Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Swiftway - Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

1…457910…21

Comments

  • #182
    bk
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 24,122 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Yes, an awful lot of negativity here, without seeing any of the detailed plans.

    We will just have to wait and see what the details of the plan are before judging it.

    I don;t know much about the Blanchardstown route personally, but I know the Swords to city route well and looking at the maps, it actually looks like it could be a quiet a good plan and have a significant positive effect on the route. I'll write more about this route tomorrow.


  • #183
    TheBandicoot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 879 ✭✭✭TheBandicoot


    monument wrote: »
    Here's a possible solution for the Old Cabra Road...

    Maybe I misunderstand the cross sections, but are you not creating a layout that does not allow for a continuous cycle lane along the Old Cabra Road because of the pinch point at the NCR? Don't think it has one now anyway(EDIT: there are markings but they seem to be treated as on street parking..) at the NCR end, but any major change to a street should be done with best practice for accommodating cyclists with dedicated high quality lanes in mind, as the thread you created the other week attests to.

    That is the issue with these new BRT plans, there does not seem to be enough space to squeeze in dedicated BRT infrastructure and cater for other modes such as cyclists, pedestrians, regular buses(?) and other motor vehicles.


  • #184
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,002 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    TheBandicoot wrote: »
    Maybe I misunderstand the cross sections, but are you not creating a layout that does not allow for a continuous cycle lane along the Old Cabra Road because of the pinch point at the NCR? Don't think it has one now anyway(EDIT: there are markings but they seem to be treated as on street parking..) at the NCR end, but any major change to a street should be done with best practice for accommodating cyclists with dedicated high quality lanes in mind, as the thread you created the other week attests to.

    That is the issue with these new BRT plans, there does not seem to be enough space to squeeze in dedicated BRT infrastructure and cater for other modes such as cyclists, pedestrians, regular buses(?) and other motor vehicles.

    I tend to judge the potential of projects such as this by the standards of what we already operate to.

    Take last night,for instance (Thursday). every possible pinch-point between Clonskeagh and Dorset St occupied by a range of Motor Vehicles which would rival Detroit.s entire inventory.

    Cars,Vans,Trucks,Artics and most of all TAXI's,by the hundred...all occupying or queuing to occupy ILLEGAL spaces to rank-up or have their break streetside....Garda Cars and their occupants whizzing past all occupied with more important duties than attempting to translate the Rules of the Road to somebody who missed them first time round.

    Ranelagh,a jig-saw maze of badly parked Range-Rover sized vehicles reducing a major road to a single-lane,a situation which could be addressed and SOLVED by the simplest of expedients (Double Yellow Line/24 hour Clearway on the outbound side between Sallymount Avenue and Cullenswood Park),yet nobody in "Authority" appears to even be capable of spelling the word,yet alone showing evidence that they understand what it entails ?

    Ranelagh represents mreely a single example of the easily solveable problem,a situation most obviously underlined by the TAXI-RANK ON A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING at Grafton Street/Suffolk St,again where every "Authority" in the Country studiously ignore the ongoing and worsening risks to Public and Road Safety UNTIL somebody is killed,whereupon every Senior Official in the place will be fighting for airtime to outline their action-plan.......BRT ?.....gimme a break :( :mad: :(


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • #185
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    TheBandicoot wrote: »
    Maybe I misunderstand the cross sections, but are you not creating a layout that does not allow for a continuous cycle lane along the Old Cabra Road because of the pinch point at the NCR? Don't think it has one now anyway(EDIT: there are markings but they seem to be treated as on street parking..) at the NCR end, but any major change to a street should be done with best practice for accommodating cyclists with dedicated high quality lanes in mind, as the thread you created the other week attests to.

    In what I have shown there'd be segregated cycle paths (~2 meters wide) on both sides of the road for most of the Old Cabra Road. That's an improvement to what's there now.

    The last bit of about 200 to 300 meters would include a lane for general traffic -- this would be with the aim of keeping the local general traffic out of the way of BRT near the junction.

    For just this 200-300 meters bit, cyclists would share the BRT lanes. This in its self is also an improvement over the current congested junction.

    Given general traffic would be restricted from entering the Cabra Road from the NCR end, the current left turning lane from the NCR into the Cabra Road could be offered as parking spaces for the few shops on the NCR corner.

    This is just my solution I came up with from use if the road and a quick look at maps -- there might be better solutions?

    TheBandicoot wrote: »
    That is the issue with these new BRT plans, there does not seem to be enough space to squeeze in dedicated BRT infrastructure and cater for other modes such as cyclists, pedestrians, regular buses(?) and other motor vehicles.

    I don't really see many issues pedestrians -- and putting in segregated BRT or tram lanes tends to make crossing streets etc easier.

    The few regular buses which are not replaced by BRT can use the BRT lanes (which will it seems legally will just be bus lanes anyway).

    For cycling -- the NTA has said its GDA cycle network plan for these routes will be done at the same time, so the cycling experience will likely improve.

    For general traffic -- it's national and local policy that other modes come ahead of cars; the management of this, and how loading and access fits in will have to be carefully done.

    AlekSmart wrote: »
    I tend to judge the potential of projects such as this by the standards of what we already operate to.

    Take last night,for instance (Thursday). every possible pinch-point between Clonskeagh and Dorset St occupied by a range of Motor Vehicles which would rival Detroit.s entire inventory.

    Cars,Vans,Trucks,Artics and most of all TAXI's,by the hundred...all occupying or queuing to occupy ILLEGAL spaces to rank-up or have their break streetside....Garda Cars and their occupants whizzing past all occupied with more important duties than attempting to translate the Rules of the Road to somebody who missed them first time round.

    Ranelagh,a jig-saw maze of badly parked Range-Rover sized vehicles reducing a major road to a single-lane,a situation which could be addressed and SOLVED by the simplest of expedients (Double Yellow Line/24 hour Clearway on the outbound side between Sallymount Avenue and Cullenswood Park),yet nobody in "Authority" appears to even be capable of spelling the word,yet alone showing evidence that they understand what it entails ?

    Ranelagh represents mreely a single example of the easily solveable problem,a situation most obviously underlined by the TAXI-RANK ON A PEDESTRIAN CROSSING at Grafton Street/Suffolk St,again where every "Authority" in the Country studiously ignore the ongoing and worsening risks to Public and Road Safety UNTIL somebody is killed,whereupon every Senior Official in the place will be fighting for airtime to outline their action-plan.......BRT ?.....gimme a break :( :mad: :(

    Yeah, brt aimed at fixing a lot of those problems.


  • #186
    TheIrishGrover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,742 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    I can't see how you could do any road widening in Cabra. It's VERY narrow at points (from the junction of the old/new Cabra road to just past Hanlon's Corner). There's no way they would fit two of these lanes as well as cycle lanes and lanes of traffic. Not a chance unless they started purchasing parts of front gardens, in which case you can forget about any reasonable cost. Up to that point it pretty OK. There's plenty of green area that can be eaten into from Ongar to Blanch SC while still leaving lots of green. (There are points though like that walled creche). But then Cabra,Stoneybatter etc is one of the main bottlenecks.

    As for someone saying it's an hour to UCD from Ongar? I'm often an hour from Hartstown to the quays.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    TheIrishGrover wrote: »
    I can't see how you could do any road widening in Cabra. It's VERY narrow at points (from the junction of the old/new Cabra road to just past Hanlon's Corner). There's no way they would fit two of these lanes as well as cycle lanes and lanes of traffic. Not a chance unless they started purchasing parts of front gardens, in which case you can forget about any reasonable cost. Up to that point it pretty OK. There's plenty of green area that can be eaten into from Ongar to Blanch SC while still leaving lots of green. (There are points though like that walled creche). But then Cabra,Stoneybatter etc is one of the main bottlenecks.

    As for someone saying it's an hour to UCD from Ongar? I'm often an hour from Hartstown to the quays.

    There's more than one way to crack an egg... See my second last post above re one posable solution for Cabra Road.


  • #188
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    TheBandicoot wrote: »
    :confused: Why should your assumptions on what these things 'should' cost be given more weight than the actual figures worked out in detail by the authorities responsible?

    I doubt if my assumptions are given any weight.

    But, for a considerable time on this board, the platform 11/railusersireland lads were on here, talking about the interconnector, and how it would cost 1.7 billion euro. As I recall, this was later upped to 2.2 billion.

    Those of us who thought that the end of the tiger might bring about some revision of construction costs are, it appears, to be disappointed. The project which originally was to cost 1.7 billion during the tiger years is now to cost 4.1 billion.

    With the metro, against which there was considerable opposition from platform 11/railusersireland (to a great extent because of cost) the initial figures seemed to be very high. These initial figures were poo-pooed, because nobody would reveal what the figures were (because of commercial sensitivity).

    (I can't recall where I heard them, but I feel pretty sure that I did hear figures of 5 billion being mentioned for the metro, swiftly followed by claims that the metro would cost nowhere near 5 billion, and then the whole thing settled down at around 2-3 million for the metro).

    Based on figures which have been posted on this board over the years by people in the know, it wouldn't be unreasonable to see a figure of around 4 billion covering the costs of the metro and DART projects.

    If the article above has its figures right, it is interesting is that the initial DART project costs have more than doubled from the initial ones quoted to the public. And, while the rpa site and the irishrail site both have no information about the costs of these projects, you - The Bandicoot - are saying that this information in the article is freely available and well thought out by the people in the relevant department.

    If those figures are right, doesn't that kind of give the game away about what the department are willing to pay when the public-private partnership thing comes up again for both of these projects.

    I doubt if the department is so stupid, and I think it is worth questioning where the journalist managed to come up with such specific figures.


  • #189
    Art(h)ur
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 51 ✭✭Art(h)ur


    I have to agree with the nay-sayers: this is a great idea if you happen to have plenty of wide and straight streets where you can convert one of the four lanes (in each direction) of a grand boulevard it into a truly rapid bus corridor. This is NOT the case in Dublin. Hence such a scheme is unlikely to succeed here ever, no mater how much priority it is given at junctions or the multitude of doors on each bus.

    Essentially, this is QBC all over again. One of the main reasons why QBCs do not deliver is that they failed to achieve actual separation from the rest of the traffic. The fateful IT comment "A “BRT only” lane may not be feasible in the city centre" is not an unfortunate phrase, it's the harsh reality we have to face. And with separation over anything less than 90% of the route - it will fall into the same traps as buses do every day now. The layout shown here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87534984&postcount=49 is nothing but a dream in case of numerous specific locations listed earlier in this thread (practically anywhere between the canals).

    Just count how many 90 degrees turns (incl. right turns, inevitably) will a BRT have to make: Swords and Blanch routes 13, Tallaght route at least 10 - how is that going to be rapid?

    I'm not even going into the details on wasteful duplication with existing and future rail/luas lines (the Blanch route being the prime example) or unusual choice of termini (Earlsfort Terrace instead of Harcourt St/SSG, Belmayne instead of Clongriffin, UCD instead of Cherrywood/Sandyford) or the expected public outrage due to potential need to close certain streets off to regular traffic entirely or negligence of the fact that there are unsynchronised (!) traffic lights every 100-200 meters on most of the streets in Dublin etc etc


  • #190
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    There's some moves in LA to upgrade their Orange Line BRT to light rail (on an old railway mostly but mostly also at street-level). A state law banning light rail on the route has been repealed and bridges they are building in an extension are designed to hold LRT: http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.ie/2014/02/repeal-of-orange-line-rail-ban-clears.html?m=1

    Going with BRT in the first place was seen as a mistake by many there and ridership exceeded expectations from day one.

    I know it might be an even more unpopular idea even than BRT with more people here, but if I was building anything on the Swords and UCD routes, I'd go with LRT (ie Luas) with short sections of cut and cover grade segregation at some of the larger and all of the major junctions.


  • #191
    Art(h)ur
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 51 ✭✭Art(h)ur


    Some further thoughts: given that achieving a complete separation from other traffic is close to impossible on most streets in the core city centre and that a complete separation is critical for a BRT, the only way it could work in Dublin is bypassing the city centre. Now, this may seem controversial at first but think about the luas in the city centre after extension: green line over the north-south axis and red line over the east-west axis. Then there shouldn't be much need for most of the buses (incl. BRT) to enter this area, you just need a bus-luas interchange at each line, e.g. Parnell Sq (for all northside routes) or Heuston (for all routes from the west). Assuming both BRT and extended luas have achieve the advertised speed and frequency, the transfer should be hassle-free. On top of that, after the luas extension, there will be very limited room for any street traffic on the likes of O'Connell St, College Green or Dawson St so all the buses running there now will have to terminate earlier - no alternative here, I think.

    What this means for BRT is revisting the routes proposed: rather than fitting them to an ideal route, like the Airport route going to SSG, make a compromise with reality and fit them to the actual street layout, with all its peculiarities. In case of the Airport route, it could continue on Dorset St, call at the Parnell Sq interchange with luas, then Bolton St, Queen St and terminate at Heuston - all streets involved broader than Mountjoy Sq area or Ely Place currently suggested. So it would be easy enough to continue the ideal route to SSG - just change for the luas.

    As for the other routes - maybe use NCR and SCR, maybe share road space with red luas line, as suggested earlier? In any case: match plans to reality, otherwise you'll spend loads of money and get a disappointingly poor return.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    Jack Noble
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 426 ✭✭Jack Noble


    strassenwo!f wrote: »
    I doubt if my assumptions are given any weight.

    But, for a considerable time on this board, the platform 11/railusersireland lads were on here, talking about the interconnector, and how it would cost 1.7 billion euro. As I recall, this was later upped to 2.2 billion.

    Those of us who thought that the end of the tiger might bring about some revision of construction costs are, it appears, to be disappointed. The project which originally was to cost 1.7 billion during the tiger years is now to cost 4.1 billion.

    With the metro, against which there was considerable opposition from platform 11/railusersireland (to a great extent because of cost) the initial figures seemed to be very high. These initial figures were poo-pooed, because nobody would reveal what the figures were (because of commercial sensitivity).

    (I can't recall where I heard them, but I feel pretty sure that I did hear figures of 5 billion being mentioned for the metro, swiftly followed by claims that the metro would cost nowhere near 5 billion, and then the whole thing settled down at around 2-3 million for the metro).

    Based on figures which have been posted on this board over the years by people in the know, it wouldn't be unreasonable to see a figure of around 4 billion covering the costs of the metro and DART projects.

    If the article above has its figures right, it is interesting is that the initial DART project costs have more than doubled from the initial ones quoted to the public. And, while the rpa site and the irishrail site both have no information about the costs of these projects, you - The Bandicoot - are saying that this information in the article is freely available and well thought out by the people in the relevant department.

    If those figures are right, doesn't that kind of give the game away about what the department are willing to pay when the public-private partnership thing comes up again for both of these projects.

    I doubt if the department is so stupid, and I think it is worth questioning where the journalist managed to come up with such specific figures.

    Let's not derail another thread with one of your tangents.

    The costs of Metro and Dart Underground are discussed extensively here:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056918188

    But, essentially, the €4bn cost of Dart Underground includes a lot more than the tunnel section - it's the figure for the overall Dart extension project.

    It includes:

    The twin bore tunnels (2 x7.6km);
    five underground and one surface station;
    grade separated junction and four-tracking at Inchicore to Cherry Orchard (KRP2);
    electrification of the Kildare, Maynooth and Northern lines;
    station upgrades, new stations and removal of level crossings on Maynooth line;
    new rolling stock (232 EMU cars).

    I don't have the exact figure but my understanding is the tunnel element is somewhere in the region of €2bn. That includes the stations which, given their locations, are much more complex and expensive than the planned Metro North stations.

    But as I said, it's already covered in another and it's best to continue that discussion there.


  • #193
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    There's already a number of threads on MN and DU -- please keep your posts mainly to the subject of the BRT proposed.

    That's not to say don't mention other projects, but if your post is mainly about other projects do not post it here.


  • #194
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Art(h)ur wrote: »
    Some further thoughts: ...

    Very interesting post. Yes I wonder now if the proposed BRT has been assessed as a closed system, or whether it has taken into account transfers to Luas/Dart.

    Another approach could be to make certain streets bus-only. It is common on the continent to reserve an axis through the city centre for busses to the exclusion of through private vehicles. An example just off the top of my head: O'Connell St - College Green - Aungier St.

    Would this be within the remit of the NTA?


  • #195
    markpb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,468 ✭✭✭markpb


    monument wrote: »
    There's some moves in LA to upgrade their Orange Line BRT to light rail (on an old railway mostly but mostly also at street-level). A state law banning light rail on the route has been repealed and bridges they are building in an extension are designed to hold LRT: http://buildinglosangeles.blogspot.ie/2014/02/repeal-of-orange-line-rail-ban-clears.html?m=1
    The California Legislature passed a law in 1991 introduced by Alan Robbins which prohibited the use of the corridor for any form of rail transit other than a "deep bore subway located at least 25 feet below ground." Later, Los Angeles County passed Proposition A in 1998, promoted by supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, which prohibited Metro from using its county sales tax funding to build subways anywhere in the county.

    That article reminded me just how bizarre and obfuscated Californian policies really is. A state law forbidding a city from building a railway on an old railway route - how specific. Next up: Dail bans traffic lights from Leitrim village.


  • #196
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,712 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Aard wrote: »
    Very interesting post. Yes I wonder now if the proposed BRT has been assessed as a closed system, or whether it has taken into account transfers to Luas/Dart.

    Another approach could be to make certain streets bus-only. It is common on the continent to reserve an axis through the city centre for busses to the exclusion of through private vehicles. An example just off the top of my head: O'Connell St - College Green - Aungier St.

    Would this be within the remit of the NTA?

    If the O'Connell St to College green was built, it would make sense if an underpass were built to let the quays free run past O'Connel Bridge. Not sure about how it would work, but that would remove a bottleneck. However, the new bus/luas bridge at Marlborough St provides some of this.

    Thinking out loud. Is this BRT serious? Bendy Buses? We have just got rid of them.


  • #197
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Is this BRT serious? Bendy Buses? We have just got rid of them.

    That's a bit glib. The previous incarnation of "bendy busses" (or "City Swift" while we're at it) did not have any of the surrounding infrastructure like in the current proposal. The two are incomparable.


  • #198
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Aard wrote: »
    That's a bit glib. The previous incarnation of "bendy busses" (or "City Swift" while we're at it) did not have any of the surrounding infrastructure like in the current proposal. The two are incomparable.

    Are they going to drive on the same roads?

    Because that makes them very comparable


  • #199
    Copyerselveson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 299 ✭✭Copyerselveson


    Bambi wrote: »
    Are they going to drive on the same roads?

    Because that makes them very comparable

    Unless the BRT has dedicated roadways and traffic light priority I for one am struggling to see the difference between what's proposed and a limited stops bendy bus on mostly QBC roads.


  • #200
    dowlingm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 5,391 ✭✭✭dowlingm


    AlekSmart how on earth are the consultants to get well paid gigs with your attitude?

    Same problem on the King Street streetcar here in Toronto, where notionally pro transit councillors run scared at the thought of reduced parking and increased enforcement once the retail/commercial lobbyists get to filling their inboxes. To my mind towing is the best deterrent because it is a true inconvenience.


  • #201
    Banjoxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Banjoxed


    Aard wrote: »
    That's a bit glib. The previous incarnation of "bendy busses" (or "City Swift" while we're at it) did not have any of the surrounding infrastructure like in the current proposal. The two are incomparable.

    So, will BRT buses have absolute right way over their whole route? If not, they will be just CitySwifts with a jizzed up image and destined for the same epic level of fail.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Copyerselveson wrote: »
    Unless the BRT has dedicated roadways and traffic light priority I for one am struggling to see the difference between what's proposed and a limited stops bendy bus on mostly QBC roads.

    From what the NTA said to the council, we're told it will have:

    Traffic light priority
    Bus lanes up to junctions
    Continuous bus lanes
    Ticketing at stops
    Less stops
    Buses level with kerbs at stop
    Pulling up to kerbs won't be an issue
    Multi-door boarding
    No driver interaction
    A higher degree of separation from cyclists overall, including everywhere where it's posable
    Overtaking room where normal bus stops are on BRT route bus lanes (but BRT buses may block normal buses)
    Reworking of streets/road layouts to make the above posable as much as possible

    Those things would make a huge difference to reliability and the adverage running time in peak conditions.

    There's no firm indication that they will be looking centre-of-road running, which is largely possible and would remove all or most parking / loading conflicts and a lots turning conflicts.


  • #203
    ardmacha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    Elaborate BRT schemes are fine and dandy. But more might be achieved by working the existing bus corridors better. Make more routes limited stop, perhaps reducing some of the stops on all routes. Appoint traffic wardens, equip same with scooters or the like and have them circulate along these corridors sorting things. Make minor road layout changes by building left turn lanes and the like, even if this means moving a wall back, demolishing a house or whatever. Put ticket machines in stops, or at least the busier ones.


  • #204
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,627 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Aard wrote: »
    That's a bit glib. The previous incarnation of "bendy busses" (or "City Swift" while we're at it) did not have any of the surrounding infrastructure like in the current proposal. The two are incomparable.



    The articulated AW class buses were nothing to do with CitySwift. They were bought in 2000 on the insistence of the DTO (which is now effectively the NTA) and against the wishes of Dublin Bus, but at no point was proper infrastructure was put in place for their operation. They operated across several routes initially before ending up on the 10 and the 4.


    However, contrary to some of the posts here, they had no issue with any of the corners in Dublin - the issue was that none of the bus stops were adjusted to allow for their safe multi-door operation, e.g. bus stop cages lengthened or kerbing extended.


    Some photos of them in operation are here:
    http://www.irishbuses.com/AWfeature.html


    CitySwift, on the other hand, was launched six years earlier in 1994 using high capacity non-articulated single deck coaches.


  • #205
    Banjoxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Banjoxed


    lxflyer wrote: »
    The articulated AW class buses were nothing to do with CitySwift. They were bought in 2000 on the insistence of the DTO (which is now effectively the NTA) and against the wishes of Dublin Bus, but at no point was proper infrastructure was put in place for their operation. They operated across several routes initially before ending up on the 10 and the 4.


    However, contrary to some of the posts here, they had no issue with any of the corners in Dublin - the issue was that none of the bus stops were adjusted to allow for their safe multi-door operation, e.g. bus stop cages lengthened or kerbing extended.


    Some photos of them in operation are here:
    http://www.irishbuses.com/AWfeature.html


    CitySwift, on the other hand, was launched six years earlier in 1994 using high capacity non-articulated single deck coaches.

    And, as usual, the single deckers and double deckers with the CitySwift paint job and slightly different upholstery were scattered across the system.

    A bus is a bus is a bus.


  • #206
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,002 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    monument wrote: »
    From what the NTA said to the council, we're told it will have:

    Traffic light priority
    Bus lanes up to junctions
    Continuous bus lanes
    Ticketing at stops
    Less stops
    Buses level with kerbs at stop
    Pulling up to kerbs won't be an issue
    Multi-door boarding
    No driver interaction
    A higher degree of separation from cyclists overall, including everywhere where it's posable
    Overtaking room where normal bus stops are on BRT route bus lanes (but BRT buses may block normal buses)
    Reworking of streets/road layouts to make the above posable as much as possible

    Those things would make a huge difference to reliability and the adverage running time in peak conditions.

    There's no firm indication that they will be looking centre-of-road running, which is largely possible and would remove all or most parking / loading conflicts and a lots turning conflicts.

    I admire,and commend Monuments confidence in the NTA to finally impliment the above list of prerequisites for an efficient and operable public bus service operation.

    However,bearing in mind the same NTA's total inability to oversee these principles in our pre-existing bus network,I have only the slimmest belief that they will see it through this time around.

    Whilst it is easy to denigrate the CitySwift project,it has to be borne in mind that Bob Montgomery's original concept depended upon the commitment of the supposedly supportive local and national authorities to ensure success.....did'nt happen and I'm betting it won't be radically different here.

    Lots of "sturm und drang" in the initial stages,followed by the usual diminution of interest as the thing progresses,which is when the compromises and concessions to pressure groups start to whittle away at the essential benefits of the original schemes....It's all been done before,so many times..... :(


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • #207
    annfield1978
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 582 ✭✭✭annfield1978


    monument wrote: »
    From what the NTA said to the council, we're told it will have:

    Traffic light priority
    Bus lanes up to junctions
    Continuous bus lanes
    Ticketing at stops
    Less stops
    Buses level with kerbs at stop
    Pulling up to kerbs won't be an issue
    Multi-door boarding
    No driver interaction
    A higher degree of separation from cyclists overall, including everywhere where it's posable
    Overtaking room where normal bus stops are on BRT route bus lanes (but BRT buses may block normal buses)
    Reworking of streets/road layouts to make the above posable as much as possible

    Those things would make a huge difference to reliability and the adverage running time in peak conditions.

    There's no firm indication that they will be looking centre-of-road running, which is largely possible and would remove all or most parking / loading conflicts and a lots turning conflicts.

    Tenders due in tomorrow on who will take scheme through Planning/ Detailed Design/ Tender Action Evaluation & Award/ Construction

    Most likely to be incumbents Aecom/ Arup / Roughan o'Donovan


  • #208
    strassenwo!f
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭strassenwo!f


    That was a very nice and well signposted map of the Old Cabra Road by Monument on the previous page.

    A small amount of compulsory purchase on the southside of the North Circular Road, near to Hanlon's Corner on the above map, could open up the whole Grangegorman campus to BRT to/from Blanchardstown.

    This could be a better way than trying to negotiate Aughrim Street or Prussia Street with BRT. There must be a considerable number of possibilities in the vicinity as Broadstone, St. Brendan's Hospital and Grangegorman get redeveloped.


  • #209
    Banjoxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Banjoxed


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    I admire,and commend Monuments confidence in the NTA to finally impliment the above list of prerequisites for an efficient and operable public bus service operation.

    However,bearing in mind the same NTA's total inability to oversee these principles in our pre-existing bus network,I have only the slimmest belief that they will see it through this time around.

    Whilst it is easy to denigrate the CitySwift project,it has to be borne in mind that Bob Montgomery's original concept depended upon the commitment of the supposedly supportive local and national authorities to ensure success.....did'nt happen and I'm betting it won't be radically different here.

    Lots of "sturm und drang" in the initial stages,followed by the usual diminution of interest as the thing progresses,which is when the compromises and concessions to pressure groups start to whittle away at the essential benefits of the original schemes....It's all been done before,so many times..... :(

    And will happen again. I am utterly cynical that anything other than the above will be rinsed and repeated. If there were real bus priority measures implemented the press reaction would be very like the Normandy landings from the German perspective.


  • #210
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 20,712 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    lxflyer wrote: »
    The articulated AW class buses were nothing to do with CitySwift. They were bought in 2000 on the insistence of the DTO (which is now effectively the NTA) and against the wishes of Dublin Bus, but at no point was proper infrastructure was put in place for their operation. They operated across several routes initially before ending up on the 10 and the 4.


    However, contrary to some of the posts here, they had no issue with any of the corners in Dublin - the issue was that none of the bus stops were adjusted to allow for their safe multi-door operation, e.g. bus stop cages lengthened or kerbing extended.


    Some photos of them in operation are here:
    http://www.irishbuses.com/AWfeature.html


    CitySwift, on the other hand, was launched six years earlier in 1994 using high capacity non-articulated single deck coaches.

    Did you ever watch a number 4 trying to turn from Lincon Place into Westland Row and have to wait for the oncoming traffic to either wait or disappear?

    Did you ever travel in the hind quarters of a bendy bus on a rough bit of road? Or hear the roar of the rear engine under high load? Or the smell of fumes from that engine?

    No bendy buses. We had twenty, we now have none, and we need no more.

    Boris got rid of them from London for the same reason. They are awful.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,627 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    Did you ever watch a number 4 trying to turn from Lincon Place into Westland Row and have to wait for the oncoming traffic to either wait or disappear?

    Did you ever travel in the hind quarters of a bendy bus on a rough bit of road? Or hear the roar of the rear engine under high load? Or the smell of fumes from that engine?

    No bendy buses. We had twenty, we now have none, and we need no more.

    Boris got rid of them from London for the same reason. They are awful.

    The only reason they had a problem there was again the lack of proper infrastructure - look at South Great Georges Street or in Dundrum village - stop lines are deliberately painted further back to allow buses make tight turns

    The AWs could still get around the corners - to suggest otherwise is being somewhat disingenuous.

    And yes I did travel on them quite a bit.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement