Dublin - BusConnects

cgcsb

The IT article indicated that Aughrim Street would become one way. This doesn't square with the NTA's plans to run bus number N2 down Aughrim street. I hope they are aware of this and it would be a surprise redraw of the routes.

CatInABox

cgcsb wrote: »

The IT article indicated that Aughrim Street would become one way. This doesn't square with the NTA's plans to run bus number N2 down Aughrim street. I hope they are aware of this and it would be a surprise redraw of the routes.

To be honest, I'm not sure if the Irish Times has an accurate picture of the changes in the area. The map they provide certainly doesn't match with what they've written in the article.

cgcsb

CatInABox wrote: »

To be honest, I'm not sure if the Irish Times has an accurate picture of the changes in the area. The map they provide certainly doesn't match with what they've written in the article.

They also suggest that stoneybatter will be one way for cars and then change to say not that at all.

CatInABox

cgcsb wrote: »

They also suggest that stoneybatter will be one way for cars and then change to say not that at all.

Yeah, it seems like people will still be able to drive down there, so I wonder how they'll enforce it. If it's the same level of enforcement as College Green, then they might as well just bin the plans. It needs an enforcement camera, or an actual physical barrier, like a bollard that retracts when it detects a bus (or someone with a local access tag or something)

CatInABox

BusConnects has released an update on the Core Corridors. They've included the designs that they're currently showing off to the local groups.

https://twitter.com/BusConnects/status/1156207335251107841

Released designs are:
Phibsborough
Kimmage
Inchicore
Stoneybatter
Templeogue

Interestingly, Aughrim St does indeed look like it'll be one way. The N2 must be rerouted in the next phase of the network redesign.

EDIT:

The Kimmage one looks like an utter disaster. I mean, why even include it in BusConnects if it's not going to have any benefit for buses at all? The only option that improves things is the original proposal, the three other options are shared Car/Bus/Cycle lanes. Facepalm.

abcabc123123

CatInABox wrote: »

The Kimmage one looks like an utter disaster. I mean, why even include it in BusConnects if it's not going to have any benefit for buses at all? The only option that improves things is the original proposal, the three other options are shared Car/Bus/Cycle lanes. Facepalm.

Those options have to be local access only, surely?

CatInABox

abcabc123123 wrote: »

Those options have to be local access only, surely?

Doesn't look like it. There's no map as in the others, but just the artists impressions, but based on those, there doesn't seem to be any restrictions on private cars at all.

The three different variations of option 2 are a clear public realm upgrade on the existing streetscape, but there's absolutely no improvement in bus or cycle usage at all.

Dats me

CatInABox wrote: »

Doesn't look like it. There's no map as in the others, but just the artists impressions, but based on those, there doesn't seem to be any restrictions on private cars at all.

The three different variations of option 2 are a clear public realm upgrade on the existing streetscape, but there's absolutely no improvement in bus or cycle usage at all.

Yeah all options for Kimmage are awful, why so much on street parking retained in 2019? Stoneybatter also looked much less impressive, clearly the Bus Gate is in one direction only, much less impressive. Cycle lane is stop start too.


On the plus side for every update, these seem to be just public realm upgrades and they seem to have built environment specialists onboard and it does all look lovely.

Last Stop

All of the proposed options look very poor and again reinforce my belief that Busconnects is a token effort at providing public transport in Dublin. I cannot see it getting planning permission in its current state based on the objections regarding trees/gardens and if they row back on that then they will not be able to provide the proposed frequencies.
If I were the NTA, I’d cut my losses and go back to the drawing board developing a network of trams which would adequately serve the entire city with much less impact and for roughly the same price.

cgcsb

Last Stop wrote: »

All of the proposed options look very poor and again reinforce my belief that Busconnects is a token effort at providing public transport in Dublin. I cannot see it getting planning permission in its current state based on the objections regarding trees/gardens and if they row back on that then they will not be able to provide the proposed frequencies.
If I were the NTA, I’d cut my losses and go back to the drawing board developing a network of trams which would adequately serve the entire city with much less impact and for roughly the same price.

Wtf? How would trams be less impact? And how would they be the same price, surely they'd be about 11 times the cost.

Last Stop

cgcsb wrote: »

Wtf? How would trams be less impact? And how would they be the same price, surely they'd be about 11 times the cost.

Busconnects is proposing 16 core corridors. You could create a tram network of 4-6 lines which would service the same 16 corridors so you would have less impact.
Busconnects is costing €20m per km, trams cost around €40m per km. Instead of the 115 km of CBC’s you could build 50km of trams for the same price.

Such a tram network would have a far greater impact on congestion but significantly less impact on local communities

AlmightyCushion

Last Stop wrote: »

Busconnects is proposing 16 core corridors. You could create a tram network of 4-6 lines which would service the same 16 corridors so you would have less impact.
Busconnects is costing €20m per km, trams cost around €40m per km. Instead of the 115 km of CBC’s you could build 50km of trams for the same price.

Such a tram network would have a far greater impact on congestion but significantly less impact on local communities

How does 6 tramlines cover the same are as 16 bus corridors? How does 50KM of trams cover the same amount of people as 115KM of bus corridors?

Also, where are you getting your figure of €40m per KM? According to this Luas cross city cost €368m and gave us 5.6km of tramlines. That's €65m per KM.

Dats me

Also BusConnects is 230km of Bus Corridors, with €2bn covering the whole project including the network, ticketing and hybrid buses. Probably more like €8m/km is you say €1.85bn of that is for infrastructure.

Then BusConnects is also providing 200km of (hopefully high quality) cycle tracks which wouldn't be provided under a Luas expansion.

Then all the nice things that have been released here are the public relam upgrades, these aren't aimed at transport movements but place making.

Personally I think that the NTA seem to have learnt an awful lot. MetroLink seems so.kuch more certain now than it was during the first public consultation. It's looking like BusConnects will be like that too for the second consultation.

cgcsb

Last Stop wrote: »

You could create a tram network of 4-6 lines which would service the same 16 corridors so you would have less impact.

How can you arrive at such a conclusion?

Last Stop wrote: »

Such a tram network would have a far greater impact on congestion but significantly less impact on local communities

How would it have less impact? it'd mean permanent road closures to other road users in the south west of the city at least.

Last Stop

If you include the other half of the 1 way system, LCC is 7.6km which works out at €45m per km for the most complex part of the network.

A Lucan Luas would replace the Liffey Valley and Lucan CBCs
A Knocklyon Luas via Harold’s Cross would cover the Kimmage, Terenure and Rathfarnham CBC’s
And so on...
A tram has a far bigger catchment area than a bus (typically 1km vs 400m) so you can reach a much larger area with a tram line than a CBC.

The 230kms of bus corridor continually being referenced by the NTA is per direction. Therefore they are actually providing 115km of corridor if you include both directions. To avoid accusations of contradicting myself, the one way part of LCC involved putting tracks on two parallel streets which increases the length, Busconnects are separating the outbound section and inbound section of the same road. If I was to do the same, LCC would be €13.2km so €27m per km.

Busconnects budget is €3bn not 2 and if you are conservative and say that €2.3bn for the infrastructure then that’s €20m per km. The new buses will cost around 200k each and given the 600 currently on order if you use your figures that leaves only €30m for design fees, ticketing etc.... not a chance.

The urban realm upgrade would be part of any Luas construction as well.

I get your point about cycling infrastructure however, reducing cars of our roads should be the main aim of public transport investment.

The more research I’ve done into Busconnects, the less convinced I am. The current proposals for Kimmage and Stonybatter do away with continuous bus lanes instead replaced with sharing running (yes with typically local traffic). However this undermines the whole purpose of Busconnects and means that the proposed frequencies will not be achieved. 5 minute bus frequencies would be difficult to achieve with CBCs so any shared running basically kills that proposal.

cgcsb

Good luck getting road space for a tram, that cannot share with cyclists. Getting bus lanes through is proving hard work.

Last Stop

cgcsb wrote: »

Good luck getting road space for a tram, that cannot share with cyclists. Getting bus lanes through is proving hard work.

Which is my point. A tram network would require less corridors so less impact to serve the same areas! This leaves all the other corridors free (and you’d assume reduced in traffic) to serve cycling etc.
Examples include City centre to Terenure via Rathmines if you run a Luas via Harold’s cross to Rathfarnham. Rathmines is sufficiently wide enough for 3 road lanes or 2 road lanes and high quality cycle facilities. You wouldn’t need CBCs as the majority of commuters would be on Luas and a less frequent bus (every 20 minutes) would serve areas in between.

cgcsb

Last Stop wrote: »

Which is my point. A tram network would require less corridors so less impact to serve the same areas! This leaves all the other corridors free (and you’d assume reduced in traffic) to serve cycling etc.
Examples include City centre to Terenure via Rathmines if you run a Luas via Harold’s cross to Rathfarnham. Rathmines is sufficiently wide enough for 3 road lanes or 2 road lanes and high quality cycle facilities. You wouldn’t need CBCs as the majority of commuters would be on Luas and a less frequent bus (every 20 minutes) would serve areas in between.

This would mean total and permanent closure of these roads though. And you'd still have a bus system in need of overhaul. There'll still be a need for a bus system.

Last Stop

cgcsb wrote: »

This would mean total and permanent closure of these roads though. And you'd still have a bus system in need of overhaul. There'll still be a need for a bus system.

Where have I ever mentioned closing a road? You’re making assumptions to justify your argument. Even if certain corridors do require widening, the extent of widening would be far less than under Busconnects.

I’m not denying the bus network needs an overhaul. That part of Busconnects is virtually finished and any rework that would be required is extremely cheap. The biggest cost will be the infrastructure and this is where I am suggesting it would be far cheaper to build 50km of tram lines instead. The lower frequency bus network would continue to work on existing roads.

marno21

marno21 wrote: »

The NTA have tendered for engineering consultancy services for the EIA & TIA preparations as part of the BusConnects programme.

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase.asp?PID=147006

Awarded to Jacobs

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders/ViewNotice/219212

€12.3m

Dats me

marno21 wrote: »

Awarded to Jacobs

https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicTenders/ViewNotice/219212

€12.3m

One of the points in the tender is the preparation of 12 EIAs, one for each scheme. So it's going to be 12 instead of 16 An Bord Pleanála applications.


Also a reason I'm still semi hopeful about BusConnects, these have all been signed so the planning will be done and they're all individual applications. We probably won't get the proper network, particularly in South Dublin, but if the corridors actually work then they'll be a catalyst for more, the same.way the Grand Canal Cycle route is a catalyst for more cycle routes and the Waterford Greenway is a catalyst for more greenways.

cgcsb

It makes sense to bundle some of them, Finglas and Ballymun etc. What a lot of people don't seem to realise about Bus connects is that approx 60-70% of the cbcs already exist. The cbc part of bus connects expands the amount of bus lanes, removes many of the pinch points and introduces bus priority signalling, which has been done at some junctions in the past and then abandoned in favour of a more pro car policy.

Almost all of bus connects could be delivered without planning permission at all.

The cycling tracks are actually the most innovative part of the scheme.

tom1ie

cgcsb wrote: »

It makes sense to bundle some of them, Finglas and Ballymun etc. What a lot of people don't seem to realise about Bus connects is that approx 60-70% of the cbcs already exist. The cbc part of bus connects expands the amount of bus lanes, removes many of the pinch points and introduces bus priority signalling, which has been done at some junctions in the past and then abandoned in favour of a more pro car policy.

Almost all of bus connects could be delivered without planning permission at all.

The cycling tracks are actually the most innovative part of the scheme.

Not in Rathfarnham,terenure, Greenhills, rathmines kimmage, etc.

cgcsb

tom1ie wrote: »

Not in Rathfarnham,terenure, Greenhills, rathmines kimmage, etc.

All the other corridors already exist with only minor changes actually proposed for buses, and major changes for cycling

Actually the majority of the cbcs in the southwest could be done without planning, DCC has the power to create new bus lanes, re-allocate road space etc, put in bus gates etc. it's only the sections that need road widening that are problematic.

LXFlyer

cgcsb wrote: »

All the other corridors already exist with only minor changes actually proposed for buses, and major changes for cycling

Actually the majority of the cbcs in the southwest could be done without planning, DCC has the power to create new bus lanes, re-allocate road space etc, put in bus gates etc. it's only the sections that need road widening that are problematic.

That area is the worst for bus speeds in the city and for congestion in general.

You’re massively over-simplifying the situation.

The lack of any plans for bus priority on the orbital routes in that area reaffirms my opinion that all that is happening is tinkering around the edges. The SCR, and roads taken currently by the 17 and 18 will become glorified car and bus parks unless measures are put in place along them at the same time as implementing radial corridor changes.

cgcsb

Agreed regarding the orbital routes. There needs to be measures implemented now to make the O bus useable. I think it's fair to say the vast majority of what is proposed already exists. And almost all of the proposed new parts of the CBCs could be achieved without planning. Not that I'm opposed to the whole thing being done in one big package, but there has been nothing stopping most of the proposed measures happening gradually over the past decade or so.

Heartbreak Hank

Trees solved: Video.

Sam Russell

Heartbreak Hank wrote: »

Trees solved: Video.

But where do you put them?

Also it removes the leaves from leafy suburbs. I live in D4 and we like our posh trees*.


*[That is a joke by the way]. Just plant more, but not in the way.

tom1ie

Where are we with this **** show now? Any qbc’s passed planning yet?

Dats me

tom1ie wrote: »

Where are we with this **** show now? Any qbc’s passed planning yet?

Network redesign consultation 2 this month. QBC/cycle paths consultation 2 on detailed design due November - application for planning due 2020 apparently. Network redesign is apparently now going to be phased - so it's probably dead