Swiftway - Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Filibuster · 26-02-2014 12:22AM

Best practice has identified the following as being applicable to a BRT system:

The “BRT Basics” are a set of elements that the Technical Committee has deemed essential to defining a corridor as BRT. The five essential elements of BRT are:
Busway alignment: 7 points*

Dedicated right-of-way: 7 points*

Off-board fare collection: 7 points

Intersection treatments: 6 points

Platform-level boarding: 6 points

Of the five essential elements, a corridor must score at least four (4) on both busway alignment and dedicated right-of-way to be identified as BRT, and proceed with the rest of the scoring.

https://go.itdp.org/download/attachments/45973920/BRT_Standard_2013_ENG.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1385582513263&api=v2

I have it that this new BRT will fail the the scorecard on the first hurdle and should not be described as being a BRT:

Trunk corridor configurations | points | My Rating for Dublin's BRT
Two-way median-aligned busways that are in the central verge of a two-way road | 7
Bus-only corridors where there is a fully exclusive right-of-way and no parallel mixed traffic | 7
Busways that run adjacent to an edge condition like a waterfront or park where there are few intersections to cause conflicts | 7
Busways that run two-way on the side of a one-way street | 7
Busways that are split into two one-way pairs but are centrally aligned in the roadway | 4
Busways that are split into two one-way pairs but aligned to the curb | 4
Busways that operate through virtual lanes produced by a series of bus queue-jump lanes at intersections | 1
Curb-aligned busway that is adjacent to the curb | 0 | x

Kumsheen · 26-02-2014 12:11PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Will encroaches on the line be enforced? (cars, taxis, bikes, illegal parking, left turns)

This is key to the whole concept.
We don't do enforcement well in this country and no amount of BRT related legislation is going to change that.
The only way for this to work is for the BRT lanes to be physically separated, so that it impossible for other vehicles to get into those BRT lanes.

The more i think about this whole project the more i'm convinced it's just driven by an FG vote boosting agenda. I think it will all be about PR photo's with the new Bendy buses which look like mini LUASes.

We can introduce all these proposed elements without BRT. But no politician will want to get his photo taken with just a new ticket machine in Swords.

First step would be go get those Taxi's out of bus lanes, this should have never been permitted in the first place.

If this BRT goes ahead, Metro North will not happen for 50 years. BRTdoes not have the nearly the capacity to do this today, and certainly for the future.

If we wanted to blow some cash as a stopgap, why not build a Driverless tram to shuttle in a loop between Dublin Airport and Clongriffin Station. Here you can connect to all towns on the Northern Commuter and DART lines. A bit like the DLR in London or CDGVAL in Paris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDGVAL .

Then when Metro North is eventually built, it inherits this tram connection from the airport to the Northern Commuter line, giving Metro North even better connectivity.

From Clongriffin station, you can see nearly a direct line to the airport across what is mostly open clear land.

No capacity issues compared to the proposed Dart spur to the airport.

magg1ec · 26-02-2014 02:54PM

Why not reroute Swiftway onto roads already there? Using green/amenity areas must be objected to.

If the NTA's current plans don't change.... i.e. if they cannot be persuaded to forget about opening up green areas for this service... then it's really important that we, the voters, make submissions/objections to An Bord Pleanala when NTA submit the plans for their approval.

We need to state our case very clearly and be totally objective and focussed on why we do not want the green areas reopened.

People power!

cgcsb · 26-02-2014 03:25PM

I had hoped that the green area along the Dodder river between Rathfarnam and Tallagh could bus used to support a future extension of Metro North to Tallaght via the densely populated Rathmines/Harold's X areas, which currently suffer from congestion due to a lack of decent arterial routes. I now think that the BRT will and up hogging the space, ah well.

cgcsb · 26-02-2014 03:42PM

I think I might have a solution to the Blanchardstown pinch points, via CPOing parts of the spacious back gardens of Old Cabra road, and the TESCO parking lot, and a new bridge over the railway:

https://maps.google.ie/maps/ms?msid=211172261955457749823.0004f350232d916f3fb7c&msa=0&ll=53.355572,-6.285295&spn=0.01793,0.045662

LXFlyer · 26-02-2014 03:50PM

cgcsb wrote: »

I had hoped that the green area along the Dodder river between Rathfarnam and Tallagh could bus used to support a future extension of Metro North to Tallaght via the densely populated Rathmines/Harold's X areas, which currently suffer from congestion due to a lack of decent arterial routes. I now think that the BRT will and up hogging the space, ah well.

It would be nice to retain the green space too. :-)

monument · 26-02-2014 05:17PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

€650million is a HUGE amount of money. It really is.
...

Especially sine €650m. Jeez, yes, that amount of money is being spent from my taxes.

This has to be proven to be a no fail winner. For that amount of money, nothing less will do really.

Not really that huge of a cost given the price tag of Luas Cross City.

And sure if you alone pay €650m in taxes, than it's pocket change to the government.

TheBandicoot wrote: »

EDIT: ok, sorry lxflyer, saw that you edited to include

That is absolutely in no way "starting a little before Dublin Bus drivers are turning up to work and finishing up when many on the last shift have gone home" as monument claims.

It's {1} my mistake, or {2} that page has been edited (I don't recall the bit about existing bus times, only Luas, so maybe it's no 3...), or {3} I read or heard it some where else.

I had been under the impression that it was 5am to midnight the extra time makes the difference and if it goes the same way as Luas, the last city center departure would be after and not at midnight (I know Luas is generally set to end at 00:30 but the city centure departure tends to be after that).

If it was my mistake alone -- sorry for that.

cdebru wrote: »

Second the capacity listed for bendy buses by the NTA is 120 the current VTs that DB operate carry 119 to 124 so no improvement in capacity for a vehicle that is not as comfortable needs a special road surface, is not easy to drive is far far more dangerous mixing with cyclists, needs much longer bus stops, and redesigned junctions is much harder and more dangerous to overtake in.

VTs opprate only about 10% of the fleet? Or has than changed? If not it's a capacity increase -- and it's also a capacity because of greater frequency.
Who's going to pay for more VTs for Dublin Bus when Dublin Bus are nearly out of contract?

Hey, if it was me picking the buses, I'd go for Berlin-style three door and two stairs double deckers (for loading times, quicker access to upstairs). But than again I'd really go for trams even at far higher cost per km.

cdebru wrote: »

My objection is that this is a waste of 650 million on a pet project, with dubious claims for improvements in capacity and journey times, that I believe could easily be achieved with very little expense.

Sure start a new thread outlining your plan, your costs and what service people will get from it.

cdebru wrote: »

Slight improvements in current QBCs coupled with actual enforcement of the current laws, on street ticketing and validation. Multi door triaxle double decker buses to improve capacity where needed.

There's no way the tax payer is going to pay for on street ticketing and validation or many more buses for DB as the network stands.

cdebru wrote: »

... so you are searching for reasons to spend 650 million and failing miserably.

No, I expect that total amount -- which is for all three lines, including one which isn't being brought to planning right now -- includes at least a good chunk of street work.

If it does not include any such works, I'm on your side!

cdebru wrote: »

Lastly if the DB brand is tainted why the desire to hang on to it in relation to tendering ??

DB won't be the primarily brand. I would like to see open tendering but the NTA reasoning is compelling enough for now.

cdebru wrote: »

It has been fudged at best, the NTA propose semi open BRT lanes they envisage reduced regular fleet because they would be duplicated by the BRT routes but they don't address what stops the other buses using those BRT lanes would use and how the BRT buses will get around normal buses particularly in heavy peak time traffic.

Unrealistic to ask for this level of detail at this stage. But they have said normal buses would be in laybys -- not sure where you'd fit such beyond just a few spots.

cdebru wrote: »

They also fudge on whether taxis would be allowed use the BRT lanes.

Do you think the NTA will not have enough battles on their hand to get BRT passed without it being too compromised.

Excluding taxis from lanes from the UCD to Blanch and from the the green to beyond the airport would be looking for war. The numbers of taxis is out of control but trying to tackle that all if that issue with BRT would be madness.

Might be best to focus on getting the number of taxis lowered while also tackling illegal ranks etc

cdebru wrote: »

They also don't specify if as at present bicycles would be allowed to use the BRT lane even though a cycle lane is provided.

They are aiming for the highest degree of segregation posable.

AlekSmart · 26-02-2014 06:18PM

Filibuster wrote: »

This is the €650m question, and I don't see where it has been addressed.

Well,it will form the basis of my submission to the Public Consultation process.

My thinking is that this €650 Million HAS to include a significant element of Integrating the core Bus Services with and into the BRT system.

Spending this money on a Stand-Alone BRT netework,which does not share the same Fare Structure and Payment system is pure LUNACY,and if this IS the NTA's notion,then it HAS to be challenged.

Van.Bosch · 26-02-2014 06:32PM

In terms of ticketing, while off bus is an improvement it should also have luas style tag on/off functionality. It should be covered by DB caps and not have some factor applied to it like expresso services.

cdebru · 26-02-2014 09:28PM

monument wrote: »

VTs opprate only about 10% of the fleet? Or has than changed? If not it's a capacity increase -- and it's also a capacity because of greater frequency.
Who's going to pay for more VTs for Dublin Bus when Dublin Bus are nearly out of contract?

Hey, if it was me picking the buses, I'd go for Berlin-style three door and two stairs double deckers (for loading times, quicker access to upstairs). But than again I'd really go for trams even at far higher cost per km.

Whats your point ? Bendibuses operate 0% of the fleet.

Bendibuses don't offer any capacity advantage over triaxle double deckers, they are a fad just like minibuses were a fad 20 years ago, you can get increased frequency with tri-axle buses if you buy them instead of buying bendybuses.
The last point is nonsense the NTA are buying new buses every year now, they are not DB buses they operate them they remain NTA buses. Any tri axle buses bought would be the same. Same if DB was initially operating the BRT routes the buses would remain under the ownership of the NTA just as the Luas trams do.

monument wrote: »

Sure start a new thread outlining your plan, your costs and what service people will get from it.

Why? we are discussing it here,

monument wrote: »

There's no way the tax payer is going to pay for on street ticketing and validation or many more buses for DB as the network stands.

Why not it makes more sense and would be a lot cheaper than spending 650 million on a system that their own models say will not meet demand. With tendering on the way who says that DB would be operating them either way? and the NTA are buying buses for the DB network this year just as they did last year.

monument wrote: »

No, I expect that total amount -- which is for all three lines, including one which isn't being brought to planning right now -- includes at least a good chunk of street work.

If it does not include any such works, I'm on your side!

A big portion of the is building infrastructure and lay new road surface to support the use of bendibuses when there is actually no need for them except they are trendy and can be kind of made to look like a tram.

monument wrote: »

DB won't be the primarily brand. I would like to see open tendering but the NTA reasoning is compelling enough for now.

The NTA have said they want to keep the Dublin Bus brand even under tendering so your contention that the DB brand is too tainted does not hold water.

monument wrote: »

Unrealistic to ask for this level of detail at this stage. But they have said normal buses would be in laybys -- not sure where you'd fit such beyond just a few spots.

Sorry it is this kind of detail that tells you whether it is money well spent or not, an integral part of any BRT system is what is allowed in the BRT lanes how can you claim a journey time if you have not decided what will be running in those lanes ?? The layby is a nonsense where are these laybys going to be very few places you could fit a layby big enough to get at least one bus into that would leave the BRT lane completely free.

monument wrote: »

Do you think the NTA will not have enough battles on their hand to get BRT passed without it being too compromised.

Excluding taxis from lanes from the UCD to Blanch and from the the green to beyond the airport would be looking for war. The numbers of taxis is out of control but trying to tackle that all if that issue with BRT would be madness.

Might be best to focus on getting the number of taxis lowered while also tackling illegal ranks etc

If you have 20,000+ taxis in it, it will be compromised enough

monument wrote: »

They are aiming for the highest degree of segregation posable.

What is it with the posable thing?

Other than that it means nothing either they can cycle in it or they can't

Spanish Eyes · 26-02-2014 11:41PM

This might be off the wall. But could the BRT be separated from any other road user by a raised platform?

I can't find a word for what I mean, but it would resemble a continuous line of cones except concrete or heavy plastic. Sorry about the description.

It would mean that meandering in and out of the BRT lane would not be possible.

I suppose there is some reason for that not being possible.

And if ordinary buses and bikes and taxis can still use that lane, well, the only advantage is straying, and parking at random and turning left. Just thinking out loud here.

cdebru · 27-02-2014 02:20AM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

This might be off the wall. But could the BRT be separated from any other road user by a raised platform?

I can't find a word for what I mean, but it would resemble a continuous line of cones except concrete or heavy plastic. Sorry about the description.

It would mean that meandering in and out of the BRT lane would not be possible.

I suppose there is some reason for that not being possible.

And if ordinary buses and bikes and taxis can still use that lane, well, the only advantage is straying, and parking at random and turning left. Just thinking out loud here.

The problem with that would be it is a semi open system that the NTA are going for, so there will be regular buses, taxis and bicycles to contend with, if the BRT buses can't leave the BRT lane they are stuck behind the regular buses as they stop at the regular bus stops that BRT buses don't use so cancelling any advantage in reducing the number of stops and making reliable journey times an impossibility. They would also be stuck behind taxis dropping off and picking up etc etc.
But yes ideally there should be a physical segregation between BRT lanes and normal traffic lanes. But realistically you would have to remove regular bus services and replace them with feeder services and ban taxis from them and segregate bicycle lanes as well. But then you would be heading in the direction of a proper BRT system which is not what is planned for here.

monument · 27-02-2014 07:47AM

cdebru wrote: »

Whats your point ? Bendibuses operate 0% of the fleet.

My point is that it is the planned BRT is a capacity increase over the current network.

The claim of a capacity increase is that -- a claim compared to the current network, not one compared to one of many posable alternatives and not compared to a bus type which is a fraction of the DB fleet.

cdebru wrote: »

Bendibuses don't offer any capacity advantage over triaxle double deckers, they are a fad just like minibuses were a fad 20 years ago, you can get increased frequency with tri-axle buses if you buy them instead of buying bendybuses.

If articulated buses are a fad, they are a fairly well established fad which shows no sign of going away expect where a mayor who is poor with facts takes a grudge against them.

Some of the advantages of the planned / general BRT articulated buses are supposed to include:

-- lower dwell time due to no stairs

-- lower dwell time due to three doors

-- better access for people with disabilities and mobility issues

-- better fuel efficiently due to less drag (I'm sure that'll depend on the final bus chosen)

Getting to increased frequency is harder when you have passengers stumbling up and down the one stairs and out the one door.

I disagree with the DB drivers who won't operate the centre door, but I get where they are coming from when they talk about blocked or obstructed approaches to stops making lining the bus and it's two doors that bit harder.

That's one of many issues BRT should and looks to be tackling in a joint-up way.

cdebru wrote: »

The last point is nonsense the NTA are buying new buses every year now, they are not DB buses they operate them they remain NTA buses. Any tri axle buses bought would be the same. Same if DB was initially operating the BRT routes the buses would remain under the ownership of the NTA just as the Luas trams do.

They are buying new buses, but aren't all or nearly of these buses replacing end-of-service buses? I'm open to correction.

If so, there's a big difference between buying replacements over time and buying a load of new buses in one go to ramp up service frequency.

cdebru wrote: »

Why? we are discussing it here,

Sure, then: post here about your plan; outlining it generally and including your costs and what service people will get from it.

cdebru wrote: »

Why not it makes more sense and would be a lot cheaper

The words you quoted were: "There's no way the tax payer is going to pay for on street ticketing and validation or many more buses for DB as the network stands."

It would cost a lot more to service all current bus stops with street ticketing and validation.

cdebru wrote: »

than spending 650 million on a system that their own models say will not meet demand.

Most cities I can think of use more than one mode to meet demand and €650 spread across three routes isn't as notable as some here are making it out to be. It's not notable at all compared to Luas costs.

cdebru wrote: »

A big portion of the is building infrastructure and lay new road surface to support the use of bendibuses ...

Unsure where this is coming from, but the NTA have been funding surface improvement and looking at fixing thing like cambers in roads for a number of years -- for the benefit of buses and cyclists etc.

When you're going to be doing fairly major road works, as BRT will need in many places, you might as well get the surface right.

cdebru wrote: »

The NTA have said they want to keep the Dublin Bus brand even under tendering so your contention that the DB brand is too tainted does not hold water.

Oh, it's tainted. I will start a new thread on that one with a poll if you like? Or you can do a Twitter search for "Dublin Bus" -- that's an interisting read.

One of the components of BRT is that you set it apart from normal bus services.

But maybe even the Dublin Bus brand can be saved?

cdebru wrote: »

Sorry it is this kind of detail that tells you whether it is money well spent or not, an integral part of any BRT system is what is allowed in the BRT lanes how can you claim a journey time if you have not decided what will be running in those lanes ??

1. It's an estimated journey time. You need estimates at this early stage if any transport project.

2. It's been said a million times that we'll only know really what we're getting when the detail is developed but it still is unrealistic to expect that detail so quickly.

cdebru wrote: »

The layby is a nonsense where are these laybys going to be very few places you could fit a layby big enough to get at least one bus into that would leave the BRT lane completely free.

What did I say?

cdebru wrote: »

If you have 20,000+ taxis in it, it will be compromised enough

Sure. Still not something this project can solve.

cdebru wrote: »

What is it with the posable thing?

Other than that it means nothing either they can cycle in it or they can't

Should have wrote 'possible'.

Spanish Eyes · 27-02-2014 10:24PM

cdebru wrote: »

But yes ideally there should be a physical segregation between BRT lanes and normal traffic lanes. But realistically you would have to remove regular bus services and replace them with feeder services and ban taxis from them and segregate bicycle lanes as well. But then you would be heading in the direction of a proper BRT system which is not what is planned for here.

Touché.

So it is not BRT at all! Just like I thought.

Does anyone else realise this?

Spanish Eyes · 27-02-2014 10:37PM

monument wrote: »

Should have wrote 'possible'.

Well off topic, but the Grammar Police would say..."should have written" possible!

Enjoy your contributions. Feck the grammar. But I couldn't help myself, sorry about that.

Grandeeod · 27-02-2014 11:55PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Touché.

So it is not BRT at all! Just like I thought.

Does anyone else realise this?

You can all talk until you are blue in the face. This is the latest reinvent the wheel scenario that Irish politicians and their civil service are famous for. The original DART plan morphed into a PFC plan with metro added on. This was raped to deliver the T21 plan and now in our hour of need and less money, we are right back where we started. Nowhere.

monument · 28-02-2014 08:30AM

Grandeeod wrote: »

You can all talk until you are blue in the face. This is the latest reinvent the wheel scenario that Irish politicians and their civil service are famous for. The original DART plan morphed into a PFC plan with metro added on. This was raped to deliver the T21 plan and now in our hour of need and less money, we are right back where we started. Nowhere.

Only in Ireland??!... Only Dublin would bother with BRT!!!.... Well, Dublin and nearly 170 other cities?!

Sam Russell · 28-02-2014 09:23AM

monument wrote: »

Only in Ireland??!... Only Dublin would bother with BRT!!!.... Well, Dublin and nearly 170 other cities?!

I do not think a bendy-bus in a bus lane, stuck in traffic, makes a rapid transport system.

For this to be a rapid transport system, the vehicles, the routes, and the transit times need to be correct. It appears to miss all of these.

This scheme will only deliver one thing - give apparent gains for the constituencies of the Ministers for Health and the Minister of Transport - at a stoke.

monument · 28-02-2014 10:08AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

I do not think a bendy-bus in a bus lane, stuck in traffic, makes a rapid transport system.

Even if we are heading towards BRT-lite, the elements proposed can and should allow for very un-congested bus lanes.

Sam Russell wrote: »

For this to be a rapid transport system, the vehicles, the routes, and the transit times need to be correct. It appears to miss all of these.

The vehicle type they are looking at is on par with BRT in other EU cities; the routes depend on the detail; and the current estimated travel times look to be attractive compared to current bus and car travel times.

Most of the rest of what you said is -- at least at this stage -- rhetoric.

LXFlyer · 28-02-2014 10:12AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

I do not think a bendy-bus in a bus lane, stuck in traffic, makes a rapid transport system.

For this to be a rapid transport system, the vehicles, the routes, and the transit times need to be correct. It appears to miss all of these.

This scheme will only deliver one thing - give apparent gains for the constituencies of the Ministers for Health and the Minister of Transport - at a stoke.

Again - until detailed plans are published how can you or I make that judgement?

We can't - the devil will be in the detail.

Banjoxed · 28-02-2014 10:13AM

monument wrote: »

Only in Ireland??!... Only Dublin would bother with BRT!!!.... Well, Dublin and nearly 170 other cities?!

Will we have dedicated busways? Will we hell! This is all about look at the sexy buses that a moron in a hurry can confuse with a tram.

Instead we will have in the bus lanes taxis, bikes, motorbikes because hey they are a bike too, pinch points, houses with driving access across the lanes and compromised priority at junctions. So basically what we have but with swisher buses.

But hey look at the sexy buses. Let's ignore what trams or metro could do because we want to be fooled that this is good enough for the likes of us.

_Kaiser_ · 28-02-2014 10:57AM

monument wrote: »

Only in Ireland??!... Only Dublin would bother with BRT!!!.... Well, Dublin and nearly 170 other cities?!

But that's the point you continually seem to be missing - this proposal (based on all the info currently available) isn't BRT - It's QBC/CitySwift 2

1. There's no segregation/dedicated lanes. Instead it'll be forced to share the current Bus lanes with regular services and taxis - and bikes, motorbikes, squad cars etc.
Let's imagine it trundling down one of these Lanes. All is well until it comes up behind a regular service pulled in and loading. What now?

(a) sit behind the regular bus until loading is completed? Not very "swift"
(b) Try to merge into the regular driving lane and overtake, then move back over into its lane

Err.. is that not PRECISELY what we have now with XPresso and formerly Cityswift?

2. The proposed vehicles are just fancified versions of the bendy-buses which we previously had and did not suit many of Dublin's streets as shown in the video someone posted previously.
Buying more tri-axles as suggested above (preferably with at least dual doors) would be a far more practical solution that would deliver the same capacity rather than the expense of rebuilding junctions, displacing parking etc.
I read your arguments for the bendy-bus however your lower dwell time and access benefits can be addressed simply by buying dual-door low-floor buses and USING both doors (like we should be all along!)

3. So that leaves us then with off-bus ticketing. A "would be nice" sure, but unnecessary. All that's needed is more validators in the bus, the ability to enter/exit through all doors and visible enforcement - all of which has worked fine in places like Holland and Germany for decades.

I'm forced to agree with the idea that this exercise is more a typically Irish "to be seen to be doing something" (at ridiculous expense for what they're proposing) rather than an actual serious attempt to improve the situation.

cgcsb · 28-02-2014 11:10AM

monument wrote: »

Only in Ireland??!... Only Dublin would bother with BRT!!!.... Well, Dublin and nearly 170 other cities?!

only Dublin would bother with faux half-assed brt that offers no improvement on existing multi door services

cgcsb · 28-02-2014 11:20AM

If a leap validator was installed beside the centre doors on the current double door buses, passengers could tag on at the front door and tag off at the centre doors like the luas and be charged the appropriate fare. Then we could just continue replacing old buses with double doored ones. Re-activate the traffic light priority system that we had with city swift and keep our .65bn for railway electrification

Sam Russell · 28-02-2014 11:32AM

cgcsb wrote: »

If a leap validator was installed beside the centre doors on the current double door buses, passengers could tag on at the front door and tag off at the centre doors like the luas and be charged the appropriate fare. Then we could just continue replacing old buses with double doored ones. Re-activate the traffic light priority system that we had with city swift and keep our .65bn for railway electrification

Exactly. And no bendy-buses.

Kumsheen · 28-02-2014 12:46PM

monument wrote: »

Only in Ireland??!... Only Dublin would bother with BRT!!!.... Well, Dublin and nearly 170 other cities?!

As others have said. This looks like it won't be a real BRT. Its just BRT looking buses running in standard shared bus lanes. So i guess the "Only in Ireland" comment is correct.
Anybody who thinks this will be a proper BRT is going to be disappointed when it's up and running.

Godge · 28-02-2014 01:21PM

monument wrote: »

Even if we are heading towards BRT-lite, the elements proposed can and should allow for very un-congested bus lanes.

The vehicle type they are looking at is on par with BRT in other EU cities; the routes depend on the detail; and the current estimated travel times look to be attractive compared to current bus and car travel times.

Most of the rest of what you said is -- at least at this stage -- rhetoric.

Rhetoric works both ways.

If all of the evidence from the past suggests that city councillors, planners, An Bord Pleanala, transport companies, CIE, Dublin Bus, the Minister, Government Departments, and local interests will combine to mess up BRT and turn it into a half-baked project that won't work, well then to suggest that this time is different is rhetoric without any foundation.

Godge · 28-02-2014 01:28PM

monument wrote: »

Do you think the NTA will not have enough battles on their hand to get BRT passed without it being too compromised.

Excluding taxis from lanes from the UCD to Blanch and from the the green to beyond the airport would be looking for war. The numbers of taxis is out of control but trying to tackle that all if that issue with BRT would be madness.

Might be best to focus on getting the number of taxis lowered while also tackling illegal ranks etc

.

If this is the case then they are admitting failure before they begin.

Are you also saying that cycles will be able to use BRT lanes?

Sam Russell · 28-02-2014 01:54PM

If I were designing this, I would start with an express bus service at Malahide, Swords, Airport, then M1 to the Tunnel, Quays. This would not need bendy-buses.

I would extend the Dart from Clongriffin to the airport, and continue to Heuston via the Phoenix Park Tunnel.

The Dart Underground would then complete the picture, with extension to the western suburbs, and electrify the lines to Maynooth and Hazelhatch.

If the lines are there, with a reasonable level of service, then the traffic will follow.

Current bus routes can be improved by giving priority to buses all the way, and cashless ticketing.

Revenue protection needs to be real and visible.

AlekSmart · 28-02-2014 02:53PM

Banjoxed wrote: »

Will we have dedicated busways? Will we hell! This is all about look at the sexy buses that a moron in a hurry can confuse with a tram.

Instead we will have in the bus lanes taxis, bikes, motorbikes because hey they are a bike too, pinch points, houses with driving access across the lanes and compromised priority at junctions. So basically what we have but with swisher buses.

But hey look at the sexy buses. Let's ignore what trams or metro could do because we want to be fooled that this is good enough for the likes of us.

Sadly I suspect there is a lot of truth in this viewpoint.

From what we can see,the CGI's purport to show a "Luas" Like Articulated Bus,remarkably similar to Wrights Street-Car vehicle.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/capuchinoking/8175806025/in/photostream/

The Street-Car initially debuted in York,for a major reworking of that City's Bus Service ,known as "ftr"...First Bus Marketing Speak for "Future"of Bus Transport.

Incredibly for the UK,it was far from a success as the required level of co-operation and understanding between ALL of the stakeholding bodies was NOT agreed and in place...(Sound familiar ??).

Since then,the original experiment on First York's route 4 has ended ,with the vehicles being cascaded elsewhere.

The original ftr's were tarted-up Volvo B7LA's...identical to Dublin Bus's 20 AW class vehicles and were similarly afflicted with a broad range of build and operational problems,which to my knowledge Volvo never fully addressed.

However,given the close business (and political) arrangements which have to be borne in mind when our vehicle ordering process comes into play,it is more than likely that Wrights and the NTA have worked closely on any specifications which may appear.

Personally,I would look towards the Mercedes Citaro for any articulated bus,but Mercedes Benz does not enjoy any great success with the Irish State (except for Ministerial Transport !!).

There is,also,lurking in the background,Wrights continuing American Market ventures which feature a development of the Street-Car adopted for Hybrid operation,which,if EU funding could be secured might just be even more PR friendly for any (aspiring) Minister to be photographed with....

There is far more riding on this Swiftway project than merely the mundane Public Transport requirements of Joe Soap...this type of project can make a career and get individuals recognised as being of the "Right Stuff" for future consideration...;)

I would suggest broadening one's focus out a bit to take in ancilliary works and the "associated" opportunities which come with them.....;)

Swiftway - Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Comments