Dublin - BusConnects

Podge_irl · 13-06-2018 5:19pm

This is not instead of a Metro though. It is 2 billion for bus transport for all Dublin, which would not even pay for one metro and one metro is not going to come close to either solving all the problems or having the same level of impact as this if done properly.

BonnieSituation · 13-06-2018 5:37pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

This is not instead of a Metro though. It is 2 billion for bus transport for all Dublin, which would not even pay for one metro and one metro is not going to come close to either solving all the problems or having the same level of impact as this if done properly.

Who are you talking to?

Podge_irl · 13-06-2018 6:02pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Who are you talking to?

LXFlyer.

You swooped in there before me

LXFlyer · 13-06-2018 6:33pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

This is not instead of a Metro though. It is 2 billion for bus transport for all Dublin, which would not even pay for one metro and one metro is not going to come close to either solving all the problems or having the same level of impact as this if done properly.

I think you’re not really getting what I’m saying to be honest. I’m focussing on the south Dublin area because it has the worst bus speeds in the city by a massive margin.

The bottom line for me is that, in my opinion, these plans will end up being massively watered down in that area of the city due to being politically unacceptable (I just can’t see the mass closures of roads to general traffic happening - it’s been proposed before and each time been withdrawn due to widespread opposition), and the fact that the existing pinch points will still be there unless mass demolition of villages takes place.

BusConnects has good potential in other areas of the city, on the wider corridors, and in particular the outer orbital corridors, but what I’ve said here and in the MetroLink thread is that fundamentally the wrong transport solution is being proposed for the south Dublin area, which will end up still suffering excessive bus journey times.

You may think otherwise, but I’m confident that in 2021 that area will be in much the same boat as it is now, save for minor tinkering.

The only solution (in my opinion) for that area is a Metro, which frankly isn’t even on the political radar. Hence my opinion that the area will ended up being shafted from a public transport investment perspective. I’m basically questioning the whole transport strategy for that area.

Podge_irl · 13-06-2018 6:42pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

You may think otherwise, but I’m confident that in 2021 that area will be in much the same boat as it is now, save for minor tinkering.

The only solution (in my opinion) for that area is a Metro, which frankly isn’t even on the political radar. Hence my opinion that the area will ended up being shafted from a public transport investment perspective. I’m basically questioning the whole transport strategy for that area.

I think that is possible yes. Unfortunately.

I agree with you that the area needs a metro. However, I also agree with the NTA that a metro from Swords, through the airport, is of a higher priority. That is what the SW is competing with, not this BusConnect project.

LXFlyer · 13-06-2018 6:56pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

I think that is possible yes. Unfortunately.

I agree with you that the area needs a metro. However, I also agree with the NTA that a metro from Swords, through the airport, is of a higher priority. That is what the SW is competing with, not this BusConnect project.

Well the real issue is the lack of any properly thought through and politically realistic transport plan for that area. The land reserved for a busway was given up some time ago, there’s no space for LUAS, and these plans will likely be scuppered by political objections.

In my view South Central area (Rathmines, Rathgar, Harold’s X, Kimmage, Terenure and Rathfarnham) (note it’s not SW Dublin that’s the problem although it will be affected as a knock-on) is quite likely to end up with no real improvements at all.

That to me is fundamentally wrong and shows woefully naive planning on a political level by the NTA.

Btw I’ve not in any way suggested the Metro to Swords is not a higher priority, I just think that the southern part is going in the wrong place, as the South Central area is going to remain gridlocked for years to come as BusConnects is not going to deliver in that area in my opinion.

Anyhow I think I’ve expressed my doubts about that area here enough. Time for other areas to have their say!

Carawaystick · 13-06-2018 7:48pm

Yeah, the metro should continue to the SW of the city precisely because of the narrow roads issue.

Bray Head · 13-06-2018 8:28pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

As I said above, I don’t see the Kimmage Rd Lower and Templeogue road closures/restrictions as being politically acceptable (whether I agree with them or not). Add to that, the continued pinch points and CPOs, frankly it’s papering the cracks rather than actually coming up with a proper solution which is a high capacity reliable metro.

I fully agree. But a metro is unlikely to be in place for 15 years. The Bus Connects improvements could be done in two years. That's nearly an order of magnitude difference. Something can be done soon and something should!

The proposal for the SW part of the city looks sensible to me. It would see one plodding route de-prioritised (Harold's Cross Road) and the ones with greater potential for speed (Rathmines Road and Kimmage Road) prioritised for bus traffic.

Finally, what this plan is totally lacking is a focus on enforcement. Dublin needs a dedicated transport police to make sure that people pay their fares and so that there is zero tolerance for bus and cycle lane blockages.

xper · 14-06-2018 12:13am

Dardania wrote: »

Just putting aside the media perception, and the physical works that will be needed to implement for a moment - what do people think of the routes shown? Do they make sense from a network perspective?

Surprised there has been so little comment on this in this particular forum.

In general the chosen radial corridors make a lot of sense, many are really self-selecting. I do think some of them end a little short in the outer suburbs but this probably reflects the way the forthcoming revised bus route network will spread out in those areas.

The Merrion-Blackrock corridor could continue towards Sallynoggin and Ballybrack penetrating into an area which have only indirect (directionally) services to the city.

Also wonder could the Rathfarnham corridor continue towards Nutgrove and Balinteer or towards Ballyboden.

That said, in both cases above, the areas would be partially served by the proposed orbital corridors and there is nothing to stop a bus route running along a radial corridor and then an orbital one for a short distance. The question is when are the orbital corridors going to be implemented - they are not on the 2027 Dublin public transport network map in the document. This is a concern as the orbital routes that would use them are key to the success of the network redesign.

The one other thing that I found curious was the inclusion of Nutley Lane in a UCD/Ballsbridge - City Centre corridor linking up the Bray-City Centre and Merrion-Blackrock corridors. This road is currently used only by the infrequent route 47 and Bus Eireann routes towards Wicklow/Wexford IIRC. Major route changes ahead? Or even the resurrection of the Blue Line BRT?!!

CatInABox · 14-06-2018 9:07am

Deedsie wrote: »

Does it make sense for the NTA to put in a planning application for such a massive project in one go?

Could they divide it up... for Example a single applicarion for Route 7 liffey valley to city centre
Route 8 Clondalkin to Drimnagh
Route 9 Greenhills to City Centre
Route 10 Kimmage to city centre

Those 4 routes share a section of road.

It just feels overly ambitious to think planning permisdion would be awarded for the entire project.

I hope it all goes ahead in time but just hope its done in phases.

There's nothing in the project that really jumps out as unreasonable from a planning perspective. So long as they've done the work in terms of environment impact, etc, then it should go through, probably with conditions though.

More likely, however, is a string of court cases fighting the CPOs. For those affected, if they want to save their garden, then they might see a court case as essentially "free". Win and save the garden, therefore worth the expense, or lose the case and their garden, but get paid off anyway.

LXFlyer · 14-06-2018 10:14am

CatInABox wrote: »

There's nothing in the project that really jumps out as unreasonable from a planning perspective. So long as they've done the work in terms of environment impact, etc, then it should go through, probably with conditions though.

More likely, however, is a string of court cases fighting the CPOs. For those affected, if they want to save their garden, then they might see a court case as essentially "free". Win and save the garden, therefore worth the expense, or lose the case and their garden, but get paid off anyway.

I actually suspect that the potential closure of extended sections of certain arteries (one way or both) to general traffic will be a major obstacle.

It’s far easier to do this in the city centre, but when it’s in the suburbs the effects are far greater. Some of the proposed closures are fairly major routes, which will have serious knock-on effects on the routes that the traffic is diverted onto and potentially create new “rat runs”. That I think will lead to a significant amount of objections.

Sam Russell · 14-06-2018 10:30am

One aspect of this that is not mentioned - parking.

If DCC was able to reduce on-street parking in the city centre, either by increasing the charges couples with enforcement, that could tip the balance towards PT use.

If BIK were extended to include all-day parking for workers, this might also tip the balance.

Reducing car use increases the speed of buses, which in turn improves the attraction of PT. Speed,frequency, and reliability are the forces that drive the use of PT. [Cost also has an effect].

cgcsb · 14-06-2018 10:34am

LXFlyer wrote: »

It’s a bit rich then to be telling people what’s best for them to be honest, when you don’t personally use the service in question.

Large numbers of people use the bus service along that section and blindly telling them it’s better to walk a further 8 minutes is somewhat patronising being honest about it.

It does seem to me that most posters here really don’t understand the issues facing the area and seem happy to post broad generalisations about it which don’t deal with the specific issues it faces.

You don't have to live there or use the service to know that
a)the current set up doesn't work at peak times and
b)8 minutes walk for a good service is more than acceptable
people walk for well over 2km or even 3km to access luas, DART and Swords Express at present because they are more reliable services.

blanch152 · 14-06-2018 11:15am

LXFlyer wrote: »

I actually suspect that the potential closure of extended sections of certain arteries (one way or both) to general traffic will be a major obstacle.

It’s far easier to do this in the city centre, but when it’s in the suburbs the effects are far greater. Some of the proposed closures are fairly major routes, which will have serious knock-on effects on the routes that the traffic is diverted onto and potentially create new “rat runs”. That I think will lead to a significant amount of objections.

A good point. The closure of Old Cabra Road and Prussia Street will have significant knock-on effects for Blackhorse Avenue, Aughrim Street and Oxmantown Road.

Heartbreak Hank · 14-06-2018 11:39am

Sam Russell wrote: »

One aspect of this that is not mentioned - parking.

If DCC was able to reduce on-street parking in the city centre, either by increasing the charges couples with enforcement, that could tip the balance towards PT use.

If BIK were extended to include all-day parking for workers, this might also tip the balance.

Reducing car use increases the speed of buses, which in turn improves the attraction of PT. Speed,frequency, and reliability are the forces that drive the use of PT. [Cost also has an effect].

They might introduce a congestion charge at the same time. Based on the projected journey times, the argument of no public transport alternative to driving wouldn't hold up.

No mention of park and rides that I saw. Surely they would be of benefit.

LXFlyer · 14-06-2018 12:02pm

cgcsb wrote: »

You don't have to live there or use the service to know that
a)the current set up doesn't work at peak times and
b)8 minutes walk for a good service is more than acceptable
people walk for well over 2km or even 3km to access luas, DART and Swords Express at present because they are more reliable services.

With respect it does tend to help to have an understanding of traffic flows, busy stops, pinch points etc. before telling people that road closures (for example) are a great idea without any knowledge of what the knock-on effects will be.

That’s one of the reasons I take trips across the bus network most weeks during the evening peak to see for myself what the problems are rather than pontificating and telling people what’s best for them without any actual knowledge of the on the ground problems

Removing bus services from what are key corridors is a major change. We will have to see what Jarrett Walker proposes and the reaction to that.

14-06-2018 2:08pm

A look at terenure off peak or via satellite imagery isn't going to show how disastrous it is for journey times on the 15.

Even before the crash I can remember it being so bad that at peak times you were stuck on the Templeogue Road for over 35 minutes alone, inching to the first set of two traffic lights by two cars every second green light.

There were plans last decade to turn the network of roads leading into terenure one way and nothing ever came of it. I doubt anything will come from it now.

pc7 · 14-06-2018 3:14pm

I just see this being blocked the whole way. A friend who will be getting a bus lane outside their house, they aren't losing any of their garden, just the grass verge that leads onto the road is complaining. I said but you have parking still in your front garden, yes for 2 cars, but when we have visitors they park on the verge! You can't win.

citizen6 · 14-06-2018 3:44pm

I could see a compromise whereby there's a continuous bus lane inbound via KCR and Harold's Cross, and outbound via Rathmines and Terenure. Or vice versa. The routes would come together at Templeogue Bridge.

Not sure how this would work in practice but it seems more realistic politically. Anyone travelling via Templeogue Bridge get benefits in both directions, while those living closer to town at least benefit in one direction.

14-06-2018 4:01pm

Terenure, Rathgar and Rathmines all have significant amounts of travellers disembarking on inbound 15s (whether for work, school, college or shopping). I've seen similar in the opposite direction too.

A 1200-2000metre walk between the inbound/outbound route would be useless.

citizen6 · 14-06-2018 4:28pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Terenure, Rathgar and Rathmines all have significant amounts of travellers disembarking on inbound 15s (whether for work, school, college or shopping). I've seen similar in the opposite direction too.

A 1200-2000metre walk between the inbound/outbound route would be useless.

And there would still be busses serving those places in both directions. But passengers coming from further out, and heading for town, could choose a new service that used the bus lane in both directions.

I'm not saying it's a great option. But it's better than nothing, if the current proposals are not achievable.

14-06-2018 4:34pm

citizen6 wrote: »

And there would still be busses serving those places in both directions. But passengers coming from further out, and heading for town, could choose a new service that used the bus lane in both directions.

I'm not saying it's a great option. But it's better than nothing, if the current proposals are not achievable.

So you want to increase the amount of routes by 50%?

Keep existing routes and add busconnects routes on top?

That's a terrible idea.

citizen6 · 14-06-2018 4:49pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you want to increase the amount of routes by 50%?

Keep existing routes and add busconnects routes on top?

That's a terrible idea.

You would reduce service on some existing routes as appropriate, and add new ones that took advantage of whatever bus lanes actually get built. There used to be a 15X that skipped many of the stops after Templeogue. There would be a demand for something similar that took the quickest route to or from town.

Anyone whose destination is Rathgar as you say, can continue to use the 15. Their journey would be quicker in one direction, and possibly worse (reduced frequency) in the other. But I think you overestimate the number of people going from Rathfarnham to Rathgar etc.

LXFlyer · 14-06-2018 5:12pm

Connections such as the above may well be what Jarrett Walker proposes - again I suspect that the implications of that haven’t sunk in with the general public yet.

14-06-2018 5:28pm

citizen6 wrote: »

You would reduce service on some existing routes as appropriate, and add new ones that took advantage of whatever bus lanes actually get built. There used to be a 15X that skipped many of the stops after Templeogue. There would be a demand for something similar that took the quickest route to or from town.

Anyone whose destination is Rathgar as you say, can continue to use the 15. Their journey would be quicker in one direction, and possibly worse (reduced frequency) in the other. But I think you overestimate the number of people going from Rathfarnham to Rathgar etc.

Again, you aren't really thinking your idea through. Arguing that "it's better than nothing" is silly. Walking is better than nothing. Better than nothing is in no way relevant to a strategic public transport initiative.

I also didn't estimate any number of people who get off or on on any route. I'm not aware of many (any?) one-direction circular public transport lines on any of the 20+ major cities I've travelled to in the UK and EU. There's a reason for that, they're terrible on pretty much every level of providing journies.

Lastly, making a public transport system overly complex (let's double the amount of routes, adding new routes that go mostly the same way as existing ones but only in one direction, sometimes and somewhere) isn't 'better than nothing' either.

In trying to think how DB could possibly be made worse despite trying to improve things, I think you've hit the nail on the head fairly well.

citizen6 · 14-06-2018 6:10pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, you aren't really thinking your idea through. Arguing that "it's better than nothing" is silly. Walking is better than nothing. Better than nothing is in no way relevant to a strategic public transport initiative.

I also didn't estimate any number of people who get off or on on any route. I'm not aware of many (any?) one-direction circular public transport lines on any of the 20+ major cities I've travelled to in the UK and EU. There's a reason for that, they're terrible on pretty much every level of providing journies.

Lastly, making a public transport system overly complex (let's double the amount of routes, adding new routes that go mostly the same way as existing ones but only in one direction, sometimes and somewhere) isn't 'better than nothing' either.

In trying to think how DB could possibly be made worse despite trying to improve things, I think you've hit the nail on the head fairly well.

By better than nothing, I mean better than the status quo. Continuous bus lanes in one direction is better than none. Or is that silly?

I never proposed doubling the number of routes. I suggested possibly adding some peak time routes like the old 15X.

Do you think the Busconnects proposal will happen? If not, what is your realistic alternative?

bk · 14-06-2018 7:48pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So you want to increase the amount of routes by 50%?

Keep existing routes and add busconnects routes on top?

That's a terrible idea.

That is clearly not what bus connects is proposing.

BusConnects proposes making 16 "corridors" high quality corridors.

Note the word corridor, not routes. Many different bus routes will use fully or partly a particular corridor. And not just DB/GA, but also Aircoach and many other bus and coach companies.

That isn't to say that there weren't also be bus routes off these corridors or only partly using them. There of course will be. But they will be lower quality, slower routes.

Bray Head · 15-06-2018 9:18am

bk wrote: »

BusConnects proposes making 16 "corridors" high quality corridors.

It would be great if this could be achieved with a big bang overhaul of our silly system of route numbers.

Currently there is lots of overlap between routes in the city centre and inner suburbs with the route numbers giving you no clue about it.

We should number each corridor from 11 to 26. Buses that travel corridor 11 are numbered 111, 112, 113, etc depending on how they branch off in the suburbs.

This would make it clear to people making short trips in the city centre and inner suburbs that they just have to hop on any bus starting with 11.

bk · 15-06-2018 9:56am

Bray Head I believe under BusConnects, they will also be reorganising routes, so maybe they will do that, a nice idea.

Though you would be limited to just 9 variants on corridors 10 to 16. Unless they moved to a 4 digit code. Maybe:

Corridor 1:
1001
1002
...
1010
Corridor 2:
2001
2002
...
2010
Corridor 12:
1201

Bray Head · 15-06-2018 10:03am

I think four digits could be visual clutter and you don't need that much space to convey the information.

Another solution would be good quality route maps where each corridor has its own colour. Thick lines for where several routes run on the same corridor and then thin lines where they branch off.

Luxembourg is a nice example of this but it might not work on a bigger scale in Dublin.

0da09921-8a25-4480-a97f-26f8b12e3a64.png?w=2048&auto=format

0da09921-8a25-4480-a97f-26f8b12e3a64.png?w=2048&auto=format

Heartbreak Hank · 15-06-2018 10:24am

It said in the release that the orbital CBCs will be done after the radial ones. I assume the Jarrett Walker work will identify and implement the orbitals but they will still fight it out with traffic as is, in the medium term.

From what I have read, the orbitals are a key part in the development of a network and the provision of frequency rather than coverage based system. Does providing new orbital routes, which will perform poorly for a number of years and impact the network as whole, have potential to scupper the effectiveness of the system and turn public perception against the scheme?

blanch152 · 15-06-2018 11:23am

Deleted User wrote: »

Terenure, Rathgar and Rathmines all have significant amounts of travellers disembarking on inbound 15s (whether for work, school, college or shopping). I've seen similar in the opposite direction too.

A 1200-2000metre walk between the inbound/outbound route would be useless.

It might work elsewhere if the distances are not so huge. What about Aughrim St and Prussia St?

cgcsb · 15-06-2018 11:34am

I'd like to see the bus numbering system work alpha numerically so you can easily work out which route is going where without knowing it. So if the are 10 main corridors say the buses are all A-J working clockwise.

So the current 39/a,37,70 would be E1, E2 and E3, you know all the E's are going to the blanch area and all pass through Stoneybatter, so no need to know the exact route route number.

Same with the 25a/b, 40, 66,67,26 etc. befoming the F1, F2, F3 etc. Then have a map with the trunk routes being just a letter 'F' and then thinner lines denoting where the individual routes branch off from the main corridor. So only the main corridors need to be different colours.

Bray Head · 15-06-2018 1:33pm

cgcsb wrote: »

I'd like to see the bus numbering system work alpha numerically so you can easily work out which route is going where without knowing it. So if the are 10 main corridors say the buses are all A-J working clockwise.

This could also work. For people with vision impairments it's better to keep to numerals only as there is less scope for mixing things up.

loyatemu · 15-06-2018 2:57pm

expect "Save the 46A" type campaigns if they do renumber (though they did manage to kill the 10 without too much fuss).

LXFlyer · 15-06-2018 3:07pm

loyatemu wrote: »

expect "Save the 46A" type campaigns if they do renumber (though they did manage to kill the 10 without too much fuss).

They did but the experience they had from the renumbering of the 10 as I understand it (seemingly significant confusion and a dip in usage interestingly for an extended period) led to further renumbering under Network Direct being kept to a minimum (except where absolutely necessary due to routes being merged).

People do tend to resist change no matter how sensible or well intentioned it is!

BonnieSituation · 15-06-2018 6:57pm

cgcsb wrote: »

I'd like to see the bus numbering system work alpha numerically so you can easily work out which route is going where without knowing it. So if the are 10 main corridors say the buses are all A-J working clockwise.

So the current 39/a,37,70 would be E1, E2 and E3, you know all the E's are going to the blanch area and all pass through Stoneybatter, so no need to know the exact route route number.

Same with the 25a/b, 40, 66,67,26 etc. befoming the F1, F2, F3 etc. Then have a map with the trunk routes being just a letter 'F' and then thinner lines denoting where the individual routes branch off from the main corridor. So only the main corridors need to be different colours.

So that would be anticlockwise then? Cos the sea!

BonnieSituation · 15-06-2018 6:58pm

loyatemu wrote: »

expect "Save the 46A" type campaigns if they do renumber (though they did manage to kill the 10 without too much fuss).

Remember that time they had the temerity to stop it going through Monkstown Farm?

Fuppin' RBB and his PBP cronies.

Stephen15 · 15-06-2018 7:25pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Remember that time they had the temerity to stop it going through Monkstown Farm?

Fuppin' RBB and his PBP cronies.

And to some degree they won when they tried to reroute the 7 away from Sallynoggin ended up coming to a compromise by running every second 7 through Sallynoggin now known as the 7a. They never received the same opposition when they took it out of the somewhat more middle class area of Stillorgan Village and made the sensible decision to run it along the N11.

Sam Russell · 15-06-2018 7:40pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

And to some degree they won when they tried to reroute the 7 away from Sallynoggin ended up coming to a compromise by running every second 7 through Sallynoggin now known as the 7a. They never received the same opposition when they took it out of the somewhat more middle class area of Stillorgan Village and made the sensible decision to run it along the N11.

Neither the 7 or the 7A go on the N11, or anywhere near Stillorgan Village. They go through Glenageary, Dun Laoghaire, Blackrock, Ballsbridge, Pearse Station.

LXFlyer · 15-06-2018 8:00pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Neither the 7 or the 7A go on the N11, or anywhere near Stillorgan Village. They go through Glenageary, Dun Laoghaire, Blackrock, Ballsbridge, Pearse Station.

Sam you’re completely misunderstanding his post.

He’s referring to when they took the 46a out of Stillorgan village.

He’s comparing the comparative lack of opposition to that move when compared with the opposition to removing all route 7 and 7a services from Sallynoggin (which led to the compromise of the 7 bypassing it and the 7a going through it).

The point being that most proposed changes in working class areas tend to result in a lot of ill-informed and sensationalist nonsense being expressed that results in the proposals being diluted.

Monkstown Farm was one that they did manage to push through thankfully.

Stephen15 · 15-06-2018 9:21pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Neither the 7 or the 7A go on the N11, or anywhere near Stillorgan Village. They go through Glenageary, Dun Laoghaire, Blackrock, Ballsbridge, Pearse Station.

See LXFlyer's post

Sam Russell · 15-06-2018 9:27pm

LXFlyer wrote: »

Sam you’re completely misunderstanding his post.

He’s referring to when they took the 46a out of Stillorgan village.

He’s comparing the comparative lack of opposition to that move when compared with the opposition to removing all route 7 and 7a services from Sallynoggin (which led to the compromise of the 7 bypassing it and the 7a going through it).

The point being that most proposed changes in working class areas tend to result in a lot of ill-informed and sensationalist nonsense being expressed that results in the proposals being diluted.

Monkstown Farm was one that they did manage to push through thankfully.

Clearly missed the point.

KD345 · 17-06-2018 11:53am

bk wrote: »

Bray Head I believe under BusConnects, they will also be reorganising routes, so maybe they will do that, a nice idea.

Though you would be limited to just 9 variants on corridors 10 to 16. Unless they moved to a 4 digit code. Maybe:

Corridor 1:
1001
1002
...
1010
Corridor 2:
2001
2002
...
2010
Corridor 12:
1201

That is very confusing. Asking people to take, for example, the 1207 bus to Finglas is overly complicated.

Keep in mind, some bus routes will use two corridors and some corridors will split to serve different areas. Some areas will be served by two corridors.

If we are to renumber bus routes, it should be kept simple and we should work from number 1 upwards.

I would be in favor of retaining the current number system we have. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the 7, 15s, 25s, 41 etc. they are esatablished routes in the areas they save. The problem is not with the number on the front of the bus, but rather the frequency, capacity and priority the bus has on its route.

We will soon see what the route plans are for Bus Connects, but I feel the simplest options will either be starting from 1 upwards, or else retain the suffix system, which has some benefits in dealing with route variations. The current 41,a,b,c,x is a good example of this, the 41 group is associated with Swords. It is similar in Lucan with the 25s, in Howth with the 31s and Blanchardstown with the 38s and 39s.

cgcsb · 18-06-2018 9:15am

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So that would be anticlockwise then? Cos the sea!

yes ok, you get the picture.

CatInABox · 25-06-2018 3:07pm

Relevant to all buses, I think:

https://twitter.com/campaignforleo/status/1011201833635901440

Wasn't sure if this was confirmed on any of the plans announced already, but all new buses will be low or zero emissions from next year.

bk · 25-06-2018 4:10pm

Very interesting. That is a Wrigthbus StreetAir. I think the one pictured is a full EV model with a 300kWh battery and a range of 150 to 180 miles.

Wrightbus also have an hydrogen fuel cell double decker version of this bus.

For those who don't know Wrightbus have made almost all of Dublin Buses buses over the last few years in their factory up north, so these would be obvious replacements for the current buses.

Though I'm surprised if they jump straight to these. I would have thought hybrids would be a stepping stone, but I'd certainly not complain if they made the jump straight to these.

Of course this is just a photo op, so without seeing a contract, I won't get too excited.

LeinsterDub · 25-06-2018 4:20pm

bk wrote: »

Very interesting. That is a Wrigthbus StreetAir. I think the one pictured is a full EV model with a 300kWh battery and a range of 150 to 180 miles.

Wrightbus also have an hydrogen fuel cell double decker version of this bus.

For those who don't know Wrightbus have made almost all of Dublin Buses buses over the last few years in their factory up north, so these would be obvious replacements for the current buses.

Though I'm surprised if they jump straight to these. I would have thought hybrids would be a stepping stone, but I'd certainly not complain if they made the jump straight to these.

Of course this is just a photo op, so without seeing a contract, I won't get too excited.

Fully electric would be great for the air quality and noise levels in Dublin.

bk · 25-06-2018 4:36pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Fully electric would be great for the air quality and noise levels in Dublin.

It sure would and it would help with some of the planning objections that have been raised over the last few years with regards to re-routing buses due to College Green Plaza etc.

It might also helps with BusConencts objections. You just know that objections people will make towards it will be due to extra noise and pollution more buses might bring. Being able to point to new buses like these coming could help neuter such objections in planning.

AlmightyCushion · 25-06-2018 4:50pm

Leo did just say that all new DB and BE buses will be low or no emissions buses.

Edit: Derp. I see someone posted that only a few posts ago.

Dublin - BusConnects

Comments