Dublin - BusConnects

Grassey

dublinman1990 wrote:

What does anyone think of it.

That none of them have ever taken a bus from rathfarnham to town currently.

salmocab

Grassey wrote: »

That none of them have ever taken a bus from rathfarnham to town currently.

The 16 should be one of the most important bus routes in the city and it’s close to unusable in the evening, it’s a 10 minute frequency service and you could easily be waiting 25/30 minutes for it to turn up. In a past life I used to regularly use it, brilliant in the early morning I could time it to within a minute or two on the way into town never any hassles but coming home at 4.15 was a nightmare, eventually gave up and started driving again.

Rulmeq

dublinman1990 wrote: »

I've just seen the petition against the proposals on the Rathfarnham to City Centre on Change.org.

https://www.change.org/p/leo-varadkar-stop-the-destruction-of-communities-by-busconnects-corridor-12?original_footer_petition_id=13114551&algorithm=promoted&source_location=petition_footer&grid_position=2&pt=AVBldGl0aW9uAA8p2wAAAAAAXNi2xn7jIT9iYzFjOWMwOA%3D%3D

What does anyone think of it. Do you think it will stand up to scrutiny?

Do some of these people live in those big mansions within Dublin 6?

Love how they play down "to save 7 minutes" - yeah, that's 7 minutes to everyone on the bus, every day (probably twice a day). That's a lot of time, and a lot of people. That's 3,360 minutes (56 hours) per person, per year (assuming 7minutes, twice a day, 5 days a week, for 48 weeks a year). If there's 50 people on the bus that's an entire year's worth of lost productivity.

salmocab

Rulmeq wrote: »

Love how they play down "to save 7 minutes" - yeah, that's 7 minutes to everyone on the bus, every day (probably twice a day). That's a lot of time, and a lot of people. That's 3,360 minutes (56 hours) per person, per year (assuming 7minutes, twice a day, 5 days a week, for 48 weeks a year). If there's 50 people on the bus that's an entire year's worth of lost productivity.

I think more important than the actual time saved is the consistency, that’s where the current services are really lacking. If you know the run to your destination will take 35/40 minutes you are much more likely to take it over a 30/60 minute run.

CatInABox

Rulmeq wrote: »

Love how they play down "to save 7 minutes" - yeah, that's 7 minutes to everyone on the bus, every day (probably twice a day). That's a lot of time, and a lot of people. That's 3,360 minutes (56 hours) per person, per year (assuming 7minutes, twice a day, 5 days a week, for 48 weeks a year). If there's 50 people on the bus that's an entire year's worth of lost productivity.

They're also using the cost of the full corridor while only using the projected time savings from their area, which is just bull**** of the highest order.

sharper

salmocab wrote: »

I think more important than the actual time saved is the consistency, that’s where the current services are really lacking. If you know the run to your destination will take 35/40 minutes you are much more likely to take it over a 30/60 minute run.

Plus a missing factor is stress - sitting in traffic is stressful. Removing bottlenecks from the bus service makes it less stressful and more pleasant to use. Even if a bus journey is relatively short if you have to spend 7 minutes of it sitting still it'll make you wish you were elsewhere.

Lofidelity

Why is nobody talking about congestion charges?

Something like 7am-7pm between the canals. Its the only way to get people out of their cars and onto a bus.

salmocab

Lofidelity wrote: »

Why is nobody talking about congestion charges?

Something like 7am-7pm between the canals. Its the only way to get people out of their cars and onto a bus.

There has to be viable alternatives before we could force thousands out of their cars. There isn’t room for people on buses and trams at the moment.

Lofidelity

salmocab wrote: »

There has to be viable alternatives before we could force thousands out of their cars. There isn’t room for people on buses and trams at the moment.

Bring it in gradually but there needs to be a culture shift that driving a car to work is no longer viable. Increase bus numbers and frequency. Can be done much faster and cheaper than Luas or metro.

They faced this dilemma in Amsterdam in the middle of the last century. The choice was, fill in canals and build wider streets, or stop giving priority to cars on the narrow streets.

marno21

The NTA's line on congestion charging is that it's not feasible until there is a proper alternative in place.

salmocab

Lofidelity wrote: »

Bring it in gradually but there needs to be a culture shift that driving a car to work is no longer viable. Increase bus numbers and frequency. Can be done much faster and cheaper than Luas or metro.

They faced this dilemma in Amsterdam in the middle of the last century. The choice was, fill in canals and build wider streets, or stop giving priority to cars on the narrow streets.

Bus connects is trying to increase bus numbers and frequency but if we throw extra vehicles onto the roads with no infrastructure we will slow the city down more. Metro is needed badly as it will take a lot of pressure off the north side. I doubt anyone on here thinks we don’t need a culture shift bit without real alternatives telling people to stop driving will do nothing but cause trouble.

sharper

salmocab wrote: »

There has to be viable alternatives before we could force thousands out of their cars. There isn’t room for people on buses and trams at the moment.

Currently, for whatever reason, it's not even possible to get cars following the basic rules of the road on the quays and elsewhere in the city centre. Something obviously has to change but even basic enforcement would probably improve things as much as a congestion charge.

LeinsterDub

marno21 wrote: »

The NTA's line on congestion charging is that it's not feasible until there is a proper alternative in place.

The NTA are also planning to widen km's of road to keep private vehicles happy and build a 700 M ring road around Galway ahead of an orbital bus route. The NTA aren't radical enough

salmocab

sharper wrote: »

Currently, for whatever reason, it's not even possible to get cars following the basic rules of the road on the quays and elsewhere in the city centre. Something obviously has to change but even basic enforcement would probably improve things as much as a congestion charge.

Enforcement is a major problem that would actually help things but until there are proper viable alternatives people will use their cars.

marno21

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The NTA are also planning to widen km's of road to keep private vehicles happy and build a 700 M ring road around Galway ahead of an orbital bus route. The NTA aren't radical enough

The Galway Ring Road is TII, not NTA.

The NTA have to work within the limitations of being a statutory body bound by Government policy. They can't do what they like. If we had an NTA 20 years ago we mightn't be in such a mess we're in now.

Neworder79

marno21 wrote: »

The NTA's line on congestion charging is that it's not feasible until there is a proper alternative in place.

Rare sanity, but I'm shocked to hear that as all stick and no carrot is the usual response to transport policy here.

LeinsterDub

marno21 wrote: »

The Galway Ring Road is TII, not NTA.

The NTA have to work within the limitations of being a statutory body bound by Government policy. They can't do what they like. If we had an NTA 20 years ago we mightn't be in such a mess we're in now.

Sorry meant TII/NTA . I'm not aware of any limitation that requires the NTA to maintain car access.

cgcsb

Lofidelity wrote: »

Why is nobody talking about congestion charges?

Something like 7am-7pm between the canals. Its the only way to get people out of their cars and onto a bus.

While initially successful in London it's become ineffective in the long term. It now just acts as a class barrier. In terms of mode choice if you have a car and free work place parking, you'll drive, no matter what else is on offer.

Reducing car use can be better tackled with:
-taxing work place parking as a bik
-reducing street parking to a handful of disabled spaces, e.g. charging points and loading areas
-remove BT and arnotts multi storey and replace them with housing.
- no body wants to peruse these policies because of public perception but I expect you'll hear about them when metro is being built and there's a few new cbc in operation

Heartbreak Hank

cgcsb wrote: »

-remove BT and arnotts multi storey and replace them with housing.

Does anyone have a guess about how much it would cost to buy these out?

AlmightyCushion

cgcsb wrote: »

While initially successful in London it's become ineffective in the long term. It now just acts as a class barrier. In terms of mode choice if you have a car and free work place parking, you'll drive, no matter what else is on offer.

Reducing car use can be better tackled with:
-taxing work place parking as a bik
-reducing street parking to a handful of disabled spaces, e.g. charging points and loading areas
-remove BT and arnotts multi storey and replace them with housing.
- no body wants to peruse these policies because of public perception but I expect you'll hear about them when metro is being built and there's a few new cbc in operation

How does that one work? Will employees only pay BIK on a parking space that is designated just for them? What about workplaces that have general pool of parking spaces for employees but they're not designated to any one employee? Would they have to pay BIK whether they drive or not?

salmocab

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

How does that one work? Will employees only pay BIK on a parking space that is designated just for them? What about workplaces that have general pool of parking spaces for employees but they're not designated to any one employee? Would they have to pay BIK whether they drive or not?

Well presumably they would just write the legislation to close off loopholes. If you have a parking space you pay bik, if you don’t drive then the company can’t allocate you a space so you don’t pay bik. Ultimately the company would have to administer it.

bk

I'd agree that a congestion charging is a class barrier. But then so is owning a car, so congestion charging just amplifies it.

It has had some very positive impacts:
- The money raised is put back into improving public transport. So while the rich do benefit from this, at least it only helps everyone else in public transport too.
- It has reduced traffic, so there is more space for buses and cyclists.
- It has increased greatly the take up of EV's, as they get to avoid the charge, thus pushing cleaner transport.

I'd agree that we are unlikely to see it here, as class barriers tend to not be accepted in Ireland and I'd say rightfully so. But it has had lots of benefits for London.

And I do think that government should start talking about it as the Plan B if people reject BusConnects.

I think BusConencts and other PT choices need to be offered as a choice between it or something even worse, instead of BusComnects or do nothing. If you give people the do nothing option, they will gravitate towards that, in particular given Irish culture. Of course "do nothing" is a terrible choice too as it will just get slower and slower, but Irish people seem to prefer that over directly upsetting anyone.

It looks like they have started doing that. In some of the roads where the NTA were suggesting one way car streets and people have objected. The NTA have come back and said fine, we will keep it two way so, but we will need to take gardens instead!

Now I've heard people living in these areas are now turning on one another, because they now realise that their gardens will be impacted rather then an easy one way street. They are realising the "do nothing" option is not an option.

LXFlyer

salmocab wrote: »

Bus connects is trying to increase bus numbers and frequency but if we throw extra vehicles onto the roads with no infrastructure we will slow the city down more. Metro is needed badly as it will take a lot of pressure off the north side. I doubt anyone on here thinks we don’t need a culture shift bit without real alternatives telling people to stop driving will do nothing but cause trouble.

Bus connects is NOT increasing frequency to/from the city centre. Let’s be clear about that.

The revised network plan involved reducing the number of buses through the city centre and reallocating them to orbital routes. Don’t get me wrong - more orbitals are needed but not at the expense of capacity to/from the city.

Places like Knocklyon, Dublin Airport, Swords, Ballinteer for example would all see significant cuts in services to/from the city under the plan (as compared with frequency pre-2018).

Since 2018 Dublin Bus have increased frequency further on many routes through the city and whatever the NTA come up with in September is going to have to reflect that. The frequency has also increased on existing orbitals and the 175 has been introduced too.

So far I remain far from convinced that they are capable of coming up with a practical solution.

In the meantime a local area network map on bus stops would go a long way towards reducing confusion. No Dublin City bus network map has been available since before Network Direct and that is scandalous.

loyatemu

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

How does that one work? Will employees only pay BIK on a parking space that is designated just for them? What about workplaces that have general pool of parking spaces for employees but they're not designated to any one employee? Would they have to pay BIK whether they drive or not?

tax the company and let them figure out the most economic way to recoup it would be another option.

bk

LXFlyer wrote: »

Bus connects is NOT increasing frequency to/from the city centre. Let’s be clear about that.

The revised network plan involved reducing the number of buses through the city centre and reallocating them to orbital routes. Don’t get me wrong - more orbitals are needed but not at the expense of capacity to/from the city.

.....

Since 2018 Dublin Bus have increased frequency further on many routes through the city and whatever the NTA come up with in September is going to have to reflect that. The frequency has also increased on existing orbitals and the 175 has been introduced too.

What a load of rubbish!

Dublin Bus have increased frequency on core routes since 2018, because the NTA gave 10% of their routes, the quieter local ones and orbital routes to GoAhead and the NTA have increased the overall size of the Dublin city bus fleet (DB + GA combined) by 10%. Thus DB were able to move their big double deckers from quiet local routes to the core routes.

This was all done under the direction of the NTA and as part of BusConnects.

DB can't just change routes or increase frequencies themselves! Routes and frequencies are set by the NTA, not DB. And the buses are bought by the NTA.

Everything you are talking about above is NTA actions.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

What a load of rubbish!

Dublin Bus have increased frequency on core routes since 2018, because the NTA gave 10% of their routes, the quieter local ones and orbital routes to GoAhead and the NTA have increased the overall size of the Dublin city bus fleet (DB + GA combined) by 10%. Thus DB were able to move their big double deckers from quiet local routes to the core routes.

This was all done under the direction of the NTA and as part of BusConnects.

DB can't just change routes or increase frequencies themselves! Routes and frequencies are set by the NTA, not DB. And the buses are bought by the NTA.

Everything you are talking about above is NTA actions.

Woah there, not for the first time you’re completely misrepresenting what I posted.

I’m not saying that the NTA didn't fund or approve any of those changes. In fact nowhere did I even suggest it.

I was referring to the BusConnects network plans in the post above, not the NTA in general.

What I said was the BusConnects new network plan as presented in 2018 did not reflect these planned changes and was predicated on reallocating resources away from cross-city routes to orbitals. That much is true if you had taken the time to compare the frequencies in detail as I did at the time.

Quite apart from that, immediately before, during, and after the period that plan was published, Dublin Bus and Go-Ahead started increasing frequencies on city centre routes and orbital routes with NTA approval. In Dublin Bus’ case they do still actually make many of the suggested timetable improvements themselves to the NTA as they tend to have the greater operational experience, despite what you seem to think.

My point above was that none of these were included in the base frequencies that people were comparing the planned revised network to, which meant it was comparing apples with oranges.

I am making the point that having now increased frequency on many city centre routes it’s going to be very difficult to reduce them.

That’s quite different from what you’re suggesting that I am saying.

bk

LXFlyer wrote: »

I was referring to the BusConnects network plans in the post above, not the NTA in general.

That is your problem. BusConnects is the NTA!

Exactly the same people who created the BusConnects plan, are the people who put out the 10% of routes out to tender, decided which routes, are approving increases in frequency, etc.

This is what you are failing to grasp. What has been happening the past few months is BusConnects.

BusConnects is just a marketing name that includes a whole rake of different bus service improvement plans that these folks in the NTA (and yes DB/GA) have been working hard on over the last few years and planning for the next few years.

We have already seen parts of this plan start to deliver:
- GA getting 10% of routes.
- Increase in the number of buses by 10%
- DB buses shifting to core routes to increase frequency
- Increased frequency off peak

We are likely to see the following in the next year or so:
- Flat Fare/T90 ticket
- Next gen ticketing

Obviously the infrastructure side is the really big bit, but that will take years. But all the rest has been quietly been worked on over the past few months with constant announcements of schedule and frequency improvements.

DB didn't just decide to do these. It was the NTA who decided to increase the bus fleet by 10%, fund it and decided where those buses went and decided to put 10% of routes out to tender.

You'll also remember that the NTA when then announced GA winning the tender, put out a FAQ where they said that DB would lose no buses or drivers and that their buses will instead be moved to increase frequency on core routes.

So clearly this has always been the NTA's intent. Sure, I've no doubt that DB gave input on which routes should gain the extra buses, etc. They have the on the ground experience. This is how a partnership like this should work. But clearly this strategic change is being made by the NTA as part of their BusConnects plans.

That is why every press release from DB about these changes includes the following:

All changes have been approved by the National Transport Authority.

The NTA certainly wouldn't be improving these changes if it didn't suit their plans!

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

That is your problem. BusConnects is the NTA!

Exactly the same people who created the BusConnects plan, are the people who put out the 10% of routes out to tender, decided which routes, are approving increases in frequency, etc.

This is what you are failing to grasp. What has been happening the past few months is BusConnects.

BusConnects is just a marketing name that includes a whole rake of different bus service improvement plans that these folks in the NTA (and yes DB/GA) have been working hard on over the last few years and planning for the next few years.

We have already seen parts of this plan start to deliver:
- GA getting 10% of routes.
- Increase in the number of buses by 10%
- DB buses shifting to core routes to increase frequency
- Increased frequency off peak

We are likely to see the following in the next year or so:
- Flat Fare/T90 ticket
- Next gen ticketing

Obviously the infrastructure side is the really big bit, but that will take years. But all the rest has been quietly been worked on over the past few months with constant announcements of schedule and frequency improvements.

DB didn't just decide to do these. It was the NTA who decided to increase the bus fleet by 10%, fund it and decided where those buses went and decided to put 10% of routes out to tender.

You'll also remember that the NTA when then announced GA winning the tender, put out a FAQ where they said that DB would lose no buses or drivers and that their buses will instead be moved to increase frequency on core routes.

So clearly this has always been the NTA's intent. Sure, I've no doubt that DB gave input on which routes should gain the extra buses, etc. They have the on the ground experience. This is how a partnership like this should work. But clearly this strategic change is being made by the NTA as part of their BusConnects plans.

That is why every press release from DB about these changes includes the following:



The NTA certainly wouldn't be improving these changes if it didn't suit their plans!

I shall repeat that in my original post I was referring to the revised network plan published in 2018 by Jarrett Walker and his team and how it planned to reassign the fleet from city services to orbitals. The plan was predicated on that fact. I was clear about that in my initial post.

Many of the recent changes contradict that plan, and I was merely saying that reversing them (if the revised plan suggests it) will be difficult. Perhaps you should examine it and see for yourself.

As for implementing frequency changes I think that you’ll find that it has actually in general been up to DB to implement the service changes as it sees best fit, based on operational requirements, albeit subject to NTA approval, which in general is forthcoming. That has been my understanding of the process and I’m not aware of it having changed.

I am fully aware of what BusConnects embraces, and don’t need it explained to me again, but thanks anyway.

Sam Russell

salmocab wrote: »

There has to be viable alternatives before we could force thousands out of their cars. There isn’t room for people on buses and trams at the moment.

Well, if it is quicker to go by bus, or Dart, then people will. I see jams on the Merrion Rd both morning and evening of single occupancy cars, mingled with crowded buses, going nowhere very slowly, with pedestrians and cyclists wizzing by. (Well not the pedestrians, but they are quicker than the bus).

Lofidelity wrote: »

Bring it in gradually but there needs to be a culture shift that driving a car to work is no longer viable. Increase bus numbers and frequency. Can be done much faster and cheaper than Luas or metro.

They faced this dilemma in Amsterdam in the middle of the last century. The choice was, fill in canals and build wider streets, or stop giving priority to cars on the narrow streets.

The first line to take to persuade people out of their cars is to make parking expensive and hard to find. So some DCC city centre parking should be not available until 10 am, and not allowed after 4:30 pm. This has twp effects.

1: All day perking is not available, so all day parkers must take a bike (Dublinbikes) or PT or walk.

2: If they choose parking that causes pinch points, delays, slows buses, then that is a win win for PT.

As for lack of buses, if their average speed increases by 25% because of the above measures, then there are 25% more buses. They are also likely to be more reliable both on arrival time and journey time.

As this bites, do more of it, but reduce the fares to encourage more to switch.

bk

LXFlyer wrote: »

I shall repeat that in my original post I was referring to the revised network plan published in 2018 by Jarrett Walker and his team and how it planned to reassign the fleet from city services to orbitals. The plan was predicated on that fact. I was clear about that in my initial post.

Yes, I've read your comments about the BusConnects multiple times.

Your first mistake is that the network redesign is just one part of the whole BusConnects plan.

But even limiting it to just the network redesign, what is happening now on the ground is the start of the network redesign.

The Network Design included the following key parts:
- Increase off peak frequency on most routes.
- Increase frequency on core routes
- Create orbital routes linking the core routes.

As we have seen from the constant and almost continuous route and frequency changes over the last few months. They are busily doing the above.

Most routes are seeing big increases in off peak frequency, core routes are seeing increases in frequency and slowly changes are happening around orbital routes.

Of course there is still a great deal to do. Based on the feedback from the public consultation, there will be a redesign published this year and a second public consultation done, before it gets fully implemented in 2020.

But what is currently happening with GA and the changes with DB is absolutely inline with what the Network Redesign will deliver.

For instance, in my area, the 16, 41, etc. have seen all day frequency increases and peak time frequencies which would quiet naturally fit in with the new A corridor.

And of course the network redesign won't be the end either. There will of course be future tweaks and changes as the infrastructure side is finished and as demand changes over the years to come. Route design is always an ongoing process as a city grows and changes.

But I want to deal with a specific claim you made:

LXFlyer wrote:

The revised network plan involved reducing the number of buses through the city centre and reallocating them to orbital routes. Don’t get me wrong - more orbitals are needed but not at the expense of capacity to/from the city.

Where did you get this from?

The Network Redesign never suggested this! As I mentioned above, the core routes were always going to get increased frequency!

From the Network Redesign report under the "Big Ideas" section (i.e. key goals):

Additional service would be provided at peak hours to limit overcrowding. The proposed network features additional peak-hour frequencies on most routes.

There you go in black and white.

The orbitals are coming from the 10% extra buses that the NTA has bought and probably more to come in future, to be used on the orbital routes and local routes, to free up capacity for the core corridor routes, which was always the plan.

LXFlyer wrote:

As for implementing frequency changes I think that you’ll find that it has actually in general been up to DB to implement the service changes as it sees best fit, based on operational requirements, albeit subject to NTA approval, which in general is forthcoming. That has been my understanding of the process and I’m not aware of it having changed.

I am fully aware of what BusConnects embraces, and don’t need it explained to me again, but thanks anyway.

Big difference between strategy and tactics.

NTA: DB, those 10% of buses we freed up for you. Use them to increase frequency on the core routes.
DB: Here is the new schedules with increased frequencies on the 16, 41, etc.
NTA: Looks good.

The NTA is approving the changes that DB are proposing because they are very much inline with the Network Redesign plan and the NTA strategy. Increase off peak frequency and increase core route frequency. DB know that is what the NTA want, so that is what they are delivering.

It would be monumentally stupid to leave DB buses and drivers sitting in depots unused, just because the Network Redesign hasn't finished public consultation yet.

We would all be shouting bloody murder if they did that. Instead they are allowing changes which would naturally lead into the Network Redesign.

BTW I'm delighted to see the NTA and DB working so well together. This is what the relationship between a regulator and operator should look like. They should be partners, working together to improve the customer experience. The regulator working on overall strategy, the big picture and them trusting the operator to execute on that strategy day to day on the ground.