College Green Plaza -- public consultation open

lxflyer wrote: »

That's really a different topic.

But any increase in normal bus route operating hours will require increased subsidy from the NTA.

There is some talk of it happening but I'd prefer to see the capacity issues on daytime services on certain routes addressed first.

And most routes (with a few exceptions) have a last departure from city centre at 23:30 not 23:20!

Also all Nitelink routes have some limited pickup locations en route.

My point being that you'll have large areas where cars are banned 24/7 and there are no public transport services at all in those areas for 6 hours of the day. It just seems silly to have road space that isn't used at all by pt for several hours being off limits to private transport. Basically it'll be lying empty for a quarter of the day every day.

lxflyer wrote: »

Only for about 4 hours.

Trams finish at 00:30 and start again at 05:00.

Trams don't run on Bachelor's walk, Burgh Quay, Dame St, Geroge's St, Parliament St etc. Those streets will just be unused for those hours. Trams also only serve a fraction of the area served by Dublin Bus.

MJohnston wrote: »

Wait, this is a cyclist-oriented proposal? Since when??

Well the issue relating specifically to the capacity of College Green (which appears to be the driving force behind this) is down to a full lane of traffic being removed to install a two-way cycle lane around the Bank of Ireland.

That is what is causing the perceived issue of too many buses and trams.

I'd ask the question of could an alternative cycle route be provided - maybe along Anglesea St and Aston Quay?

MJohnston wrote: »

That doesn't seem to be true at all to me given how this project has progressed. Original plans removed ALL non-Luas traffic completely, and from my perspective as a cyclist, there's very little in here that makes life better for us, it's mostly about simply providing an open, pedestrianized civic plaza, and then the rest of the reasoning is about incorporating the new Cross City line into the area.

You are comparing the negation in bus service provision against the perceived benefits for cyclists, but that's a tiny, tiny part of the plan. You have to weigh it against a whole heap of intangibles like "making the city centre more pleasant", "increasing the draw for tourism", etc.

Anglesea St will probably never be a go-er because it'd involve removing Temple Bar cobbling (and if you don't remove it, cyclists are not going to use it). Aston Quay is also a mess thanks to taxis and buses competing with each other for stopping spaces - it's probably the worst part of the quays to cycle on (though Batchelor's on the opposite side is pretty bad too).

But, here's the thing - you can mitigate the need for north-south cyclists to use College Green by opening up the Trinity campus to them a bit, but cyclists aren't to blame for buses not being able to travel east-west anymore, that's because of the above.

The original plan (as per the official documents) was for the northern half of College Green (between Trinity and Church Lane) to become a plaza and for buses to continue along the southern half with a T junction with Grafton St and the rest of College Green.

Buses would continue to operate through College Green to & from Dame St and Grafton St. There was NEVER any suggestion in the public realm that buses would be permanently removed at all.

This was then changed by DCC because they decided that by putting in the two way cycle lane along the BOI it meant insufficient space for all the buses and trams and that as a result they could make a much bigger plaza. That's where we are today.

I'd agree - the cobbling would have to go for part of Anglesea St if that option were used, and yes I would prefer to see a cycle route through Trinity opened up as well.

This complete lack of joined up planning is farcical. This should have been an integral part of the ABP hearings for the LUAS line and is a disgrace that far more public transport users on buses face longer journey times to facilitate far fewer LUAS users. It makes no sense whatsoever.

MJohnston wrote: »

It's to facilitate tourism and public spaces, it's not to facilitate the Luas. The Luas is just the trigger.

Edit: or to put it more correctly - the drive for this change comes from DCC's long standing push to form College Green into a civic space. Any east/west traffic movements were never going to fully align with that idea.

Well let us disagree on that - the official line for the change in the plans was that there was insufficient space to combine the buses coming from Dame St with the buses coming from Grafton St and the trams.

Part of the reason for that is that at least one entire traffic lane is removed and replaced by a two-way cycle lane. That is one aspect that is causing the conflict here.

I honestly think that these plans as stand are unworkable from a public transport perspective. The negative costs in terms of reduced interchanges, increased journey times and potentially increased resource requirements to maintain the existing service levels are too high a price.

MJohnston wrote: »

You can disagree with me if you like, but here's DCC's own words from their presentation:

"The space created by this measure can now be used to meet the City Council’s objective of creating a major civic space.
This will allow DCC to fulfil it’s stated policies and objectives in the creation of an improved public realm “ the assembly room of the city “ at College Green."

The wording of this clearly indicates that all of the change is driven by this objective. Here's another quote from the public consultation doc that they choose to highlight in the introduction:

"The introduction of Luas Cross City in the College Green area provides a catalyst for major transport change"

The word 'catalyst' being key there. It's very clear that the civic space is the primary objective, and Luas Cross City provides the kick up the arse to get it done.

As for whether the new cycle path is what is causing east-west access to be removed, it seems doubtful when the presentation specifically talks about "conflicting traffic movements" such as the diagrams on page 12 and 14. Cyclists or not, they've clearly indicated that they think the conflict between east-west and north-south movements would be a big problem.

I appreciate the desire by DCC to have a plaza, but they are to a degree creating artificial reasons to push it - such as these conflicts which are in part caused by the reduction in traffic lanes from the existing four to what appears to be two. Were there four lanes retained that argument about conflicts would be greatly reduced.

Carawaystick wrote: »

If the road was left as originally, 2 lanes south, 2 lanes north, with tramlines,
it would still be exceptionally dangerous for cyclists going to Dame street, with a high risk of getting wheels caught in the rails.
ABP should have insisted on a good design solution for this instead of mickey mouse stuff about a tram stop on Dawson st.
There's a similar issue coming from Pearse st to cross the tramlines, and going east to Fleet st.

There's a few fundamental issues, with Trinity and Temple Bar and the Liffey being roadblocks hindering transport links in Dublin, along with the majority of links being surface bus links.
Along with the city council wanting to add another roadblock to transport through the city here.

I don't disagree with your point on the danger for cyclists - I think a proper safe alternative cycle route should be provided.

But the issue I have is that this proposal is not going to improve the flow of public transport through the city - it's going to do the exact opposite for the majority of public transport users.

MJohnston wrote: »

How do you suggest retaining four lanes when the Luas goes through there? It's not artificial at all, the conflict is generated by the addition of the Luas, and while we can agree that this should have been considered during the planning of that particular project, it's built now, and will be going through there, so it has to be dealt with. I would say that you just simply can't have east-west movements when the Luas is passing through north-south.

And you simply can't have a decent civic space that is transected by buses and taxis.

It's perfectly possible to retain two shared lanes and two traffic lanes. One LUAS lane does not take up more space than a traffic lane.

As for the size of the civic space that is very much a choice that needs to be made - do we want to keep the city moving or create a bigger space and frankly a mess that will inevitably mean longer journey times.

I personally believe this is too high a price to pay.

Deedsie wrote: »

I Personally would be happy with slightly longer commute times for a more pleasant city centre when I eventually do get there.

How long is your commute in the morning rush hour and what is an acceptable increase in journey time?

donvito99 wrote: »

The City will still move. It'll do so elsewhere. College Green is in the middle of a pedestrian spine of the city, and they should take priority, given that they're choked out of it at the moment.

We pay too high a price already to facilitate people who expect to be dropped to the front of Penney's on a bus pass in the middle of a capital city.

Looking at the detail of this I am not as certain as you are that things will keep moving.

A single lane for all traffic in Georges St northbound - that's a great improvement for buses over the bus lane that's there at present.

Can I ask do you use the bus service through the city centre? Frankly your last comment suggests that you don't as it's extremely patronising and demeaning of bus users and fails to recognise the importance that the bus service plays in the city.

This is about people's commute and the length of time it is going to take. Just because you may not be affected doesn't mean that the thousands of bus commuters who this will affect should pay the price being asked here.

Attached are photos (apologies for the quality) of the detailed plans that DCC have on display in Wood Quay, but which are inexplicably not included in the consultation document.

donvito99 wrote: »

At the minute I'm on the 16 route so I would technically be affected. But it's only a 10 minute walk to O'CS from Dame Street - which can be a nice 10 minute walk from George's St to O'CS via an improved CG unmolested by narrow footpaths, suffocating street furniture, marauding taxis and imposing convoys of buses all vying to charge towards blundering tourists, aimlessly blocking footpaths and impeding the hasty, huddled masses. Sorry to go all Ulysses here, but it would be nice for a change if we did something quite radical. Not just piecemeal, tokenistic hat tips towards civility of the city, but determined and decisive planning that excludes modes of transport that are noisy and dirty and exploitative of the particular corridor.

We've had the bus gate, it's now time we claimed the O'CS, CG, SSG corridor for the city and not for clamorous commuters who find a bit of a walk unappealing. And I cannot accept the argument that CG is absolutely necessary to the maintenance of an efficient bus network. Why must O'CS be the dump for all buses?

Again I have to point out that the bus network is critical to the public transport system in Dublin.

Whether you view buses as dirty or noisy is a moot point.

The reality is that they carry over 2/3 of all public transport through the city. As such, like any other city, the public transport system should:
- Be convenient for customers - that means serving major retail and business areas
- Operate along direct routes
- Have significant bus priority measures en route

This scheme flies in the face of all of that.

It's all very well saying buses are dirty and noisy and should be moved, but without putting in place any realistic alternative such as Metro North and DART Underground that can move large numbers of people, you have to accept that the buses need to be where they are.

You're also taking a very simplistic view here focussing on people travelling to the city only. Many of the bus routes are cross-city. What about all the large number of cross-city passengers whose commuting journey time is going to be extended? Are you saying to hell with them as well?

It's all and well and good having these idealistic visions - but when the practical effect is to cause longer commutes for very large numbers of people then you have to call them into question.

One look at those designs I posted last night will tell you this will cause major problems for the operation of an effective public transport service in the city.

MJohnston wrote: »

I hate the prevalence of these kinds of streets in Dublin - just wide enough to encourage impatient drivers/taxis to try and form two lanes, but then quickly narrows back down again, causing more congestion than if it had been a simple, clear one lane the whole time.

OMG the 2 most annoying streets for this:

Winetavern St. Three lanes but the leftmost is very wide so cars usually form a fourth lane out of the bicycle lane and the extra bit of space. While the footpath is impassable for pedestrians going around the corner.

Fr Mathew Bridge has the opposite problem. Two lanes marked each way but no way to average cars can safely travel side by side. And of course the two north bound lanes must merge on the bridge because Church st is one lane anyway.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Large numbers of people making their way from fully pedestrianised Grafton St and Suffolk St meeting crowds from the plaza on the narrow footpaths of Church Lane is not good.

I'd presume the road would be narrowed to a single lane and the paths widened
Although Brown Thomas might object to this

It's a good start but taxis can't be allowed on Grafton St

cgcsb wrote: »

oh no I see bus stops on Grafton st. Disaster.

oh no

I asked upthread about the (more than likely) contention between buses stopping and the LUAS behind it waiting for boarding and exit from the buses. I was kindly informed that there would be no bus stops until Westmoreland Street. Whew I thought, that's good!

But is the photo a legitimate view of the plan? I dunno.

Bottom line is, if buses or taxis are allowed to stop/pick up/drop off on the Luas line there will be trouble ahead!.

Edit.... I've just looked again, and I suppose on a pragmatic basis, if the bus stops are indented fully, it might not be so bad. But still.....

Missing my point there.

The proposed civic space blocks the main artery and tries to channel the flow of buses down places that are both not suitable for current levels, not suitable for increased levels, and aren't where people want to get to ( or through ). Its written without relevance to achievability, I suppose.

Krakow, to take your example - I've been there - has several wide streets to carry the flow away and around the centre

Bristol might be a better example but even then public transport got the priority IIRC

mhge wrote: »

Many cities on the continent have large central spaces with no ground transport at all, just walking and cycling. If underground transport exists at all, it's usually one station so you still need to walk where you want to go. See the whole historic area of Cracow, Stroget in Copenhagen, Nieuwmarkt/Oude Kirk in Amsterdam, Gamla Stan in Stockholm. There are rickshaws for the genuinely infirm and everyone else just walks or cycles. It seems to be a Dublin phenomenon that people need to be dropped off right in front of where they want to be, and therefore buses need to be pushed through the centre itself and it's one thoroughfare to boot.
Dublin's proposed civic space is tiny in comparison with the above, just one square with a small number of short side streets, and it will have a tram running right through it, but it's still somehow impossible to accept?

My experience is the contrary - the central areas are very well served by some element of mass transit be it overground or underground. Walking isn't usually a major problem. The thing is, the core mass transit systems in a lot of cities which have million plus populations in the metropolitan area tend to be rail based. Buses supplement. This isn't really the case in Dublin where the primary public transport system is still buses.

The problem I have with something like the above plans is that there's no coherent overview for how we want the city. Just this piece at this time.

Personally, I've always felt O'Connell Street would make a far greater plaza than College Green. Particularly on those days where it's been closed to traffic and a pedestrian zone it's felt great. But if we are going to do that, we need a far longer term view on mass transit, and given what happened with DART underground and Metro North last year, we just don't have that right now. There's a long finger element about those decisions. If we actually grasped the nettle of some underground transit systems and integrated the buses to a core transport plan rather than trying to do as little as we could get away with there might be scope then for making some of both the north and south quays bus only and feeding it into things like Tara and a central underground station and intersecting better with the tramlines. I can't see this happening for a couple of reasons, of which the carparks are obviously one and cyclist behaviour is another.

The problem I have with the College Green traffic management is that in some ways it's not structured that well and nor is it really informative. As I've noted before I think through journey times for a number of bus routes are going to be very badly impacted, particularly those who have to traipse along the quays. We can assume they will eventually be bus only but I don't think that's clearly stated anywhere. Access to two carparks are from a street off the quays between Capel Street and O'Connell Bridge on the northside so I have no idea what's going to happen there.

But the other problem is the benefits are written to imply that the number one most important point that they were considering when doing all this was cycling. Three of the first four benefits relate to cycling lanes and elsewhere, play is made of the fact that something like 6500 cyclists go through the area per day.

How many people are on the buses that go through that area each day? My guess is that in the morning, it's probably close to the number of cyclists that go through the day. How many of those are being displaced to facilitate the tram route and the the cyclists? College Green is a defacto buslane anyway given the corridor thing.

When I see this, I have an image of someone who is trying to keep a bunch of balloons under control using a patchwork of bags and some balloon keeps on trying to escape... I just wish that if this was part of a coherent whole plan for the city it was obvious. Maybe it is, but other features of it are not obvious to me. And part of it is a feeling of "we really should do N but N isn't going to happen because we either don't got the money or can't agree on the details to do it so we're just going to have to struggle on as best we can".

I'd like to live somewhere with a coherent public transport system. It would be a lot easier to evaluate the benefits of something like this if I knew how it fitted into a wider vision for the city. I personally reckon we could do something fantastic with this space and with O'Connell Street if we did some nettle grasping. But the nettle grasping that is necessary to make even this piece work probably isn't fully in place either. In the meantime, I do think planning like this needs to deal with moving people around the place and this does not really do this. It moves moving people out of the way from what I can see.

Calina wrote: »

Personally, I've always felt O'Connell Street would make a far greater plaza than College Green. Particularly on those days where it's been closed to traffic and a pedestrian zone it's felt great.

...

Calina wrote: »

If we actually grasped the nettle of some underground transit systems and integrated the buses to a core transport plan rather than trying to do as little as we could get away with there might be scope then for making some of both the north and south quays bus only and feeding it into things like Tara and a central underground station and intersecting better with the tramlines. I can't see this happening for a couple of reasons, of which the carparks are obviously one and cyclist behaviour is another.

Tara station gets closed when it's really busy...
I'm intrigued by your unelaborated impression of cyclist behaviour.

Calina wrote: »

But the other problem is the benefits are written to imply that the number one most important point that they were considering when doing all this was cycling. Three of the first four benefits relate to cycling lanes and elsewhere, play is made of the fact that something like 6500 cyclists go through the area per day.

How many people are on the buses that go through that area each day? My guess is that in the morning, it's probably close to the number of cyclists that go through the day. How many of those are being displaced to facilitate the tram route and the the cyclists? College Green is a defacto buslane anyway given the corridor thing.

The issue with the tram lines is that it will be dangerous to allow cyclists through, due to the real risk of wheels getting trapped in the rail. So something needs to be done to make it safe.
I'd have forced the tramline through the University, or forced a cycle route through it. The university built a nanotechnology research building around the heavy rail line at the Northeast corner

I'd also have routed both tram lines away from O'Connell st, either both on Marlboro, or west to Jervis/Capel st.

Calina wrote: »

I'd like to live somewhere with a coherent public transport system. It would be a lot easier to evaluate the benefits of something like this if I knew how it fitted into a wider vision for the city.