Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
08-03-2021, 11:36   #2791
yascaoimhin
Registered User
 
yascaoimhin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom1ie View Post
Huh? I thought all the local residents groups were kicking off in templeogue etc?
Community not corridor and all that jazz?
When all was said and done the Network Redesign garnered over 70,000 submissions. The Corridors only got 30,000.

The Network was always the more controversial change.
yascaoimhin is offline  
Advertisement
08-03-2021, 12:03   #2792
LXFlyer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 14,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qrt View Post
True, but I didn’t hear too much from that crowd when the last plans came out. Their whole arguments seemed to orbit around trees and gardens, which are drastically drastically less affected in the latest plans.

Maybe I’m just oblivious.
Oh they are still there.

There are still objectors to the plans in Rathfarnham against the proposed off-road cycle route, and to the plans in Terenure and Rathgar against the bus gates which mean one-way general traffic on Templeogue Road outbound and Rathgar Road inbound, and to the remaining CPO activity on Terenure Road East, which is much reduced from the original plans.

Others object to the proposal for Rathmines Road no longer being available for through traffic.

Unfortunately none of them have come up with practical alternatives which improve public transport, but I would expect the Rathfarnham CBC to be the one that does end up in the Courts unfortunately.

The bottom line is that the road space is simply not there on most of the roads in that area to maintain bus, cycle and general traffic access, and compromises have to be made. On Rathfarnham Road for example there isn't the space south of the Dodder for two lanes of general traffic, two bus lanes and two cycle lanes unless every house loses most of their front garden, which isn't realistic.

Last edited by LXFlyer; 08-03-2021 at 14:18.
LXFlyer is offline  
(2) thanks from:
08-03-2021, 13:48   #2793
tom1ie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,988
So where are we with the corridors project? What’s the next step and what date is the next milestone?
tom1ie is offline  
08-03-2021, 14:17   #2794
LXFlyer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 14,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom1ie View Post
So where are we with the corridors project? What’s the next step and what date is the next milestone?
The third round of public consultations was completed in December 2020.

The next phase is to commence planning application direct to ABP later this year.

Paschal Donohoe recently indicated on his website that this was likely to be during April or May.

The NTA indicated previously that it was likely to submit separate planning applications for the corridors, but that may change - we will have to wait and see.
LXFlyer is offline  
(2) thanks from:
08-03-2021, 15:14   #2795
cgcsb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,185
Planning app won't be done before June (earliest). Current thinking is that corridors will be grouped into 4 applications.

The covid mobility measures implemented by DCC have an impact here, some of them have basically implemented the road layout presented in bus connects and some directly contravene them and have been made semi permanent.

There's a political and design dilemma as to what to do where DCC covid mobility measures conflict with the final iteration of bus connects, especially where the covid measures have been made semi permanent (eg, kerb separated cycling lanes, widened footpaths and bus/cycle priority lights). Changing them now could be seen as regressive anti-cycling/walking steps and not changing them means that, in those locations, the painstaking 3 round public consultation has been superseded.

As an example see the present layout at Phibsboro/Connaught Rd where a new bus priority signal effectively manages a 3 lane configuration compared to the proposed 4 lane configuration. Constitution Hill has wide protected cycle lanes in place and not the bus lanes proposed. Similar hatchet jobs around the city centre. We've definitely not seen the last row yet, not by a long shot.
cgcsb is online now  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
08-03-2021, 15:30   #2796
LXFlyer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 14,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgcsb View Post
Planning app won't be done before June (earliest). Current thinking is that corridors will be grouped into 4 applications.

The covid mobility measures implemented by DCC have an impact here, some of them have basically implemented the road layout presented in bus connects and some directly contravene them and have been made semi permanent.

There's a political and design dilemma as to what to do where DCC covid mobility measures conflict with the final iteration of bus connects, especially where the covid measures have been made semi permanent (eg, kerb separated cycling lanes, widened footpaths and bus/cycle priority lights). Changing them now could be seen as regressive anti-cycling/walking steps and not changing them means that, in those locations, the painstaking 3 round public consultation has been superseded.

As an example see the present layout at Phibsboro/Connaught Rd where a new bus priority signal effectively manages a 3 lane configuration compared to the proposed 4 lane configuration. Constitution Hill has wide protected cycle lanes in place and not the bus lanes proposed. Similar hatchet jobs around the city centre. We've definitely not seen the last row yet, not by a long shot.
Given that many of the measures were put in, with the stated reason of being due to the enforced cuts in public transport capacity and much reduced numbers travelling (and I do recognise that rationale), some of the semi-permanent Covid measures will undoubtedly be subject to review, and in some cases rightly so, when things return to normal. It can't be a case of well they're there now and cannot be changed.

When public transport use starts to increase once again, as it will, there will have to be a formal discussion about some of these measures and no doubt compromises will have to be made which redress some of the imbalances against public transport.
LXFlyer is offline  
(2) thanks from:
08-03-2021, 16:23   #2797
CatInABox
Moderator
 
CatInABox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by LXFlyer View Post
Given that many of the measures were put in, with the stated reason of being due to the enforced cuts in public transport capacity and much reduced numbers travelling (and I do recognise that rationale), some of the semi-permanent Covid measures will undoubtedly be subject to review, and in some cases rightly so, when things return to normal. It can't be a case of well they're there now and cannot be changed.

When public transport use starts to increase once again, as it will, there will have to be a formal discussion about some of these measures and no doubt compromises will have to be made which redress some of the imbalances against public transport.
Even so, I'd hope that they'd take learning from what they've done with the interim stuff. After all the drama about the Liffey cycle route, it went in without any disruption, and their original plan for it had to be changed after the first weekend, with a large increase in width due to the number of people using it as an extra pedestrian path.

That's the kind of thing that I'd like to see them look at again, to challenge their thinking and assumptions. On that Liffey cycle route, they assumed that because few walked on the path currently, they didn't need to make any provision for pedestrians. Turns out that people would walk on that path, but didn't because it was narrow, and choked with cars, either parked or in motion.
CatInABox is offline  
(5) thanks from:
08-03-2021, 16:45   #2798
MJohnston
Registered User
 
MJohnston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,896
I'd imagine the Liffey Cycle Route is sticking around, as it has no physical affect on the space available to buses.

As far as Constitution Hill goes — I might be wrong, but this photo shows no real change in available bus space from before (though in fairness I don't know what it looks like a wee bit down the hill):

MJohnston is online now  
08-03-2021, 17:25   #2799
LXFlyer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 14,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatInABox View Post
Even so, I'd hope that they'd take learning from what they've done with the interim stuff. After all the drama about the Liffey cycle route, it went in without any disruption, and their original plan for it had to be changed after the first weekend, with a large increase in width due to the number of people using it as an extra pedestrian path.

That's the kind of thing that I'd like to see them look at again, to challenge their thinking and assumptions. On that Liffey cycle route, they assumed that because few walked on the path currently, they didn't need to make any provision for pedestrians. Turns out that people would walk on that path, but didn't because it was narrow, and choked with cars, either parked or in motion.
The change in thinking is welcome in that regard, my comment was really aimed at some of the measures which right now don't create a major impact overall, but will create problems for bus schedules if and when traffic and bus passenger numbers revert to normal. I certainly think that the Liffey route isn't one of those.
LXFlyer is offline  
Advertisement
08-03-2021, 17:26   #2800
LXFlyer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 14,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJohnston View Post
I'd imagine the Liffey Cycle Route is sticking around, as it has no physical affect on the space available to buses.

As far as Constitution Hill goes — I might be wrong, but this photo shows no real change in available bus space from before (though in fairness I don't know what it looks like a wee bit down the hill):

I think that the other poster meant that bus lanes are proposed there under BusConnects and the wide cycle lanes now in place are taking up some of that space?
LXFlyer is offline  
08-03-2021, 19:23   #2801
MJohnston
Registered User
 
MJohnston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by LXFlyer View Post
I think that the other poster meant that bus lanes are proposed there under BusConnects and the wide cycle lanes now in place are taking up some of that space?
I see, well aside from not really thinking they look that wide (they look barely sufficient tbh, but the camera perspective makes it hard to say for sure) that seems like not a problem. As long it doesn’t cause any disruption between now and whenever the BC corridors are constructed, I think they should remain. In this case I don’t think they do.

It’s a different story perhaps in places where active mobility measures *are* disrupting buses in the knowledge that it’d be temporary. I’m not sure I’ve seen many places where that is true.
MJohnston is online now  
Thanks from:
08-03-2021, 23:20   #2802
LXFlyer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 14,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJohnston View Post
I see, well aside from not really thinking they look that wide (they look barely sufficient tbh, but the camera perspective makes it hard to say for sure) that seems like not a problem. As long it doesn’t cause any disruption between now and whenever the BC corridors are constructed, I think they should remain. In this case I don’t think they do.
I think that you misread the earlier post and conflated two different points - in that particular example the other poster was suggesting that there seems to be a conflict between what is in the BusConnects corridor plan and what has been physically put in there and was suggesting that that would be a potential row in the making in locations like that when BusConnects corridors comes to be implemented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJohnston View Post
It’s a different story perhaps in places where active mobility measures *are* disrupting buses in the knowledge that it’d be temporary. I’m not sure I’ve seen many places where that is true.
An example of what I was referring to are the measures in Dundrum Village where temporary measures were introduced involving converting the Main Strert to be one way traffic northbound but which were not particularly an improvement for bus users, and which if traffic levels revert and bus usage numbers return across the city will become more of an issue. It’s an example of where the overall impact on the bus service isn’t particularly obvious right now due to low usage.

I think that it will need a proper long term traffic plan in due course for Dundrum Village area.
LXFlyer is offline  
Thanks from:
09-03-2021, 02:39   #2803
Qrt
Registered User
 
Qrt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 1,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by LXFlyer View Post
The third round of public consultations was completed in December 2020.

The next phase is to commence planning application direct to ABP later this year.

Paschal Donohoe recently indicated on his website that this was likely to be during April or May.

The NTA indicated previously that it was likely to submit separate planning applications for the corridors, but that may change - we will have to wait and see.
So we won’t see the final plans until the planning is submitted? Grand. I really hope they do cop on with the cycling junctions though. If that one in Ballymun is replicated across the whole city...disaster.
Qrt is online now  
09-03-2021, 09:55   #2804
MJohnston
Registered User
 
MJohnston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by LXFlyer View Post
I think that you misread the earlier post and conflated two different points - in that particular example the other poster was suggesting that there seems to be a conflict between what is in the BusConnects corridor plan and what has been physically put in there and was suggesting that that would be a potential row in the making in locations like that when BusConnects corridors comes to be implemented.
No, I understand what was said, I just don't think there will be any hassle as long as the temporary infrastructure can remain until the BusConnects corridor begins implementation.
MJohnston is online now  
(2) thanks from:
09-03-2021, 10:00   #2805
riddlinrussell
Registered User
 
riddlinrussell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 843
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJohnston View Post
No, I understand what was said, I just don't think there will be any hassle as long as the temporary infrastructure can remain until the BusConnects corridor begins implementation.
I reckon in places where pedestrians and cyclists have been 'liberated' there will be pushback unless there is a redesign of that section to account for the fact that some people have realised they don't need as much car space.
riddlinrussell is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet