Marlborough Street Public Transport Priority Bridge

monument · 09-09-2011 10:17pm #1

This might deserve a thread of its own at this stage?

As mentioned in the Luas BXD thread, the tender for the bridge as been awarded to Graham Projects Limited. Graham have been involved with other high profile bridge projects before.

From Dublin City Council's page on the project:

Dublin City Council is planning to build a new bridge over the River Liffey in Dublin City Centre, just downstream of O’Connell Bridge. The bridge will carry buses and the LUAS at this critical location across the Liffey. It will have cycleways and generous footpaths that will open Marlborough Street and Hawkins Street to greater footfall, prospective development and create a new north-south link from Abbey Street to Pearse Street.

The bridge will have an elegant contemporary design. It will be a slender, single span, smooth concrete structure, with the underside of the bridge being designed to be as high above the water as possible so that river traffic is not impeded.

Construction on the bridge is due to commence in Autumn 2011. It will take approximately 18 months to build.

And here's the layout -- click for fuller view:

More detailed draws of the above and other elements can also be found in this PDF here.

CdeP · 09-09-2011 10:29pm

Why does it have to have a contemporary design?

teol · 10-09-2011 12:11pm

I don't support the Luas BXD project but what use does the bridge have for buses?

L1011 · 10-09-2011 12:19pm

teol wrote: »

I don't support the Luas BXD project but what use does the bridge have for buses?

enables buses to use Malborough Street to get to the South Quays.

CdeP wrote: »

Why does it have to have a contemporary design?

Because its far easier (and cheaper) to build than a stone arch... and Dublin's bridges have alway been built to current designs.

Cathaoirleach · 10-09-2011 12:34pm

The boardwalk isn't integrated. This should give the junkies more privacy and encourage even more anti-social behaviour.

cgcsb · 10-09-2011 4:55pm

construction to start in Autumn 2011?? as if.

Telchak · 10-09-2011 6:38pm

Cathaoirleach wrote: »

The boardwalk isn't integrated. This should give the junkies more privacy and encourage even more anti-social behaviour.

Yeah, I really don't understand why every opening onto the boardwalk isn't done like Grattan Bridge, meeting it at a roght angle instead of merging back intot he tiny path. Especially modern bridges like the Millenim bridge and this one :mad:

xper · 15-09-2011 12:31am

monument wrote: »

More detailed draws of the above and other elements can also be found in this PDF here.

I'm no engineer but looking at the cross section diagram on page 8 of that document, it appears that the bridge deck's underlying structure is arranged with absolutely no provision for facilitating a second Luas track. So any possible future change of mind on running both tracks through Marlborough Street has not been considered. Then again, maybe such changes would not be prohibitively expensive or disruptive - anyone with more specialist knowledge care to comment?

Sponge Bob · 15-09-2011 12:35am

That is true, Marlborough St is a tad narrow ( to my mind) for two parallel Luas tracks and the Marlborough St BXD line is supposed to be southbound only.

dubhthach · 15-09-2011 7:17pm

Sponge Bob wrote: »

That is true, Marlborough St is a tad narrow ( to my mind) for two parallel Luas tracks and the Marlborough St BXD line is supposed to be southbound only.

You could probably just about squeese a dual track Luas in, but result would be street would have to be closed for all other traffic I would imagine.

Google streetview:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Marlborough+Street,+Dublin,+Ireland&hl=en&ll=53.348105,-6.257379&spn=0.008288,0.02238&sll=53.344104,-6.267494&sspn=0.265226,0.716171&vpsrc=0&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.348026,-6.25736&panoid=VTncAXn3y5SYSdld8zYh9A&cbp=12,342.75,,0,2.33

Sponge Bob · 15-09-2011 11:37pm

Then the guards from Store St. on a routine skanger chasing exercise would take the entire Dublin transport integration strategy out of commission on a regular basis

Just an observation mind.

antoobrien · 16-09-2011 10:59am

dubhthach wrote: »

You could probably just about squeese a dual track Luas in, but result would be street would have to be closed for all other traffic I would imagine.

Not necessarily, there are stretches of the luas where road traffic and the trams share access based on lights - e.g. Steevens Lane near Hueston.

What would decide it though would be the impact of stopping traffic to let trams though - e.g. would it be safe to stop traffic at abbey st, what would the knock on effects be etc.

munchkin_utd · 16-09-2011 12:02pm

dubhthach wrote: »

You could probably just about squeese a dual track Luas in, but result would be street would have to be closed for all other traffic I would imagine.

Google streetview:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Marlborough+Street,+Dublin,+Ireland&hl=en&ll=53.348105,-6.257379&spn=0.008288,0.02238&sll=53.344104,-6.267494&sspn=0.265226,0.716171&vpsrc=0&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.348026,-6.25736&panoid=VTncAXn3y5SYSdld8zYh9A&cbp=12,342.75,,0,2.33

theres only 1 track planned down that road.
And if you look at the bridge, theres only 1 tram track there also, right in the middle of the bridge.

dubhthach · 16-09-2011 12:10pm

munchkin_utd wrote: »

theres only 1 track planned down that road.
And if you look at the bridge, theres only 1 tram track there also, right in the middle of the bridge.

I know that I was just answering Sponge's post

AngryLips · 16-09-2011 5:07pm

I think there's such a thing as too much future-proofing

monument · 16-09-2011 5:49pm

The northbound and southbound BXD tracks could easily fit on Marlborough Street -- you'd have to take out parking, coach parking stop Dublin Bus using it as a small depot and access would have to be limited to limit tram disruption -- but it's more than doable and there would be less overall disruption than the current plan. In fact Marlborough Street would benefit from been dug up, O'Connell Street doesn't need that kind of disruption again so soon.

It's also possible the bridge could take the two tracks.

10-10-2011 6:41am

AngryLips wrote: »

I think there's such a thing as too much future-proofing

Have we seen much of that in Ireland?

In large-scale infrastructure projects, it's critical not to paint yourself into a corner, we already did that with the red & green luas lines as they are at present. Difficult choices made a few years ago would've saved a lot of hassle now.

It's crazy the south-side bias that the luas was given. Not everyone considers Stephen's Green to be the centre of the city.

Gumbo · 14-10-2011 10:37pm

xper wrote: »

I'm no engineer but looking at the cross section diagram on page 8 of that document, it appears that the bridge deck's underlying structure is arranged with absolutely no provision for facilitating a second Luas track. So any possible future change of mind on running both tracks through Marlborough Street has not been considered. Then again, maybe such changes would not be prohibitively expensive or disruptive - anyone with more specialist knowledge care to comment?

could they control entry onto the bridge at either side with traffic lights, and a cross over junction to only allow one luas at any given time in one direction only. just a thought?

L1011 · 15-10-2011 7:02pm

kceire wrote: »

could they control entry onto the bridge at either side with traffic lights, and a cross over junction to only allow one luas at any given time in one direction only. just a thought?

They could, and its done elsewhere, but its extreme hassle.

There's a few of these in Amsterdam for narrow bridges or streets, This GSV shows one for a narrow street, but seeing as Amsterdam also has manually operated points (driver jumps out and uses a pole), single-sided trams and sometimes used to lock off the validators to make you use a conductor, there's a lot we DON'T want to copy from the GVB.

trluk · 25-01-2012 12:17pm

The City Council are pressing ahead with this. It seems daft ...

Marlborough Street bridge plan looks increasingly absurd amid decimated city centre traffic levels

Dublin is still reeling from its boom period and the cacophony of high-flown plans it threw up. Now that it’s all over, how do the various projects stand up?

One boom-era plan that seems set to proceed is Dublin City Council’s building of a “public transport priority” bridge over the Liffey between Marlborough Street and Hawkins Street.

Conceived as a relief bridge while Metro North was under construction at adjacent O’Connell Bridge, it would later accommodate a southbound line of the city-centre Luas link, plus buses and taxis.

Metro North is more or less cancelled, and the Luas link, while pencilled in to proceed in 2015, has yet to secure funding of an estimated €170 million.

The location of the new bridge so close to O’Connell Bridge was always problematic, but it was accepted by city stakeholders in the context of plans at the time, and passed through the planning system with little or no objection.

But now, with the dramatic decline in city-centre traffic levels over the past three or four years, and changes to other plans, the Marlborough Street – Hawkins Street bridge is becoming an increasingly absurd idea.

It will effectively provide a broad new multi-lane road bridge a few metres to the east of the widest bridge in the country and one of the widest of its kind in the world.

The bridge has no real circulation gain, as it simply leaves and enters the same traffic circulation system that already exists in the area, serving only to bypass O’Connell Bridge.

Nor is the bridge needed by Luas - the wide streets handed down to us by the Georgian planners of the 18th century give ample space along O’Connell Street and Westmoreland Street for a Luas line travelling in each direction, plus vehicle, cycle lane and footpath space.

When and if the Luas link eventually comes to be constructed, the obvious route to take (and despite the results of ‘route selection’ processes) is that of the original alignment with both directions running along O’Connell Street, O’Connell Bridge and Westmoreland Street, not least for the reduced costs of keeping the two lines together.

The city centre streets and bridges are the product of the great period of classical urban planning in the 18th century. Bridges on the Liffey were built at a consistent distance from each other, and the river and streets led to views of carefully positioned setpiece buildings.

The regular spacing of bridges along the Liffey was observed for hundreds of years, until 2003 when James Joyce Bridge was built in-between two older bridges near Queen Street. The disorienting, incoherent effect of bridges built close to one another here is plain for all to see.

James Joyce Bridge makes no sense in its location, although it was in fact a legacy of Dublin Corporation’s insane 1960s road plans for central Dublin and should arguably have been shelved when the body of those plans were shelved in the 1980s.

Likewise, combined factors today including the recession, the opening of the Samuel Beckett relief bridge in the docklands and the huge increase in the popularity of cycling arising from the Cycle to Work and bike rental schemes have radically changed traffic conditions in the centre over past the past couple of years, and future plans provide for further reduction of traffic.

The justification for the Marlborough Street – Hawkins Street bridge is now extremely shaky and we should face up to it. It is a product of the distorted, addled period that was the economic boom in Dublin, and its unprecedented pressures.

The minor circulation gain in linking Marlborough Street and Hawkins Street will be massively outweighed by its impact on the plan of one of Europe’s great classical cities.

Proceeding with the bridge now will repeat the town-planning mistake of James Joyce Bridge on a grand scale and will leave another stain on the record of Dublin City Council.

It is not too late to reconsider. The site has been hoarded off since the New Year but no construction work has begun. A review of the bridge should now be undertaken by the government.

http://news-beacon-ireland.info/?p=1780

Cool Mo D · 25-01-2012 12:21pm

There has not been a dramatic decline in city centre traffic. It's not quite as busy as it once was, but it is still extremely congested.

Sponge Bob · 25-01-2012 12:26pm

There is a thread about this bridge already

I don't suppose you will confess to writing that article yourself trluk ....and maybe tell us why??

robd · 25-01-2012 1:30pm

To be honest the Luas should not run down O'Connell street. It would be better running down Marlborough Street in both directions having a dedicated segregated street to itself. Definitely Luas shouldn't run up/down 2 separate streets.

It's certainly a waste of money proceeding with the bridge at the moment. Should only be built as part of Luas project.

Valid points about no real offering as a Bus only bridge.

Guess thats politics though.

Anyway, what's the point in arguing this. Construction has already started.

Winters · 25-01-2012 2:38pm

Very good reasons to reconsider this piece of unnecessary expenditure and I agree completely with the Luas going down O'Connell Strasse in both directions.

The street is wide enough certainly, its just the disruption to traffic during construction phase and then to buses and taxis that DCC were worried about. RPA looked at Marlborough Street as a way of rejuvenating that area but I dont think a one direction tram line would make the difference they think it would.

I don't believe that Marlborough is wide enough to take both tram lines in addition to the many buses that terminate along Marlborough Street.

robd · 25-01-2012 4:11pm

Winters wrote: »

I don't believe that Marlborough is wide enough to take both tram lines in addition to the many buses that terminate along Marlborough Street.

It's perfectly wide enough and very straight. Fits 2 lanes of parking and 1 traffic lane on upper part of it. Fits bus parking and bus traffic lane on lower part. Check google street view.

Bus parking will be removed regardless of if single or bi-directional Luas.

Suspect worry was with turning junction onto Abbey Street Red Line. Doable if they only go for a single lane junction from outer lanes though. Given it's only for maintenance and tram movements this would be fine. They don't actually need a 2 lane junction or bi-directional junction.

Mr Simpson · 25-01-2012 5:41pm

robd wrote: »

To be honest the Luas should not run down O'Connell street. It would be better running down Marlborough Street in both directions having a dedicated segregated street to itself. Definitely Luas shouldn't run up/down 2 separate streets.

It's certainly a waste of money proceeding with the bridge at the moment. Should only be built as part of Luas project.

Valid points about no real offering as a Bus only bridge.

Guess thats politics though.

Anyway, what's the point in arguing this. Construction has already started.

Tbh I am of the opposite opinion, I believe O'Connell Street is perfect for the luas, BUT it should be the only thing on the street, imho all buses should travel in both directions on Marlborough St, with Marlborough & Talbot streets being bus only. Just my 2 cents though.

robd · 25-01-2012 7:33pm

mmcn90 wrote: »

Tbh I am of the opposite opinion, I believe O'Connell Street is perfect for the luas, BUT it should be the only thing on the street, imho all buses should travel in both directions on Marlborough St, with Marlborough & Talbot streets being bus only. Just my 2 cents though.

Would create a bottle neck unless there were no stops. As soon as a bus stopped all buses would be stopped behind them. Marlborough Street would only be wide enough for 2 lanes.

Also the less interaction Luas has with pedestrians the better. Slows it done. Too many pedestrian crossings on O'Connell Street. All for removing private cars off it though. Would means Arnotts carpark shutting though. No problem personally with that.

Also council already raising objections to overhead tram lines in front of GPO. Their are solutions (such as 3rd track (with sensors) or batteries) but all are complex and expensive.

Mr Simpson · 25-01-2012 7:45pm

robd wrote: »

mmcn90 wrote: »

Tbh I am of the opposite opinion, I believe O'Connell Street is perfect for the luas, BUT it should be the only thing on the street, imho all buses should travel in both directions on Marlborough St, with Marlborough & Talbot streets being bus only. Just my 2 cents though.

Would create a bottle neck unless there were no stops. As soon as a bus stopped all buses would be stopped behind them. Marlborough Street would only be wide enough for 2 lanes.

Also the less interaction Luas has with pedestrians the better. Slows it done. Too many pedestrian crossings on O'Connell Street. All for removing private cars off it though. Would means Arnotts carpark shutting though. No problem personally with that.

Also council already raising objections to overhead tram lines in front of GPO. Their are solutions (such as 3rd track (with sensors) or batteries) but all are complex and expensive.

The bottleneck could possibly be solved by having buses stop on Parnell Street & Talbot Street, with them terminating at Hawkins Street (in the great void created by blowing Hawkins House to smithereens (I wish))

LXFlyer · 25-01-2012 8:36pm

Actually this will improve bus journey times as the not insignificant 14, 15, 27 and 151 routes all take an age to get from Connolly Station to College Street at different times of the day.

This bridge will allow them avoid the congested area at Memorial Road and the Matt Talbot Bridge by routing via a far less congested Talbot Street and Marlborough Street.

Aard · 25-01-2012 10:38pm

So, OP you registered just to post this biased article?

robd wrote: »

Also council already raising objections to overhead tram lines in front of GPO. Their are solutions (such as 3rd track (with sensors) or batteries) but all are complex and expensive.

I've never really understood that objection. Here's a street in Nice of similar importance and width with tram wires all along it. They're hardly noticeable. http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=fr&ie=UTF8&ll=43.700621,7.270117&spn=0.005476,0.011362&vpsrc=6&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=43.700444,7.268185&panoid=jvMc7_qrjfWLDqS68B7R4g&cbp=12,158.89,,0,6.61

Sponge Bob · 26-01-2012 9:41am

Aard wrote: »

So, OP you registered just to post this biased article?

Yep, they disappeared and never came back to answer any questions.

FreudianSlippers · 26-01-2012 10:14am

It's typical odd shortsightedness and lack of understanding of economics yet again. Because there is a perceived decrease in traffic now it means it will never increase in the future? We should build all of these things now when they're cheap, we need the jobs and we are increasing our infrastructure before it is crippled.

dubhthach · 26-01-2012 12:29pm

Mod

I've merged the two threads

AngryLips · 26-01-2012 12:40pm

mmcn90 wrote: »

The bottleneck could possibly be solved by having buses stop on Parnell Street & Talbot Street, with them terminating at Hawkins Street (in the great void created by blowing Hawkins House to smithereens (I wish))

Or it could be solved by Luas running in both directions down one carraigeway of O'Connell Street and busses up/down the other carraigeway.

Personally, I would prefer to see the money spent on doing something with O'Connell Street bridge. It's in such a sorry state. It's unsightly when compared to some of the other bridges (Capel Street bridge) and it must be straining under the weight of so many resurfacings...

robd · 26-01-2012 12:54pm

Just remember guys. Construction work has started on this bridge. They've removed the quay wall where they bridge will go.

Next I guess is the foundations.

It's a steal span bridge so it's probably been built already in some foundry and will arrive on the back of a truck when foundations are built.

monument · 26-01-2012 1:13pm

trluk wrote: »

The City Council are pressing ahead with this. It seems daft ...

It does not seem daft at all.

Traffic is not down that much in the city. There's often still gridlock conditions on large parts of many routes in and out of and around the city.

And what's wrong with the James Joyce Bridge (besides maybe its cycle lanes to nowhere)?

Winters wrote: »

I don't believe that Marlborough is wide enough to take both tram lines in addition to the many buses that terminate along Marlborough Street.

Then move the buses.

Marlborough Street is far more suited to trams than buses. If Dublin Bus wants to terminate buses in the city centre, they can find somewhere else to do so rather than public street space in short supply.

AngryLips · 26-01-2012 1:38pm

monument wrote: »

And what's wrong with the James Joyce Bridge (besides maybe its cycle lanes to nowhere)?

The problem with the James Joyce bridge is mostly aesthetic. It's height blocks sight lines down the Liffey in much the same way the Loop-line bridge does by Custom House. This is further aggrevated by the fact that it bridges the Liffey where the river is at its narrowest. That the south-end of the bridge adjoins a T-junction instead of a through-road going south (one that ought to align with Blackhall Place on the north) is also against the conventions of bridge design and placing. Of course, some might place a lesser value on these criticisms because there's no practical application to these points but I think it's ruined the Liffey and it's relationship with the Phoenix Park quite a bit.

monument wrote: »

If Dublin Bus wants to terminate buses in the city centre, they can find somewhere else to do so rather than public street space in short supply.

100% agree. But it should be noted that Network Direct has resulted in more through services and fewer routes terminating in the city centre. I've never understood why DB don't run the city-centre terminating busses, especially those that terminate along the quays, further down towards the Docklands. This is a neighbourhood that has seen an increase in its residential population since the boom without a corresponding increase in public bus services. DB seem to always be behind the curve in this respect.

LXFlyer · 26-01-2012 1:49pm

AngryLips wrote: »

100% agree. But it should be noted that Network Direct has resulted in more through services and fewer routes terminating in the city centre. I've never understood why DB don't run the city-centre terminating busses, especially those that terminate along the quays, further down towards the Docklands. This is a neighbourhood that has seen an increase in its residential population since the boom without a corresponding increase in public bus services. DB seem to always be behind the curve in this respect.

There are already five routes going to the Docklands - 53, 53a and 151 on the Northside (and 90 in morning peak) and the 15a and 15b on the southside. The 56a and 77a also operate to Ringsend Depot along Pearse Street. Given they are fairly high frequency, I'm not sure they need much more?

There are far fewer routes terminating in the city centre near O'Connell Street now.

After Network Direct is finished you will be left with:

Abbey Street: 29, 31, 31a, 32, 33, 41, 41b, 41c and 130.
Eden Quay: 27a, 42, 43, 53 and 53a.
Hawkins Street: 65, 65b, 68, 68a and 69.
Pearse Street: 47, 49 and 54a
D'Olier Street: 84x
Parnell Street: 40b, 40d and 120

Other routes have moved to Mountjoy Square and Merrion Square.

monument wrote: »

Marlborough Street is far more suited to trams than buses. If Dublin Bus wants to terminate buses in the city centre, they can find somewhere else to do so rather than public street space in short supply.

That's all well and good, but every time you lengthen a route it means longer running time and therefore more resources required to operate it. Bus stands are a fact of life in most cities - I think you need to be somewhat more realistic than just saying "move them somewhere else". You have to remember that even with the LUAS extension the bus will still be the dominant form of public transport in Dublin. That surely doesn't suggest to me that they should be consigned to being an afterthought as you suggest.

monument · 26-01-2012 3:18pm

lxflyer wrote: »

That's all well and good, but every time you lengthen a route it means longer running time and therefore more resources required to operate it. Bus stands are a fact of life in most cities - I think you need to be somewhat more realistic than just saying "move them somewhere else".

Turning streets into unattractive dead space because Dublin Bus want to park buses on them is no longer good enough. I'm not going to come up with a plan in this thread.

lxflyer wrote: »

You have to remember that even with the LUAS extension the bus will still be the dominant form of public transport in Dublin. That surely doesn't suggest to me that they should be consigned to being an afterthought as you suggest.

Nobody said anything about moving buses being an afterthought, but...

Going down the route of who is the dominant does not have any logical conclusion that favours buses. Pedestrians are the dominant road users* in Dublin City, followed by car drivers. Do pedestrians get much space or priority given their dominant position?

Luas carried 29 million passengers (with a daily average of 80,000) on under 37km of track. How many passengers does Dublin Bus carry in how many km?

* The census shows that in Dublin City (Council) area walking is more popular than any other commute (almost 28% of Dublin City area commuters) and in the city centre huge amounts of other types of commuters (rail, tram, bus and car users as well as cyclists) become pedestrians to complete their trips. The densely populated areas within the canals also have some of the highest percentages of residents who just walk to work.

LXFlyer · 26-01-2012 3:41pm

I think you do need to accept that bus stands are a fact of life in every city whether you like it or not. You need them to operate an efficient service without requiring additional resources or providing a city centre bus station (which is unlikely in today's climate).

Let's be honest that stretch of Marlborough Street is not particularly strikingly attractive, buses or no buses.

Frankly it seems to me that you have a definite bias (and I'm not saying it is a bad thing) in favour of trams over buses. That's your perogative. My own view is that if you are coming up with a plan for trams, then at the same time you have to explain what will happen the displaced bus routes. The two cannot be looked at in isolation. They have to be looked at together. Both complement one another. It's not that Dublin Bus "want" to park them there - that happens to be the most efficient way of operating the service!!

My point is that you cannot just willy-nilly dismiss the bus service as all your posts appear to do.

Most of your ideas seem to be about removing buses from the city centre, yet as I say they carry far more passengers that either DART or LUAS ever will.

Incidentally, my statement was that buses will remain the dominant form of public transport in Dublin. That would tend to exclude pedestrians and private cars as I was not referring to them.

Dublin Bus carried 119m passengers in 2010 and operated over 61.8m km.

cgcsb · 26-01-2012 4:09pm

I think that luas should travel both ways down Marlborough st with a stop at the Abbey and a stop at Cathal Bruagh Street. This would avoid further disruption to O'Connell st, it would result in greater separation of modes, it would mean a much better connection between the 2 lines. It would also bring some life to the area, it'd also be cheaper because there'd be less utility diversion works involved. Dublin bus should be working to reduce the amount of routes that terminate in the core CBD as much as possible. If it were up to me it'd only be Mountjoy square, Merrion Square and possibly Fitwilliam square that accommodate bus terminals.

trluk · 26-01-2012 5:17pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Because there is a perceived decrease in traffic now it means it will never increase in the future?

No, it never will. All plans plans are for further reduction of traffic in the centre. That's what the city centre has been working towards for years. That's what it's all about these days, here and all over Europe.

This bridge is nuts. It's barmy. It was a reaction to frenzied tiger traffic pressure. It's from a time when everyone was out of their tree.

Since Bus Gate north-south traffic has evaporated out of the O'Connell Street area and went to Winetavern Street, Church Street and the Docklands instead. You could play a game of volleyball on O'Connell Bridge.

As well as the Marlborough St. bridge being beside the widest bridge in the country there is another massive bridge the other side of it - Butt Bridge.

cgcsb · 26-01-2012 5:26pm

trluk wrote: »

No, it never will. All plans plans are for further reduction of traffic in the centre. That's what the city centre has been working towards for years. That's what it's all about these days, here and all over Europe.

as you have stated clearly, this proposed bridge is designed to carry public trandport not private traffic, so how does your point about the slight decrease in the length of the rush hour due to economic factors have to do with it?

Also the article you quoted from says that it is unlikely that major public transport projects such as metro and DART are unlikely to go ahead in the next ten years. So how can the amount of economic activity increase while decreasing private traffic and not providing any public transport alternatives. How do you envisage that being possible?

trluk wrote: »

This bridge is nuts. It's barmy. It was a reaction to frenzied tiger traffic pressure. It's from a time when everyone was out of their tree.

sensationalism doesn't really help in these sorts of threads.

trluk wrote: »

Since Bus Gate north-south traffic has evaporated out of the O'Connell Street area and went to Winetavern Street, Church Street and the Docklands instead. You could play a game of volleyball on O'Connell Bridge.

That's simply not true. In fact the opposite is true, the majority of drivers ignore bus gate.

monument · 26-01-2012 5:44pm

lxflyer wrote: »

I think you do need to accept that bus stands are a fact of life in every city whether you like it or not. You need them to operate an efficient service without requiring additional resources or providing a city centre bus station (which is unlikely in today's climate).

No, I don't need to accept it and it's not a part of city life in most of the cities that I've been in. It seems to be more of a sign of an inefficient bus service that anything.

Overall efficient use of street space comes before Dublin Bus' needs. Parking buses on the street next to the city's main street is not efficient use of street space.

lxflyer wrote: »

Let's be honest that stretch of Marlborough Street is not particularly strikingly attractive, buses or no buses.

Parked buses make it far worse and hinder any attempts at improvements.

lxflyer wrote: »

Frankly it seems to me that you have a definite bias (and I'm not saying it is a bad thing) in favour of trams over buses. That's your perogative.

I have a definite bias against bus? Me? The person who in a recent thread put forward the idea of having highly segregated BRT in the city?

Do I have a definite bias over high quality, high capacity, high frequency and highly reliably public transport which pays for its operating costs over lower capacity and less attractive transport? Yes, I do.

Try attacking the post rather than the poster, thanks.

lxflyer wrote: »

My own view is that if you are coming up with a plan for trams, then at the same time you have to explain what will happen the displaced bus routes. The two cannot be looked at in isolation. They have to be looked at together. Both complement one another. It's not that Dublin Bus "want" to park them there - that happens to be the most efficient way of operating the service!!

Finer details can be worked out -- if everybody posting here about transport and other things always had to have such detail there'd be little discussion. The promoters of poor bus services always say that one of the advantages of buses is that they can be moved easily -- so it should not be too much of a problem?

And the most efficient way for Dublin Bus to operate its service is not always what is best for the city, never mind what is best for transport in the city.

lxflyer wrote: »

My point is that you cannot just willy-nilly dismiss the bus service as all your posts appear to do.

Most of your ideas seem to be about removing buses from the city centre, yet as I say they carry far more passengers that either DART or LUAS ever will.

Incidentally, my statement was that buses will remain the dominant form of public transport in Dublin. That would tend to exclude pedestrians and private cars as I was not referring to them.

Again, have a search for one of my recent posts on BRT (bus rapid transit). :pac:

Dart Underground would see Dart and Commuter capacity go up to 100m. Dublin Bus is 119m and falling, is it?

lxflyer wrote: »

Dublin Bus carried 119m passengers in 2010 and operated over 61.8m km.

The question was on km, not operating km. Can you answer how many km does Dublin Bus routes service?

You're not referring to them because it does not suit your simplistic argument that public transport parking should be able to take over prime city centre space.

Cool Mo D · 26-01-2012 6:12pm

I think it's definitely time to build a big bus station under Hawkins House, as mentioned in another thread - would link the DART, Luas BXD, and all city centre on-street bus termini could be moved there. Also, all cross-city buses, which would not go into the bus station, should stop outside a train or Luas stop somewhere along their route.

robd · 26-01-2012 6:36pm

Cool Mo D wrote: »

I think it's definitely time to build a big bus station under Hawkins House, as mentioned in another thread - would link the DART, Luas BXD, and all city centre on-street bus termini could be moved there. Also, all cross-city buses, which would not go into the bus station, should stop outside a train or Luas stop somewhere along their route.

LXFlyer · 27-01-2012 10:52am

monument wrote: »

No, I don't need to accept it and it's not a part of city life in most of the cities that I've been in. It seems to be more of a sign of an inefficient bus service that anything.

Overall efficient use of street space comes before Dublin Bus' needs. Parking buses on the street next to the city's main street is not efficient use of street space.

Parked buses make it far worse and hinder any attempts at improvements.

I have a definite bias against bus? Me? The person who in a recent thread put forward the idea of having highly segregated BRT in the city?

Do I have a definite bias over high quality, high capacity, high frequency and highly reliably public transport which pays for its operating costs over lower capacity and less attractive transport? Yes, I do.

Try attacking the post rather than the poster, thanks.

Finer details can be worked out -- if everybody posting here about transport and other things always had to have such detail there'd be little discussion. The promoters of poor bus services always say that one of the advantages of buses is that they can be moved easily -- so it should not be too much of a problem?

And the most efficient way for Dublin Bus to operate its service is not always what is best for the city, never mind what is best for transport in the city.

Again, have a search for one of my recent posts on BRT (bus rapid transit). :pac:

Dart Underground would see Dart and Commuter capacity go up to 100m. Dublin Bus is 119m and falling, is it?

The question was on km, not operating km. Can you answer how many km does Dublin Bus routes service?

You're not referring to them because it does not suit your simplistic argument that public transport parking should be able to take over prime city centre space.

Well you obviously haven't looked very hard!

London, Barcelona and Sydney are three examples I can immediately think of where there are city centre bus stands, generally on side streets where buses layover between journeys. It is a basic element of any city bus service in cities where no public transport interchange station is not provided.

As for being parked "on the street next to the city's main street" - what difference does that make? Marlborough Street is hardly a major thoroughfare - in fact it is a pretty dingy backstreet surrounded by large office blocks. Not having buses there is not going to change that.

Moving the buses away from there is not a "finer detail". It is a major point, because lengthening the route means requiring a higher peak vehicle requirement (PVR) to maintain the existing service levels - that is a fundamental issue because of resource availablity.

And I don't have the details of how many km there are in the Dublin Bus network. I have no access to that information. Why don't you ask Dublin Bus?

Given that IE carried 38.2m passenger journeys in 2010 over the entire network, I think that any concept of them carrying 100m on DART/Suburban alone is pie in the sky.

Ben D Bus · 27-01-2012 1:21pm

cgcsb wrote: »

In fact the opposite is true, the majority of drivers ignore bus gate.

That's not really correct in fairness. I know some drivers do ignore the gate, but the number of private cars I see on College Green in the evening peak is tiny. They're annoying, but relatively insignificant.

Regarding the bridge, one of the problems on OCB is buses turning right from Bachelors Walk. Causes a lot of problems with buses getting from their stops on BW, into the correct lane, then getting onto the bridge. And there are a lot of routes do this.

It might be very helpful to traffic flow if these routes cross onto Eden Quay and take the new bridge to Hawkins St and onto College Green?

monument · 27-01-2012 2:41pm

lxflyer wrote: »

Well you obviously haven't looked very hard!

London, Barcelona and Sydney are three examples I can immediately think of where there are city centre bus stands, generally on side streets where buses layover between journeys. It is a basic element of any city bus service in cities where no public transport interchange station is not provided.

I don't remember saying there were no buses parked up on any streets in any cities -- I disagreed with your claim that it is a "fact of life in most cities".

It is simply not a fact of life in most cities. When somebody says anything is "a fact of life", there's usually a different way.

lxflyer wrote: »

As for being parked "on the street next to the city's main street" - what difference does that make? Marlborough Street is hardly a major thoroughfare - in fact it is a pretty dingy backstreet surrounded by large office blocks. Not having buses there is not going to change that.

It is planned to be a thoroughfare for Luas.

And, yes, not having buses there will change the street -- the buses or more so the amount of buses are part of the problem of the street. The parked buses take up a huge part of the street, make it seem like a smaller space, more closed in space and blocks out the light the street has.

lxflyer wrote: »

Moving the buses away from there is not a "finer detail". It is a major point, because lengthening the route means requiring a higher peak vehicle requirement (PVR) to maintain the existing service levels - that is a fundamental issue because of resource availablity.

A finer detail can be a major point, but it can still be worked out.

As many low frequency bus routes as there is now have no place in the city centre in the future.

For example, half decent BRT on the Malahide Road corridor would get rid of most or all of those buses which park there. I believe Dublin Bus' contract is up in 2014, while construction of BXD only gets going in 2015.

lxflyer wrote: »

And I don't have the details of how many km there are in the Dublin Bus network. I have no access to that information. Why don't you ask Dublin Bus?

Look at it this way, the QBN office says there's about 200kms QBCs and Dublin Bus serves far more than just QBCs.

Luas has under 37km. If Luas had even 200km of lines it would be carrying far more than Dublin Bus does and it would likely be doing so with an operating profit.

The point is that not all public transport is equal.

lxflyer wrote: »

Given that IE carried 38.2m passenger journeys in 2010 over the entire network, I think that any concept of them carrying 100m on DART/Suburban alone is pie in the sky.

You can think "pie in the sky" all you want but that is the capacity they should have if or when the stalled works on Dart Underground project is resumed.

With a benefit/cost ratio of 2.4 the project has a far greater chance of been resumed in the future than other large projects (ie metro). And with without the Dart Underground tunnel the Kildare line four tracking will never be used right, the bottlenecks around the loop line will remain and current lines will remain underused compared to their potential.

Their entire Intercity network would be insignificant compared to the Dart and Commuter network post the stalled Dart project.

cgcsb · 27-01-2012 2:44pm

Ben D Bus wrote: »

That's not really correct in fairness. I know some drivers do ignore the gate, but the number of private cars I see on College Green in the evening peak is tiny. They're annoying, but relatively insignificant.

I see it a lot and there's very little enforcement, maybe a camera system should be put in place and drivers sent a fine through the post for doing so.

I also see a lot of bad driving in general in Dublin, drivers casually sale through red lights, don't indicate and change lanes suddenly, especially taxis.

Ben D Bus wrote: »

Regarding the bridge, one of the problems on OCB is buses turning right from Bachelors Walk. Causes a lot of problems with buses getting from their stops on BW, into the correct lane, then getting onto the bridge. And there are a lot of routes do this.

It might be very helpful to traffic flow if these routes cross onto Eden Quay and take the new bridge to Hawkins St and onto College Green?

agreed, since network direct, the blanch area buses 39,37,70 etc. use O'Connell Bridge, where as they used to use Gratten

LXFlyer · 27-01-2012 3:10pm

monument wrote: »

I don't remember saying there were no buses parked up on any streets in any cities -- I disagreed with your claim that it is a "fact of life in most cities".

It is simply not a fact of life in most cities. When somebody says anything is "a fact of life", there's usually a different way.

For goodness sakes now you are dealing in semantics - you effectively said it did not happen elsewhere - I am saying it does.

monument wrote: »

It is planned to be a thoroughfare for Luas.

And, yes, not having buses there will change the street -- the buses or more so the amount of buses are part of the problem of the street. The parked buses take up a huge part of the street, make it seem like a smaller space, more closed in space and blocks out the light the street has.

I think you are really stretching things here - it is not an attractive street full stop.

monument wrote: »

A finer detail can be a major point, but it can still be worked out.

As many low frequency bus routes as there is now have no place in the city centre in the future.

For example, half decent BRT on the Malahide Road corridor would get rid of most or all of those buses which park there. I believe Dublin Bus' contract is up in 2014, while construction of BXD only gets going in 2015.

Indeed it can - but your original post made no practical suggestion of how it could be delivered without affecting PVR. And you have to take those sort of things into account. You were frankly dismissive of DB and put it down to them "choosing" to terminate there, without any knowledge of how urban bus services operate in my opinion.

Also - the high frequency Malahide Road routes no longer terminate there, but hey don't let that stop you!

monument wrote: »

Look at it this way, the QBN office says there's about 200kms QBCs and Dublin Bus serves far more than just QBCs.

Luas has under 37km. If Luas had even 200km of lines it would be carrying far more than Dublin Bus does and it would likely be doing so with an operating profit.

The point is that not all public transport is equal.

I think that is a very subjective post - LUAS is never going to have 200km. I'd suggest the DB network is far in excess of that given there are many routes off QBCs. Therefore the whole comparison is ludicrous. I suspect that you would find LUAS would not be making an operational profit - in fact this year it's quite possible they will make a loss.

monument wrote: »

You can think "pie in the sky" all you want but that is the capacity they should have if or when the stalled works on Dart Underground project is resumed.

With a benefit/cost ratio of 2.4 the project has a far greater chance of been resumed in the future than other large projects (ie metro). And with without the Dart Underground tunnel the Kildare line four tracking will never be used right, the bottlenecks around the loop line will remain and current lines will remain underused compared to their potential.

Their entire Intercity network would be insignificant compared to the Dart and Commuter network post the stalled Dart project.

Capacity and reality are two completely different things. There is not a chance in my view that IE will ever carry anything close to 100m passengers.

At the end of the day I am saying that you need to think things through and suggest practical alternatives if these schemes are to happen. Not doing so leaves gaping holes in your argument.

Marlborough Street Public Transport Priority Bridge

Comments