Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dublin - BusConnects

19192949697117

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Qrt wrote: »
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,913 ✭✭✭tom1ie


    So where are we with the corridors project? What’s the next step and what date is the next milestone?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    tom1ie wrote: »
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,228 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    cgcsb wrote: »
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 10,194 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatInABox


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    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):

    image.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    CatInABox wrote: »
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    MJohnston wrote: »
    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):

    image.jpg

    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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    MJohnston wrote: »
    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.
    MJohnston wrote: »
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,612 ✭✭✭Qrt


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,460 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    MJohnston wrote: »
    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,946 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    Qrt wrote: »
    I had a burst of optimism today about the CRCs. I think the strategy of aiming high by the NTA has worked in their favour. I can’t see any major hurdles to getting bus priority on the sixteen routes. The way it boiled down to trees vs detours really showed the hypocrisy of some of the specific community groups.

    I have some reservations about the bike junctions, but overall I’m fairly happy with the way the city is going. There’s no real point to this post but I just thought I’d say it anyway.

    If you lived in Shankill you wouldn't be say that,
    The first published plan was riddled with errors,
    They said it was 13KM, actually it 13 miles 20 ish KM if they can't even get the units right !
    They said it would not affect parking in the village as there was none. In fact there is and it would all be taken.
    They down played the trees to be take out and how that would change the environment. Between the Bray roundabout and Shankill is very green huge chestnut trees taking them out would effective make it like the ****ty bypass running through one of the last villages in Dublin.
    They wanted to divert a foot path in to the park, would any woman feel safe walking in there after dark.

    It was clear for the plan that it was badly thought out and they hadn't done a boots on the ground survey or walk about. After the first consultation there as a flurry of people taking measurements.

    Oh and the time to get form the Bray roundabout to the other side of shankill would improve by a minute or two it's not a significant bottleneck.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,317 Mod ✭✭✭✭marno21


    The NTA have commenced a pre-application consultation with An Bord Pleanala for the Core Bus Corridors project

    http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/309584.htm


  • Registered Users Posts: 143 ✭✭yascaoimhin


    Just a reminder that we're by no means finished talking about Trees and Cycle lanes
    https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1375039308466434053?s=20


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,228 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Just a reminder that we're by no means finished talking about Trees and Cycle lanes
    https://twitter.com/DublinCommuters/status/1375039308466434053?s=20

    Should we be concerned that the map seems to not cover a large % of the actual orbital routes. The O (most important) is barely touched there.


  • Registered Users Posts: 143 ✭✭yascaoimhin


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Should we be concerned that the map seems to not cover a large % of the actual orbital routes. The O (most important) is barely touched there.

    Whilst it's highly unlikely we'll see the O being designated as one of these Core bus Corridors, the reconfiguration of the North and South Circulars is something I know Dublin City Council is looking at separately.

    The idea of having an inner-city orbital was something that was born out of the Network Redesign, suggested by Jarret Walker and Co in 2018/2019. At that point the Orbital Bus Corridors had already been agreed to in the Transport Strategy in 2016 and the North and South Circulars weren't part of it.

    It's worth remembering that the specific alignment of the corridors are just guides until preliminary studies are carried out which haven't happened yet. It's also worth remembering that the Transport Strategy is in the process of being reviewed so it's possible the NTA are waiting until that review is complete before deciding whether the north and South Circulars reconfiguration for bus and bike travel should be their or Dublin City Councils responsibility


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Whilst it's highly unlikely we'll see the O being designated as one of these Core bus Corridors, the reconfiguration of the North and South Circulars is something I know Dublin City Council is looking at separately.

    The idea of having an inner-city orbital was something that was born out of the Network Redesign, suggested by Jarret Walker and Co in 2018/2019. At that point the Orbital Bus Corridors had already been agreed to in the Transport Strategy in 2016 and the North and South Circulars weren't part of it.

    It's worth remembering that the specific alignment of the corridors are just guides until preliminary studies are carried out which haven't happened yet. It's also worth remembering that the Transport Strategy is in the process of being reviewed so it's possible the NTA are waiting until that review is complete before deciding whether the north and South Circulars reconfiguration for bus and bike travel should be their or Dublin City Councils responsibility

    Well without any additional priority, the O will not function properly at peak times.

    Years of experience along the SCR tells me that. Without CPO there, it's going to be very difficult to deliver any additional priority for that route.

    As to the other corridors, they will have to correspond to the orbital routes in the network review, so it's pretty obvious where they would be needed.

    I remain VERY skeptical with regards to how much priority can be delivered along the inner orbital bus routes on the south side, such as the S2 and S4, given that it is planned for general traffic to be re-routed along many of those roads from the radial routes such as Kimmage Road and Rathmines where the bus gates are planned.

    Most of the roads used by the S2 and S4 are two lane roads, far narrower than the radial routes and the scope for widening is minimal, especially at the pinch points. You would talking about far greater amounts of CPO than on the radial routes, and frankly that's going to be pretty toxic politically.

    I think that debate will be pushed well down the road unfortunately. The NTA will want to get the radial corridors progressing I think first.

    The outer routes such as the S6 and S8 already have bus priority measures for much of the roads they will travel along, so aren't as big an issue, but will need attention at pinch points.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,228 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Whilst it's highly unlikely we'll see the O being designated as one of these Core bus Corridors, the reconfiguration of the North and South Circulars is something I know Dublin City Council is looking at separately.

    The idea of having an inner-city orbital was something that was born out of the Network Redesign, suggested by Jarret Walker and Co in 2018/2019. At that point the Orbital Bus Corridors had already been agreed to in the Transport Strategy in 2016 and the North and South Circulars weren't part of it.

    It's worth remembering that the specific alignment of the corridors are just guides until preliminary studies are carried out which haven't happened yet. It's also worth remembering that the Transport Strategy is in the process of being reviewed so it's possible the NTA are waiting until that review is complete before deciding whether the north and South Circulars reconfiguration for bus and bike travel should be their or Dublin City Councils responsibility

    The O bus has to be on a core orbital corridor, it's the most important orbital, arguably the most important new route in all of bus connects, a game changer, it has to work. That doesn't mean there must be continuous bus lanes though.

    Removing street parking on the NCR west of Phibsboro and replacing with segregated cycle lanes is possible. Throw in a bus gate at the main cross roads in Phibsboro and another at Adelaide Rd/Fitzwilliam st and you're half way there. Make the cycle lanes on NCR east of Phibs parking protected. Same job on SCR. Very doable, no need for a drop of CPO either, just restrict cars.

    Car numbers will collapse anyway after the radial CBCs are done because driving will become too indirect to be competitive with the bus / active modes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    cgcsb wrote: »
    The O bus has to be on a core orbital corridor, it's the most important orbital, arguably the most important new route in all of bus connects, a game changer, it has to work. That doesn't mean there must be continuous bus lanes though.

    Removing street parking on the NCR west of Phibsboro and replacing with segregated cycle lanes is possible. Throw in a bus gate at the main cross roads in Phibsboro and another at Adelaide Rd/Fitzwilliam st and you're half way there. Make the cycle lanes on NCR east of Phibs parking protected. Same job on SCR. Very doable, no need for a drop of CPO either, just restrict cars.

    Car numbers will collapse anyway after the radial CBCs are done because driving will become too indirect to be competitive with the bus / active modes.

    I haven't gone through and checked, but how many turning lanes are there at junctions along the SCR/NCR? Each of those becoming a priority bus gate instead would be a huge time save for the O route. Along with any junctions where the lane width becomes extra generous.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,228 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    I haven't gone through and checked, but how many turning lanes are there at junctions along the SCR/NCR? Each of those becoming a priority bus gate instead would be a huge time save for the O route. Along with any junctions where the lane width becomes extra generous.

    There's some crazy wide lanes all over Dublin. I'd love to know what the original logic behind them was, not quite big enough for 2 cars to pass but may enough for one to partially mount the pavement and put the flashers on while the other passes unhindered.

    I bet that was part of the rationale.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    cgcsb wrote: »
    The O bus has to be on a core orbital corridor, it's the most important orbital, arguably the most important new route in all of bus connects, a game changer, it has to work. That doesn't mean there must be continuous bus lanes though.

    Removing street parking on the NCR west of Phibsboro and replacing with segregated cycle lanes is possible. Throw in a bus gate at the main cross roads in Phibsboro and another at Adelaide Rd/Fitzwilliam st and you're half way there. Make the cycle lanes on NCR east of Phibs parking protected. Same job on SCR. Very doable, no need for a drop of CPO either, just restrict cars.

    Car numbers will collapse anyway after the radial CBCs are done because driving will become too indirect to be competitive with the bus / active modes.

    I think that, not for the first time, your post above is a tad over-optimistic, specifically that car numbers "will collapse".

    A little bit of realism here is needed, rather than simply pure idealism.

    While car numbers will undoubtedly reduce, there's still going to be a reasonablly significant amount of car traffic that will be using the city's roads, and particularly those planned for some of the inner orbital bus routes, as they are the planned diversion roads from the likes of Kimmage Road and Rathmines Road. The Stillorgan QBC for example didn't kill off car traffic along that route.

    There are of course small things that could be done, such as widening the turn at Kelly's Corner to allow buses and cars turn left alongside one another, and perhaps restricting some of the turns off the road, but there are limits to the scale that this can be done.

    The SCR betwen Leonard's Corner and Kelly's Corner simply isn't wide enough for two lanes of traffic and two bus lanes, and that's before you even think of adding dedicated cycle lanes too. That's one of the worst points for bus congestion as it is, but I can think of others too - the nose-to-kerb parking just west of Dolphin's Barn Crossroads is a humdinger of bad design.

    I really don't think that we will see significant changes in priority before the new routes are implemented - remember that they are due to start next year.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,228 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    I think that, not for the first time, your post above is a tad over-optimistic,

    Wow, we're doing character bits now.
    LXFlyer wrote: »
    A little bit of realism here is needed, rather than simply pure idealism.

    While car numbers will undoubtedly reduce, there's still going to be a reasonablly significant amount of car traffic that will be using the city's roads, and particularly those planned for some of the inner orbital bus routes, as they are the planned diversion roads from the likes of Kimmage Road and Rathmines Road. The Stillorgan QBC for example didn't kill off car traffic along that route.

    There are of course small things that could be done, such as widening the turn at Kelly's Corner to allow buses and cars turn left alongside one another, and perhaps restricting some of the turns off the road, but there are limits to the scale that this can be done.

    The SCR betwen Leonard's Corner and Kelly's Corner simply isn't wide enough for two lanes of traffic and two bus lanes, and that's before you even think of adding dedicated cycle lanes too. That's one of the worst points for bus congestion as it is, but I can think of others too - the nose-to-kerb parking just west of Dolphin's Barn Crossroads is a humdinger of bad design.

    I really don't think that we will see significant changes in priority before the new routes are implemented - remember that they are due to start next year.

    I was talking more in the context of Central Dublin, bus gates at Rathmines, Prussia St, Kilmainham etc coupled with reduced traffic lanes, reduced on street parking, pedestrianisation schemes and various other cycling schemes will no doubt mean a drastic reduction of cars, at least within the central area, perhaps even knock on closure of car parks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,218 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    cgcsb wrote: »
    There's some crazy wide lanes all over Dublin. I'd love to know what the original logic behind them was, not quite big enough for 2 cars to pass but may enough for one to partially mount the pavement and put the flashers on while the other passes unhindered.
    They were built four horse carts wide.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Wow, we're doing character bits now.

    I was talking more in the context of Central Dublin, bus gates at Rathmines, Prussia St, Kilmainham etc coupled with reduced traffic lanes, reduced on street parking, pedestrianisation schemes and various other cycling schemes will no doubt mean a drastic reduction of cars, at least within the central area, perhaps even knock on closure of car parks.

    For absolute clarity, I was referring to the language used in your post ("total collapse...").

    The discussion was about the orbital routes, not the city centre.

    I can certainly see traffic levels in the very centre of the city reducing significantly, but when you get out to the likes of the NCR/SCR, the Grand Canal and the planned inner orbital bus routes, I don't see a "total collapse" or drastic reduction happening. If anything those routes will be far more congested than before.


  • Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    The SCR betwen Leonard's Corner and Kelly's Corner simply isn't wide enough for two lanes of traffic and two bus lanes, and that's before you even think of adding dedicated cycle lanes too. That's one of the worst points for bus congestion as it is, but I can think of others too - the nose-to-kerb parking just west of Dolphin's Barn Crossroads is a humdinger of bad design.

    Had a quick look at Leonards corner, there is a turning lane coming both directions at that junction on the SCR, if they were changed to bus priority lights then the bus would sail through and up to the next junction (which hopefully would also have same priority junction setup)

    Ensure light sequences are timed so the bus will arrive at the priority light before traffic can build up enough to block the lane split and buses will be able to sail along the route regardless of other priority measures.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,483 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Had a quick look at Leonards corner, there is a turning lane coming both directions at that junction on the SCR, if they were changed to bus priority lights then the bus would sail through and up to the next junction (which hopefully would also have same priority junction setup)

    Ensure light sequences are timed so the bus will arrive at the priority light before traffic can build up enough to block the lane split and buses will be able to sail along the route regardless of other priority measures.

    The problem is not that junction per se, but rather the whole section from Kelly's Corner back to Leonard's Corner in the morning peak.

    The traffic can back up the entire length of that section, and the bus lane only starts after Emor Street which is roughly halfway along that section. That means buses can take 15 minutes to cover that section. I've had to resort to getting off buses at the first stop on the SCR and walk to Camden Street and catch the departure or two departures ahead of mine at times which is ludicrous.

    The road is simply not wide enough to accommodate an inbound bus lane there as there's an outbound one which is needed in the evening peak.

    Add to that the bus lane being blocked by left turning traffic off the SCR at various junctions and traffic joining the SCR from side streets, and it's a mess.

    Most of the traffic from the SCR continues around onto Charlotte Way and points east from there, which in turn means that most of it has then to cross the LUAS line at the Harcourt Street / Hatch Street junction leading to tailbacks at peak times where LUAS frequency is high.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    The problem is not that junction per se, but rather the whole section from Kelly's Corner back to Leonard's Corner in the morning peak.

    The traffic can back up the entire length of that section, and the bus lane only starts after Emor Street which is roughly halfway along that section. That means buses can take 15 minutes to cover that section. I've had to resort to getting off buses at the first stop on the SCR and walk to Camden Street and catch the departure or two departures ahead of mine at times which is ludicrous.

    The road is simply not wide enough to accommodate an inbound bus lane there as there's an outbound one which is needed in the evening peak.

    Add to that the bus lane being blocked by left turning traffic off the SCR at various junctions and traffic joining the SCR from side streets, and it's a mess.

    Most of the traffic from the SCR continues around onto Charlotte Way and points east from there, which in turn means that most of it has then to cross the LUAS line at the Harcourt Street / Hatch Street junction leading to tailbacks at peak times where LUAS frequency is high.

    Aye but I wasn't proposing a bus lane at all along there?


Advertisement