread with the list of 12 schemes and the status for each as it's hard to keep track of otherwise. I'm going to keep the list updated there.

    (Why post #2? Because for some reason I couldn't edit post #1.)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,722 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    That post was on the basis of briefing notes prepared for councillors at a recent Dublin City Council meeting.

    I've yet to see confirmation of who actually is taking that JR on the Swords CBC.

    Post edited by LXFlyer on


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,326 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    Perhaps the JR won’t go ahead. Hopefully not, there are far too many as it is.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,631 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Thanks, we also have this thread and on the second post I try and keep track of the status of various projects, where they are in planning, JR's, etc.

    I just added some info about Swords and Bray JRs



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70 ✭✭Woah


    https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2025/0424/1509153-bus-connects/

    So the Liffey valley scheme is being watered down despite no JR. What was the point of all this planning and money to change it at the last minute



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,443 ✭✭✭VonLuck


    "The Ballyfermot roundabout, if you ask anybody where they're going in Ballyfermot, everyone says the roundabout.

    "It's part of our heritage and it's part of our culture. And if that goes, the heart of Ballyfermot goes."

    Good lord.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,008 ✭✭✭✭cgcsb


    We're done for



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,008 ✭✭✭✭cgcsb


    To be clear there is pretty much never customer parking along the main stretch there as it is because the spaces are permanently occupied by, drumroll....the staff that work there and live 200 metres away.



  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 23,631 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    This is almost always the case IME! Same down at Clontarf and Fairview, they talk about customer parking, but it is always the same cars parked outside all day long every day, some customer!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 233 ✭✭Bsharp


    On Liffey Valley would they have to back for a formal planning amendment to change the design that much? It's not related to a condition. Could open up the whole scheme to more public consultation, and JRs.

    Madness, sure let's just change everything while we're at it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,008 ✭✭✭✭cgcsb


    At this stage I think most right minded people are just exhausted with the inaction, nimbyism and naval gazing, just cancel it already. It's clear there's no will to actually improve public transport



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 263 ✭✭specialbyte


    They are not cosmetic see linked PDF here:

    Dropping the one-way system for cars traffic through Ballyfermot village to provide two-way car access by removing sections of bus lane, removing a modal filter, changing junction layouts. That first one probably undermines half of the EIA conclusions around traffic, noise etc.

    No surprise then that there is a new petition from two local Ballyfermot mams calling on the NTA to build the approved scheme: https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-rollback-move-forward-with-making-ballyer-roads-safer-for-all



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,722 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    I think that most right minded people aren’t the ones objecting, but the ones that do have a constitutional right to do so, no matter how much you or I may wish that they couldn’t object.

    Two schemes are out to tender to start construction this year, things are happening.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,008 ✭✭✭✭cgcsb


    No problem with people objecting, problem is with post consultation, post planning, nonsense objections trumping actual design standards, policy, democratic process and planning procedure for no reason and with no mandate to do so. Hopefully this will go to court now for a few years until it's killed off.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,886 ✭✭✭dublinman1990


    That new CBC design proposal to get rid of the Ballyfermot roundabout is a complete joke. Who the hell within the NTA thought that was a design that was deemed safe for both cyclists & pedestrians who want to use the new road in that part of Dublin in years to come? It makes the whole concept of BusConnects a complete farce when things like these thrown into the planning process when some residents have a hissy fit having to give up their parking spaces in the future. The original plan for the scheme was so much better & sensible than was proposed by the NTA last week.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    So is the design that the NTA just published a "Here is what you could have won" to the protesters then? Because I can't see a reason why they would publish what they have without intending it to be built, and the changes look too significant to not have some planning requirement, let alone be something a tendering party would be happy to accept at such a late stage?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,722 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Apologies - for some reason I completely missed that post containing the pdf.

    Then I'd have to agree and question how this can even be allowed given that we have gone through a full planning process. It's potentially leaving the whole process open to legal challenge surely?



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,785 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    That does seem a bit mad, to be honest.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,157 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    I live in Shankill. The NTA shot themselves in the foot with the first plan. They got the units mixed up quoted the length of the route in miles but give the units as KM. That's the worst kind of schoolboy error in my book. Also, the design was desk exercise they didn't survey the route. For example, they wanted to put 4 lanes through the village. That would make it more like the Stillorgan Road except no center median. Good luck to any parent or old person trying to cross. They also said there was no parking in village, there are dedicated parking bays on both sides. That shows no survey or ever google street view.

    They want to cut down health old trees on both sides of the village as far back as the Crinken Church. They also want to move the footpath into the park, that would mean women walking through a dark and screened off area alone at night. Not many would feel safe doing that. Form a design point of view it can only be an F.

    They also have data from bus journeys; I'd love to see them prove it beneficial. I tend to drive through village between 8:30 and 930. At 8:30 the only thing slowing cars down are the busses picking up passengers. After 9 it's very free flowing. Heading towards Bray there is no traffic. Yes, when all the land around Shankill is developed there may be an issue but right now the biggest problem is the mess they made of the change from the 145 and 155 to the E1. People are regularly badly let down getting to school, college and work. Now anybody who needs to get to DCU or Huston or from Huston to UCD have to take two busses. But they can't depend on the next two E1s showing up. There are also less E1s that 145 + 155's during peak time so less capacity.

    I know people will call this NYBYism but we deserve better than half assed design that isn't needed and a reduce service.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,722 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Isn’t reviewing the planning application what ABP are there to do?

    The other bits relate to the network - that’s a separate project. Some people will now have to change when making certain cross-city journeys - that’s a fact of life with a revised network. They have addressed the Heuston/UCD connection at peak times with the X routes on the C Spine now making that connection.

    The infrastructure is supposed to be able to cope with service increases into the future so assessing it simply on the basis of existing services isn’t exactly realistic.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    From Your experience of the village, do you reckon a bus gate either side of it would be a good solution? No road changes (outside installing a bus gate either end) just giving buses a clear run through the village? Would there be space for cycle lanes if there's no bus lanes?



  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,785 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    That redesign is actually worse than I thought, they're literally building a rat run into the design, allowing people to skip the junction completely. It's total car brain stuff, and the first time someone is hit by a car in that "road", there'll be an investigation into how badly this was managed, and the response that they'll all come put with is "how could we possibly have known that this might happen".



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,157 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    If you're talking about Shankill, it took me 3 minutes to get from Quinns road the lights at the petrol station. Most of that was from the church round about to the light. Was held up by a bus and the light as well as traffic joining from the Shanganagh road at the church roundabout. Personally I think that is good for peak time (8:30) I don't see how bus connects would get busses through faster.

    Post edited by spacetweek at


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,443 ✭✭✭VonLuck


    Put bollards in either side of the parking bays so that you can't drive straight through. Problem solved.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 70 ✭✭Woah


    Does anyone know who is best to contact about these sweeping changes to the Liffey valley scheme? I don't understand how it's compatible with the existing planning permission and really don't understand why they are caving when there is no judicial review forcing them.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 5,326 Mod ✭✭✭✭spacetweek


    It sounds 100% illegal to me.



Advertisement