Swiftway - Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

AlekSmart · 04-03-2014 11:39AM

Godge wrote: »

But you are missing the point. As monument has put it in long form, the objective of the exercise is not to make life easier for commuters, the objective is to drive cars off the road.

If you were making life easier for commuters you would use the Park.

Kinda encapsulates all that is wrong about our historical approach to the Public Transport question(s).

We never really agree on a common definition of what "we" want from our PT projects.
This disjointed approach usually allows any given project to get off the blocks,but to eventually flounder when the inevitable high-profile conflict of interest occurs.
Sadly,Swiftway bears,yet again,all the hallmarks of this approach,with an all too familiar fudgey centre,wrapped in an appealing layer of dark sensual chocolate....;)

I really do wish this project well,and I do believe in it's essential positive ability to make a meaningful change on a great many PT fronts,however,we remain a country,which fully accepts that Omlette's can be made with unbreakable Eggs....:(

monument · 04-03-2014 03:31PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

BUT...on the other hand....If,by routing through the Park,you cut the overall journey time significantly,then you add greatly to the ability of Swiftway to attract NEW business from it's outer terminus catchment area...

That's unlikely overall to be the best way to get the most amount of trips taken on BRT, including peak and off peak trips.

For BRT to really work it should be like Luas -- be dependable, frequent and cover the key areas for trips all day long, rather than just being an express service mainly only attractive to end point commuters.

There's more of a population and more trip generators overall via the Navan Rd, than there is via the park.

Aard wrote: »

The Phoenix Park is run by the OPW so it wasn't a runner from the start.

According to the route map matrix on the NTA's website, they did look at it. But it would have been nice to have their reasoning for not going with it.

AlekSmart wrote: »

we remain a country,which fully accepts that Omlette's can be made with unbreakable Eggs....:(

There's people on here who think along those lines and think a project like BRT can go ahead without displacing car traffic.

Godge wrote: »

But you are missing the point. As monument has put it in long form, the objective of the exercise is not to make life easier for commuters, the objective is to drive cars off the road.

It's a bog standard objective of public transport projects -- be that Luas, QBCs or BRT -- to give people an alternative and to replace unsustainable car trips.

Also you seem to be disproving your recent claim that you don't care what mode of transport people take.

Godge wrote: »

If you were making life easier for commuters you would use the Park.

In the context of ABP's previous rejection of commuter buses in the park and the park's traffic management plan, it's highly unlikely the park would be allowed to be used as a bus route unless it was at least partly closed to your version of "commuters" (ie cars) as part of the project. Having both BRT and two lanes of general traffic on the main avenue would turn the avenue into a four-lane road and that would be opposed on mass.

The quays would also have to get far greater bus priority to handle the extra traffic as well as handling most of the current services on the quays. That in turn would "drive" more "commuters" off the road.

Godge · 04-03-2014 07:04PM

monument wrote: »

It's a bog standard objective of public transport projects -- be that Luas, QBCs or BRT -- to give people an alternative and to replace unsustainable car trips.

Also you seem to be disproving your recent claim that you don't care what mode of transport people take.

In the context of ABP's previous rejection of commuter buses in the park and the park's traffic management plan, it's highly unlikely the park would be allowed to be used as a bus route unless it was at least partly closed to your version of "commuters" (ie cars) as part of the project. Having both BRT and two lanes of general traffic on the main avenue would turn the avenue into a four-lane road and that would be opposed on mass.

The quays would also have to get far greater bus priority to handle the extra traffic as well as handling most of the current services on the quays. That in turn would "drive" more "commuters" off the road.

But you see, if they did that to the Park, I would have no problem with it as it would really speed up the bus service rather than the half-baked ideas currently in vogue.

IF you really wanted to improve commuter times from Blanchardstown to the city centre, a Luas spur to stop at the new Criminal Courts, entry through the NCR entrance, second stop at the Zoo, third stop before Ashtown Gate, exit through Ashtown Gate up the middle of the Castleknock bypass rising to a fourth stop on the Bridge to allow interchange with the Navan Road train station and on at height, a further fifth stop at Blanchardstown village to a final sixth stop at Blanchardstown Centre, terminating actually at the Centre rather than half a mile away would provide a public transport link that would be a lot quicker than anything else anyone suggested. It would have minimal impact, travelling along the side of the Park, have no land acquisition costs. It would also capture large numbers of the population you suggest. Impact from road junctions and private house exits would be minimal. Extra stops could be added if necessary. Navan Road QBC could continue.

But on the one hand, you have the refusal to countenance using the Park by misguided do-gooders, on the other you have the refusal by Councils to discommode rate payers (and despite everything you say on this, there is absolutely no evidence that CP would be used as the use of CP is ultimately a political decision not a Bord Pleanala decision)

There are issues at the City Centre end with that idea. Could you have an interchange at Hueston?

Also for the section through the Park, it is a bit like the Dart with the sea on one side. Travel down Chesterfield Avenue could be banned with a substantial park and ride facility instead.

schemingbohemia · 04-03-2014 07:22PM

Godge wrote: »

But you see, if they did that to the Park, I would have no problem with it as it would really speed up the bus service rather than the half-baked ideas currently in vogue.

IF you really wanted to improve commuter times from Blanchardstown to the city centre, a Luas spur to stop at the new Criminal Courts, entry through the NCR entrance, second stop at the Zoo, third stop before Ashtown Gate, exit through Ashtown Gate up the middle of the Castleknock bypass rising to a fourth stop on the Bridge to allow interchange with the Navan Road train station and on at height, a further fifth stop at Blanchardstown village to a final sixth stop at Blanchardstown Centre, terminating actually at the Centre rather than half a mile away would provide a public transport link that would be a lot quicker than anything else anyone suggested. It would have minimal impact, travelling along the side of the Park, have no land acquisition costs. It would also capture large numbers of the population you suggest. Impact from road junctions and private house exits would be minimal. Extra stops could be added if necessary. Navan Road QBC could continue.

But on the one hand, you have the refusal to countenance using the Park by misguided do-gooders, on the other you have the refusal by Councils to discommode rate payers (and despite everything you say on this, there is absolutely no evidence that CP would be used as the use of CP is ultimately a political decision not a Bord Pleanala decision)

There are issues at the City Centre end with that idea. Could you have an interchange at Hueston?

Also for the section through the Park, it is a bit like the Dart with the sea on one side. Travel down Chesterfield Avenue could be banned with a substantial park and ride facility instead.

So you're suggesting ignoring the thousands of people who live within a 12 minute walk of the Navan Road, you know, people who might actually use the service, to instead bring it through the Phoenix Park where there are no potential passengers (as in people who actually live and work there)? Genius idea.:rolleyes:

cgcsb · 04-03-2014 11:44PM

schemingbohemia wrote: »

So you're suggesting ignoring the thousands of people who live within a 12 minute walk of the Navan Road, you know, people who might actually use the service, to instead bring it through the Phoenix Park where there are no potential passengers (as in people who actually live and work there)? Genius idea.:rolleyes:

apparently the zoo will make up the difference. I think having an express 39x peak time bus through the park is an idea worth investigating, there are a lot of blanch-cc commuters during the peak hours, dunno if it could really be justified during the rest of the day.

Art(h)ur · 05-03-2014 01:43AM

HydeRoad wrote: »

3) Bus lanes, where all day long the cars in the adjoining lane sit with their nearside wheels on or over the bus lane line, leaving buses in the bus lane to make no progress at all over a standing traffic queue, other than to be hemmed in at the end and cut off when they inevitable need to rejoin the stagnant traffic flow. In many cases, the main traffic lane is over a lane and a half wide, or even more, while the bus has barely six inches over it's own width to attempt it's progress.

That's an excellent post indeed, I was getting worried I'm the only one seeing any problem with these issues.

On this particular one: I would seriously believe this may be The One Thing that will work miracles, if adressed. The very fact that a bus is unable to make progress, despite an empty bus lane ahead, simply because some eejit could not make up their mind as to which lane they are on is truly shocking. To make matters worse, it happens every day, many times per each run, all over the city. What really gets me is:
1) the scale of it - seems like so many drivers simply do not give a toss if 50 or 100 people are stuck on a bus behind them when they failed to notice where their lane actually is.
2) the complete indifference of authorities (AGS, DB, DCC?) - this riduculously bad behaviour is treated as a part of the Dublin way of life!

So here is the real deal: spend 1m on enforcement of the simple rule of no encroaching on the bus lane EVER and improve the journey times all over the city by a third. No messing, just count the total number of such events (and the time wasted) on any bus journey from outside of the m50 to the other side of the Liffey.

But hey - is it not exactly the same improvement that NTA are promising but for less than 0.2% of the cost? And in fact, achieving more as it would benefit all the routes, not only the chosen three?

Continuing in this fashion:

monument wrote: »

As posted already, the current proposals include:

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

Traffic light priority - practically no extra cost of switching it on as I understand the capability is there already (lack of political will being the only stumbling block).

Bus lanes up to junctions - this seems to be simply about eliminating the left turn cutting on onto a bus lane before junctions so you only need to change the painting of the lanes and a strong awareness raising campaign to the drivers -> minimal cost.

Buses level with kerbs at stop so that pulling up to kerbs won't be an issue - fixing all the stops across Dublin, my random guess on the cost would be 10m max.

Continuous bus lanes & Separation from cyclists - this one would require significant construction and may still be impossible in many places without eliminating regular traffic in one or both directions. In this case some prioritisation of routes would be necessary. Given the limited scope of the exercise, would 20m be enough?

Overtaking room where normal bus stops are on BRT route bus lanes (but BRT buses may block normal buses) - same as above, plenty of construction needed but on many stretches lack of physical room for that. Also, lack of explicit description by NTA on how they want to tackle this issue (other than a generic comment on lay-bys) and monument slightly backing off on this in recent posts suggest it's a no-goer anyway -> zero cost.

Ticketing at stops & No driver interaction - I was actually convinced that leap card will achieve both, the missing step is reforming a bizarre and unknown to DB staff (let alone passengers) fare structure. Again: minimal cost, lack of guts by the minister is the only obstacle.

Less stops - naive as I was, I was hoping Network Direct will provide a glimmer of hope in this regard but quickly pushed this issue outside of its scope. Anyway, ND 2.0 could definitely do the trick, with minimal cost and across the entire network.

Multi-door boarding - OK, this one would require a serious investment in the fleet but it could be achieved over the medium term, just like now the middle door buses are gradually introduced. Admittedly, in terms of boarding speed only single floor buses would give a real improvement and in order to address capacity issues, they would have to be bendy. But this in turn would require a quality road surface, i.e. a major (and expensive) road improvement programme across Dublin which - ironically - may be relatively easy to push through in the DCC as it would benefit cars at the same time, as opposed to the current proposal, promising super flat and smooth BRT lanes while leaving the rest of the road as is.

Bottom line - for 30 to 60m, i.e. 5 to 10% of the BRT cost we could achieve similar results AND for the entire city, rather than only three routes.

While not targeting frequency and reliability directly, the trivial step of enforcing the rules of the road (like driving with one wheel on a bus lane, illegal parking, taxis pulling etc) combined with making more bus lanes 24h, as HydeRoad argued, and the actions above would shorten journey times and make them more constant and predictable: less dependent on time of the day, levels of traffic or the driving style of a particular driver. At the same time, shorter journeys mean room for additional buses (which now would be stuck in the same traffic as the existing ones so no point putting them on) when and where needed and this would improve the overall capacity and frequency.

Implementing all of these all over Dublin would - at the very least - kill the endless arguments about routing and eliminate a very real (in my opinion) threat of politicians pushing BRT through and, despite the fact it won't deliver (I strongly suspect), they will use it as an excuse to shelve Metro North or Maynooth line electrification or Dart capacity improvements forever as the very same catchment areas would be served by brand new all-shiny oh-so-rapid buses so what are you complaining about?

monument · 05-03-2014 02:05AM

Godge wrote: »

But you see, if they did that to the Park, I would have no problem with it as it would really speed up the bus service rather than the half-baked ideas currently in vogue.

IF you really wanted to improve commuter times from Blanchardstown to the city centre, a Luas spur to stop at the new Criminal Courts, entry through the NCR entrance, second stop at the Zoo, third stop before Ashtown Gate, exit through Ashtown Gate up the middle of the Castleknock bypass rising to a fourth stop on the Bridge to allow interchange with the Navan Road train station and on at height, a further fifth stop at Blanchardstown village to a final sixth stop at Blanchardstown Centre, terminating actually at the Centre rather than half a mile away would provide a public transport link that would be a lot quicker than anything else anyone suggested. It would have minimal impact, travelling along the side of the Park, have no land acquisition costs. It would also capture large numbers of the population you suggest. Impact from road junctions and private house exits would be minimal. Extra stops could be added if necessary. Navan Road QBC could continue.

But on the one hand, you have the refusal to countenance using the Park by misguided do-gooders, on the other you have the refusal by Councils to discommode rate payers (and despite everything you say on this, there is absolutely no evidence that CP would be used as the use of CP is ultimately a political decision not a Bord Pleanala decision)

There are issues at the City Centre end with that idea. Could you have an interchange at Hueston?

Also for the section through the Park, it is a bit like the Dart with the sea on one side. Travel down Chesterfield Avenue could be banned with a substantial park and ride facility instead.

You have an issue with traffic on the Navan Road route getting displaced, but it seems you have no issue whatsoever with the same happening with traffic both on the quays or the NCR!

You have an issue with BRT on the Old Cabra Road but no issue with putting tram tracks up Infirmary Road to get to NCR park entrence.

Then you somehow think it would cause only "minimal" impact in running your tram up the quays, along Parkgate Street, and then blocking the NCR at its westren end!

Trams would be lovely on the quays, but there's nothing minimal about the impact that they would cause.

There's too much contradiction in what you're saying. It could be stemming from caring / knowing about one route and not knowing / caring much about the other, or you could be just suggesting anything that's not the BRT plans. It could be that the idea of slightly faster public transport blinds you to the issues on your flawed route suggestion. Your reasoning does not really matter. At the end of the day, it's just too much contradiction.

monument · 05-03-2014 09:21AM

Art(h)ur wrote: »

So here is the real deal: spend 1m on enforcement of the simple rule of no encroaching on the bus lane EVER and improve the journey times all over the city by a third. No messing, just count the total number of such events (and the time wasted) on any bus journey from outside of the m50 to the other side of the Liffey.

But hey - is it not exactly the same improvement that NTA are promising but for less than 0.2% of the cost? And in fact, achieving more as it would benefit all the routes, not only the chosen three?

€1 million likely would not even get you enforcement cameras on a few buses. Set up costs would be more (legal, back office, IT).

€1 million also won't go far with sustained human enforcement across the city.

Now that we know your cost vs return estimates are messed up, let's proceed...

Art(h)ur wrote: »

Traffic light priority - practically no extra cost of switching it on as I understand the capability is there already (lack of political will being the only stumbling block).

Unlike the impression given by other posters, I can only find reference to CitySwift traffic light priority being a limited system at a limited amount of junction

With the system being worked on / worked on recently which is linked to RTPI -- that has never been even put to the test yet and god only know if there's extra costs with that. The SCATs system is a bit of a mess in a city like Dublin and when traffic spikes, SCATs starts to fail.

Art(h)ur wrote: »

Bus lanes up to junctions - this seems to be simply about eliminating the left turn cutting on onto a bus lane before junctions so you only need to change the painting of the lanes and a strong awareness raising campaign to the drivers -> minimal cost.

Err! ... minimal costs on this one!???

To bring lanes up to junctions can be a costly busy to do it right (traffic lights and island between bus lane and general traffic lane -- be that central running or lanes at the road edgescity-wide outside a BRT project would require designs drawn up for each and ever junction and than Part 8 planning permission in all four council area -- which councilors can veto!

Art(h)ur wrote: »

Buses level with kerbs at stop so that pulling up to kerbs won't be an issue - fixing all the stops across Dublin, my random guess on the cost would be 10m max.

"10m max" -- Bus stops can be expensive business: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/this-bus-stop-cost-170000-to-build-politicians-want-to-know-how-such-a-bill-can-be-justified-26666533.html

Art(h)ur wrote: »

Continuous bus lanes & Separation from cyclists - this one would require significant construction and may still be impossible in many places without eliminating regular traffic in one or both directions. In this case some prioritisation of routes would be necessary. Given the limited scope of the exercise, would 20m be enough?

You're talking city-wide, so: not by a long shot.

Art(h)ur wrote: »

Overtaking room where normal bus stops are on BRT route bus lanes (but BRT buses may block normal buses) - same as above, plenty of construction needed but on many stretches lack of physical room for that. Also, lack of explicit description by NTA on how they want to tackle this issue (other than a generic comment on lay-bys) and monument slightly backing off on this in recent posts suggest it's a no-goer anyway -> zero cost.

Zero cost only because you would be scrapping BRT.

Art(h)ur wrote: »

Ticketing at stops & No driver interaction - I was actually convinced that leap card will achieve both, the missing step is reforming a bizarre and unknown to DB staff (let alone passengers) fare structure. Again: minimal cost, lack of guts by the minister is the only obstacle.

Sorry, but the BRT plan is ticketing / tag on at stops (like Luas), that's always quicker than tag-on/off on-board.

But even if you went with on-board tag-on/off only and went cashless, going by London's timeframe we are a few years of that yet. It would be foolish to push cash before Leap is ready and it's not.

Art(h)ur wrote: »

Less stops - naive as I was, I was hoping Network Direct will provide a glimmer of hope in this regard but quickly pushed this issue outside of its scope. Anyway, ND 2.0 could definitely do the trick, with minimal cost and across the entire network.

Until Mary, Jack and Jill complain to their TDs...

Fewer and further apart stops with LRT and BRT is far more acceptable than the same with conventional buses. There's some Dublin Bus stops which could still be removed without much backlash, but BRT can offer stops further apart than normal buses.

As usual BRT has the edge, and the benefits are seen when combined in a constructive way.

Art(h)ur wrote: »

Multi-door boarding - OK, this one would require a serious investment in the fleet but it could be achieved over the medium term, just like now the middle door buses are gradually introduced. Admittedly, in terms of boarding speed only single floor buses would give a real improvement and in order to address capacity issues, they would have to be bendy. But this in turn would require a quality road surface, i.e. a major (and expensive) road improvement programme across Dublin which - ironically - may be relatively easy to push through in the DCC as it would benefit cars at the same time, as opposed to the current proposal, promising super flat and smooth BRT lanes while leaving the rest of the road as is.

You think Dublin City Council are going to object the planning of BRT at ABP level to the NTA's plans?

Art(h)ur wrote: »

Bottom line - for 30 to 60m, i.e. 5 to 10% of the BRT cost we could achieve similar results AND for the entire city, rather than only three routes.

Only because you plucked those figures out of thin air.

Art(h)ur wrote: »

While not targeting frequency and reliability directly, the trivial step of enforcing the rules of the road.

The trivial step of enforcing the rules of the road? Not in Ireland.

Art(h)ur wrote: »

they will use it as an excuse to shelve Metro North or Maynooth line electrification or Dart capacity improvements forever as the very same catchment areas would be served by brand new all-shiny oh-so-rapid buses so what are you complaining about?

With regard to Dart, that does not fit in with what the minister is saying.

Very small crossover compared to the total of Maynooth line electrification area and the Blanch to UCD BRT. And only a fraction of the two route's catchment areas crossover in the golden 500 meter range.

bk · 05-03-2014 11:17AM

monument wrote: »

There's too much contradiction in what you're saying. It could be stemming from caring / knowing about one route and not knowing / caring much about the other, or you could be just suggesting anything that's not the BRT plans. It could be that the idea of slightly faster public transport blinds you to the issues on your flawed route suggestion. Your reasoning does not really matter. At the end of the day, it's just too much contradiction.

Yes, I was going to say this.

There seems to be a great focus in this thread on the Blanchardstown route, the route which is likely to be done last and no talk at all about the Swords/Airport route which is going to be the first route done!

I suspect the reason being that it looks like BRT could be highly successful on the Swords route, there are far fewer pinch points, etc. So people are ignoring it as it doesn't support their anti-BRT mindset.

LXFlyer · 05-03-2014 11:25AM

Art(h)ur wrote: »

Less stops - naive as I was, I was hoping Network Direct will provide a glimmer of hope in this regard but quickly pushed this issue outside of its scope. Anyway, ND 2.0 could definitely do the trick, with minimal cost and across the entire network.

As I've posted before I find this lack of understanding of what a bus service is quite bemusing.

A bus service is there to serve all of the community, from young able bodied people to the elderly. Best international practice is that bus stops are no more than 400m apart, and are closer in estates, city and town centres and other areas where there is higher demand.

People seem to forget that, particularly in many of the estates, that bus customers may already have had to walk quite a distance through their estate to get to the road that is served by the bus routes.

If people want less stops, that is not what a conventional bus service is not going to deliver, and I think that message needs to be conveyed.

Xpresso services, BRT, and LUAS deliver that sort of system.

Godge · 05-03-2014 11:35AM

monument wrote: »

You have an issue with traffic on the Navan Road route getting displaced, but it seems you have no issue whatsoever with the same happening with traffic both on the quays or the NCR!

You have an issue with BRT on the Old Cabra Road but no issue with putting tram tracks up Infirmary Road to get to NCR park entrence.

Then you somehow think it would cause only "minimal" impact in running your tram up the quays, along Parkgate Street, and then blocking the NCR at its westren end!

Trams would be lovely on the quays, but there's nothing minimal about the impact that they would cause.

There's too much contradiction in what you're saying. It could be stemming from caring / knowing about one route and not knowing / caring much about the other, or you could be just suggesting anything that's not the BRT plans. It could be that the idea of slightly faster public transport blinds you to the issues on your flawed route suggestion. Your reasoning does not really matter. At the end of the day, it's just too much contradiction.

Where did I mention displacing traffic on the quays? All I said is that are issues as to what you did at the Hueston end, I did not suggest the quays, there are other options too.

The only reason I used Infirmary Road was to avoid opening another entrance to the Phoenix Park. There is plenty of space on Parkgate Street to run Luas (certainly more than the James Street bit) and you could continue a short distance down Conyngham Road and in through a new entrance.

I think it would be more than slightly faster than the BRT suggestion. I reckon BRT will be lucky to cut journey times from Blanchardstown Centre to 45 minutes at peak. The Park Luas could do it in half that.

As for it being slightly contradictory, that means it should fit right in beside some of the crazy ideas.

bk · 05-03-2014 11:54AM

For instance, lets discuss how you could remove almost all other Dublin Buses from the Swords BRT route.

Here are the current buses that currently run on the route:

1, 11, 13, 16, 33, 41, 44

The 16 and 41 are by far the highest frequency routes and obviously they will totally go away as their route is completely replicated by the BRT.

The 11 and 13 could be re-routed down Mobhi/Botanic Road basically following the 4/9 route into town.

I'm shocked that the 1 and 44 continue to exist after network direct. They are very low frequency routes that serve just 5 (with the 1) and 3 (with the 44) extra stops then the 16!

Simply scrap them. If you absolutely most, then have a frequent local mini bus service run between Ballymun Road and Swords Road integrated with DB and BRT.

The 33 should really be routed down the M1 and into the port tunnel, thus completely avoiding the Swords BRT route.

So do all the above, and the BRT swords route would have the entire length of it's route into the city totally to itself, with no interactions with or slowing down by slower Dublin Bus buses. And it looks like it could be done with a minimum of fuss.

While I'd love to see taxi's banned from the BRT lane, I don't think that is feasible. However I think the rule of only being allowed to use the BRT lane when a passenger is onboard needs to be stringently enforced. As Taxi's wouldn't be stopping along the route then, unlike DB buses, then I think it is less of an issue.

Most of the Swords BRT route has wide enough roads and footpaths that it should be possible to completely separate bicycles from the BRT lanes for most if not all of the route.

The only major pinch point is outside the cat & cage in Drumcondra and that is already being removed.

Reconfiguring Parnell Square so the BRT can go in both directions on Parnell Square East will save significant time struggling around Parnell Square West as they currently do going North and using the quiet and very wide streets around Mountjoy Square will also have a significant impact.

On the whole, the Swords BRT route looks like it has excellent potential and could be highly successful, with very significant reductions in journey times.

LXFlyer · 05-03-2014 12:20PM

bk wrote: »

For instance, lets discuss how you could remove almost all other Dublin Buses from the Swords BRT route.

Here are the current buses that currently run on the route:

1, 11, 13, 16, 33, 41, 44

The 16 and 41 are by far the highest frequency routes and obviously they will totally go away as their route is completely replicated by the BRT.

The 11 and 13 could be re-routed down Mobhi/Botanic Road basically following the 4/9 route into town.

I'm shocked that the 1 and 44 continue to exist after network direct. They are very low frequency routes that serve just 5 (with the 1) and 3 (with the 44) extra stops then the 16!

Simply scrap them. If you absolutely most, then have a frequent local mini bus service run between Ballymun Road and Swords Road integrated with DB and BRT.

The 33 should really be routed down the M1 and into the port tunnel, thus completely avoiding the Swords BRT route.

So do all the above, and the BRT swords route would have the entire length of it's route into the city totally to itself, with no interactions with or slowing down by slower Dublin Bus buses. And it looks like it could be done with a minimum of fuss.

While I'd love to see taxi's banned from the BRT lane, I don't think that is feasible. However I think the rule of only being allowed to use the BRT lane when a passenger is onboard needs to be stringently enforced. As Taxi's wouldn't be stopping along the route then, unlike DB buses, then I think it is less of an issue.

Most of the Swords BRT route has wide enough roads and footpaths that it should be possible to completely separate bicycles from the BRT lanes for most if not all of the route.

The only major pinch point is outside the cat & cage in Drumcondra and that is already being removed.

Reconfiguring Parnell Square so the BRT can go in both directions on Parnell Square East will save significant time struggling around Parnell Square West as they currently do going North and using the quiet and very wide streets around Mountjoy Square will also have a significant impact.

On the whole, the Swords BRT route looks like it has excellent potential and could be highly successful, with very significant reductions in journey times.

I suspect that you are getting significantly carried away with yourself here.

BRT is well and good, but you will still need a normal bus service on the Swords Road. Local buses will still have to serve the route as the distance between BRT stops is far too long to not have any stops.

I would suggest you go out to Larkhill and Shanard estates and explain to them your plans - I would probably give you less than 60 seconds before being lynched. The 44 and 1 provide local bus services to communities, significant members of which are elderly, and who do use the buses in good numbers. There was a significant campaign to retain those bus services by the local communities concerned.

Also, what buses would service the Omni Centre, which is a major traffic generator? BRT is missing that completely. There's also no stop close to Northwood, which is another big traffic generator. There is a huge gap between Home Farm Road and Drumcondra Station.

You simply cannot just cancel bus services at a whim because it suits YOU. Plenty of people will still rely on the bus.

bk · 05-03-2014 01:03PM

lxflyer wrote: »

I would suggest you go out to Larkhill and Shanard estates and explain to them your plans - I would probably give you less than 60 seconds before being lynched. The 44 and 1 provide local bus services to communities, significant members of which are elderly, and who do use the buses in good numbers. There was a significant campaign to retain those bus services by the local communities concerned.

You know, I'm really glad you brought this up, as IMO it is a load of bull.

I've just checked Google Maps. Of the three stops in Larkhill, the furthest is just 400 meters or less then a 5 minute walk from a stop, so really, there is no excuse for the 44.

In Shanard, of the 5 stops, the furthest is just 650 meters, 8 minute walk from the Swords or Ballymun Road.

Yet there are many very large housing estates all over Dublin that are much further from their closest bus stop. For instance close by, take Charlemont Estate, most of this estate is more then 1km, 12 minutes walk from it's closet bus stop (123).

There is no Dublin Bus bus service on Grace Park Road, putting most of the homes and estates off this road at 1km or more from their closest bus stop!

It is actually quiet an anomaly, all the roads west of Drumcondra/Swords road are very well serviced by bus, but East of the road is terribly serviced.

So if you are so worried about people having to walk 650 meters, why aren't you demanding Dublin Bus run a route up into Charlemont estate or up Grace Park Road?

The truth is walking 800 meters/10 minutes is perfectly reasonable for public transport. Larkhill/Shanard only have these services for historic reasons and lack of political will to do the right thing, scrap them and build a faster, more efficient bus service.

LXFlyer · 05-03-2014 01:09PM

bk wrote: »

You know, I'm really glad you brought this up, as IMO it is a load of bull.

I've just checked Google Maps. Of the three stops in Larkhill, the furthest is just 400 meters or less then a 5 minute walk from a stop, so really, there is no excuse for the 44.

In Shanard, of the 5 stops, the furthest is just 650 meters, 8 minute walk from the Swords or Ballymun Road.

Yet there are many very large housing estates all over Dublin that are much further from their closest bus stop. For instance close by, take Charlemont Estate, most of this estate is more then 1km, 12 minutes walk from it's closet bus stop (123).

There is no Dublin Bus bus service on Grace Park Road, putting most of the homes and estates off this road at 1km or more from their closest bus stop!

It is actually quiet an anomaly, all the roads west of Drumcondra/Swords road are very well serviced by bus, but East of the road is terribly serviced.

So if you are so worried about people having to walk 650 meters, why aren't you demanding Dublin Bus run a route up into Charlemont estate or up Grace Park Road?

The truth is walking 800 meters/10 minutes is perfectly reasonable for public transport. Larkhill/Shanard only have these services for historic reasons and lack of political will to do the right thing, scrap them and build a faster, more efficient bus service.

And maybe people bought houses in those estates because there was a bus service there?

Like it or not - the buses are actually well used there. It's not a case of people campaigning to retain a service that they don't use. Quite the opposite.

bk · 05-03-2014 01:12PM

Ok, so lets keep the 1, but route it up Mobhi/Botanic road, then into Shanard Estate and across up to the Swords Road to serve the Santry Shopping Center.

See now, that wasn't too difficult!

Larkhill there really is no excuse, nowhere in the estate is going to be more then 500 meters from the BRT, a very small price to pay, for a vastly higher frequency and faster into town service.

bk · 05-03-2014 01:18PM

lxflyer wrote: »

And maybe people bought houses in those estates because there was a bus service there?

Though, sometimes things have to change for an overall improvement. That is the whole point of Network Direct.

lxflyer wrote: »

Like it or not - the buses are actually well used there. It's not a case of people campaigning to retain a service that they don't use. Quite the opposite.

Not in my experience, I live on and use both of these routes. The vast majority of people using them get on and off along the route on Drumcondra Road. They are more like infill at peak times for the 16/41. Few people are actually using them from Larkhill/Shanard.

Also Grace Park Road and Griffith Avenue East use to have bus services in the past, but they were removed. So you can't really use the excuse that people bought houses based on bus stops. It didn't stop DB from removing these ones.

LXFlyer · 05-03-2014 01:18PM

bk wrote: »

Ok, so lets keep the 1, but route it up Mobhi/Botanic road, then into Shanard Estate and across up to the Swords Road to serve the Santry Shopping Center.

See now, that wasn't too difficult!

Larkhill there really is no excuse, nowhere in the estate is going to be more then 500 meters from the BRT, a very small price to pay, for a vastly higher frequency and faster into town service.

You still are not providing a bus service along Swords Road.

Best international practice for bus services (Not BRT) is for stops no more than 400m apart, and closer in built up estates/city centre.

That requires a bus service along the Swords corridor in addition to BRT. The two complement one another, but are by no means exclusive.

As I said before - I suggest you try your idea out in Larkhill and see what the reaction is. That is what was done originally with Network Direct, but there was such an outcry from the population there, who as I mentioned above, do actually use their local bus service.

You are taking things to extremes to be honest, and failing to recognise that a bus service has a social aspect.

bk · 05-03-2014 01:36PM

As I mentioned max distance in Larkhill to the BRT stops is 500 meters, well within normal standards. Some people might complain there, but the reality is if you continued to offer both services, the vast majority of people will walk further for the faster and more frequent BRT service just 500 meters away.

The fact that people complain isn't a good enough reason not to do something.

And if you are so concerned about the people of Larkhill having to walk 500 meters, you still haven't explained why it is ok for the people of Grace Park Road/Charelmont walk 1km or more. I see little in the way of logic here.

As for the Swords road, it looks pretty well serviced by the BRT, all it requires really is one extra stop by the Tolka River, otherwise all other stops are in very reasonable walking distance.

LXFlyer · 05-03-2014 02:03PM

bk wrote: »

As I mentioned max distance in Larkhill to the BRT stops is 500 meters, well within normal standards. Some people might complain there, but the reality is if you continued to offer both services, the vast majority of people will walk further for the faster and more frequent BRT service just 500 meters away.

The fact that people complain isn't a good enough reason not to do something.

And if you are so concerned about the people of Larkhill having to walk 500 meters, you still haven't explained why it is ok for the people of Grace Park Road/Charelmont walk 1km or more. I see little in the way of logic here.

As for the Swords road, it looks pretty well serviced by the BRT, all it requires really is one extra stop by the Tolka River, otherwise all other stops are in very reasonable walking distance.

I've no affiliation with Larkhill whatsoever, just pointing out that this was tried before and failed. I also suspect that, given the demographics, higher usage from there is at a time that you wouldn't see, assuming you're working.

Turning to your idea of removing all standard buses from the Swords corridor, the distances between BRT stops may be fine for able bodied people such as yourself, but again I'll remind you that a bus service is there to serve everyone.

Best practice states that the maximum distance between bus stops is 400m, and that is not (quite rightly) the case with BRT.

As I said above, you seem hell bent on ignoring a large part of the population with your rather extremist views.

BRT and buses can co-exist quite happily, provided the correct infrastructure design is put in place.

monument · 05-03-2014 02:17PM

Godge wrote: »

Where did I mention displacing traffic on the quays? All I said is that are issues as to what you did at the Hueston end, I did not suggest the quays, there are other options too.

The only reason I used Infirmary Road was to avoid opening another entrance to the Phoenix Park. There is plenty of space on Parkgate Street to run Luas (certainly more than the James Street bit) and you could continue a short distance down Conyngham Road and in through a new entrance.

I think it would be more than slightly faster than the BRT suggestion. I reckon BRT will be lucky to cut journey times from Blanchardstown Centre to 45 minutes at peak. The Park Luas could do it in half that.

As for it being slightly contradictory, that means it should fit right in beside some of the crazy ideas.

No, not slightly contradictory, outright contradictory.

Given you're conterdictions your reckoning about estimated times would need some support before everybody jumps to trust them.

It's irrelevant why you used Infirmary Road. The fact is that it's contradictory as putting a tram up it would would likely have a worse impact on traffic than the worst bits on the Blanch BRT route.

Now you're suggesting randomly punching a hole somewhere in the wall of the park along Conyngham Road for trams to go god only knows where (you're not explaining where). It really does suggest you're up for any route but the BRT route which is planned.

And you'd have to run trams down the quays as the city centre section of the red line is near it's max and would not be able to support a branch to Blanch.

Even if you managed to push the trams down the city centre section of the red line, putting trams on to Infirmary Road and blocking off the NCR park entrance would have the knock-on affect of pushing more traffic down the quays... Or with your new random plan, removing bus lane space from the Conyngham Road.

All very random which translate to "anything but the planned BRT route".

bk · 05-03-2014 02:48PM

lxflyer wrote: »

Best practice states that the maximum distance between bus stops is 400m, and that is not (quite rightly) the case with BRT.

Actually that isn't necessarily true, this is a very good article on the subject:

http://www.humantransit.org/2011/04/basics-walking-distance-to-transit.html

However, people walk further to faster services. (Rail advocates are more likely to phrase this as "people walk further to rail".) This doesn't have to be a sociological or humanistic debate, though urbanists often frame it that way. If you are a rational and informed actor seeking to minimize travel time, it often makes sense to walk more than 400m to a rapid transit station rather than wait for a bus to cover such a short distance.

I think BRT would certainly fall under this.

Also I've a bit of a bone to pick about Dublin Bus supposed to be a social service.

If they are such a great social service, why aren't they servicing the people of Grace Park Road/Richmond Road/Charlemont Estate?

The truth is that as a social service DB are failing miserably. They are caught between two different opposing goals. Deliver a fast, efficient, mass transit public transport service or a slow service that brings everyone right to their door step. And the truth is they aren't achieving either.

You want to see a true social service, look to Atlanta. There the integrated bus/train company has mini buses that go around the local neighbourhoods, that elderly/disabled people can call up and which pick them up right at their door and brings them to the local integrated train/bus hub from where high speed mass transit trains and buses operate.

Now that is a company delivering both a social service and a true mass transit service at the same time.

Ok, so lets say for whatever crazy reason we keep the 44 and also have it service the few extra stops along the Swords Road. Well we still have moved the 1, 11, 13, 16, 33 and 41 off the BRT route, which easily means probably 95% of the buses on the route and would free it up for a very fast and efficient BRT service.

And with some of the freed up 16/41 buses, maybe they could run a new bus route from Santry, through Beaumont, down Grace Park Road and Richmond Road, thus actually servicing lots of people with no public transport at the moment. You could also have the 44 do this.

A win win for everyone.

AlekSmart · 05-03-2014 03:17PM

bk wrote: »

Actually that isn't necessarily true, this is a very good article on the subject:

http://www.humantransit.org/2011/04/basics-walking-distance-to-transit.html

The truth is that as a social service DB are failing miserably. They are caught between two different opposing goals. Deliver a fast, efficient, mass transit public transport service or a slow service that brings everyone right to their door step. And the truth is they aren't achieving either.

You want to see a true social service, look to Atlanta. There the integrated bus/train company has mini buses that go around the local neighbourhoods, that elderly/disabled people can call up and which pick them up right at their door and brings them to the local integrated train/bus hub from where high speed mass transit trains and buses operate.

Now that is a company delivering both a social service and a true mass transit service at the same time.

A win win for everyone.

I'd certainly agree that concensus politics has left our Public Transport Providers in an invidious position...supposedly "Serving all of the Community" has left Dublin Bus effectively serving little of it at all.

Once you get involved in this broad spectrum,you sacrifice very real advantages in operating effectively.

Do we have any idea of how Atlanta funds it's win-win Public Transport ?

Godge · 05-03-2014 03:27PM

monument wrote: »

No, not slightly contradictory, outright contradictory.

Given you're conterdictions your reckoning about estimated times would need some support before everybody jumps to trust them.

It's irrelevant why you used Infirmary Road. The fact is that it's contradictory as putting a tram up it would would likely have a worse impact on traffic than the worst bits on the Blanch BRT route.

Now you're suggesting randomly punching a hole somewhere in the wall of the park along Conyngham Road for trams to go god only knows where (you're not explaining where). It really does suggest you're up for any route but the BRT route which is planned.

And you'd have to run trams down the quays as the city centre section of the red line is near it's max and would not be able to support a branch to Blanch.

Even if you managed to push the trams down the city centre section of the red line, putting trams on to Infirmary Road and blocking off the NCR park entrance would have the knock-on affect of pushing more traffic down the quays... Or with your new random plan, removing bus lane space from the Conyngham Road.

All very random which translate to "anything but the planned BRT route".

Not at all random.

Two advantages:

(1) Much quicker travel time from Blanchardstown to city centre, most of the route would be segregated.
(2) Less disruption to existing transport for the Blanch/Heuston section than the proposed BRT through the extensive use of open space alternatives.

Simple measures like the elimination of the right-turn to Infirmary Road from Parkgate Street which is hardly used and the elimination of parking spaces would free up enough space on Parkgate Street, (which wouldn't need a bus gate like the Old Cabra Road). You could use the main entrance to the Park. Upgrading the next entrance on Conyngham Road could cater for car traffic (wider entrance, traffic controlled etc).

There are also alternatives to running trams down the quays.

You could go send the Red Line all the way down Thomas Street to TCD for a start.

http://www.rpa.ie/en/projects/luas_lucan/identify_route_options/Pages/default.aspx

It is not like someone hasn't thought of it before.

http://www.rpa.ie/Maps/Luas%20Line%20F/Luas%20Line%20F%20Route%20Options%20Map%20Jul%202007.map.pdf

Here it is with coloured lines drawn on the map.

Even if you wanted to keep the Red Line as is, going down the wide Wolfe Tone Quay and a new bridge at Watling Street could take you up to Thomas Street that way.

Sam Russell · 05-03-2014 04:33PM

Godge wrote: »

Not at all random.

Two advantages:

(1) Much quicker travel time from Blanchardstown to city centre, most of the route would be segregated.
(2) Less disruption to existing transport for the Blanch/Heuston section than the proposed BRT through the extensive use of open space alternatives.

Simple measures like the elimination of the right-turn to Infirmary Road from Parkgate Street which is hardly used and the elimination of parking spaces would free up enough space on Parkgate Street, (which wouldn't need a bus gate like the Old Cabra Road). You could use the main entrance to the Park. Upgrading the next entrance on Conyngham Road could cater for car traffic (wider entrance, traffic controlled etc).

There are also alternatives to running trams down the quays.

You could go send the Red Line all the way down Thomas Street to TCD for a start.

http://www.rpa.ie/en/projects/luas_lucan/identify_route_options/Pages/default.aspx

It is not like someone hasn't thought of it before.

http://www.rpa.ie/Maps/Luas%20Line%20F/Luas%20Line%20F%20Route%20Options%20Map%20Jul%202007.map.pdf

Here it is with coloured lines drawn on the map.

Even if you wanted to keep the Red Line as is, going down the wide Wolfe Tone Quay and a new bridge at Watling Street could take you up to Thomas Street that way.

Nice to see they have thought of having a direct line between Wheatfield Prison and the new Criminal Courts of Justice. Should be handy for some.

Dyr · 05-03-2014 05:32PM

the no 1 is a low frequency route? I get the 1 over the 4 (allegedly a high frequency route) because its more reliable and less like a cattle truck

Still I like the idea of scrapping northside routes so that the good people of swords can have a high frequency route, that will keep commuters out of their cars

Aard · 05-03-2014 08:02PM

bk wrote: »

There seems to be a great focus in this thread on the Blanchardstown route, the route which is likely to be done last and no talk at all about the Swords/Airport route which is going to be the first route done!

Is that true?

That route went from being not considered at all, to (apparently) top of the list pretty fast!

Aard · 05-03-2014 08:04PM

lxflyer wrote: »

Best international practice is that bus stops are no more than 400m apart, and are closer in estates, city and town centres and other areas where there is higher demand.

My understanding was that best practice was to aim for an average of 400m between stops, not 400m as a maximum.

LXFlyer · 05-03-2014 08:12PM

Aard wrote: »

My understanding was that best practice was to aim for an average of 400m between stops, not 400m as a maximum.

The ideal spacing is 400m but closer in town centres and residential areas where usage requires it.

cgcsb · 05-03-2014 08:18PM

I think the Swords route could be a great candidate for BRT if it had centre of the road running and all the trimmings of BRT. I can't see the Blanch route offering any significant improvements

Swiftway - Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

Comments