Dublin - BusConnects

tom1ie

Dats me wrote: »

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

when you say consultation, does that mean the period of time the nimbys can put forward their moans and groans and try and torpedo the plan? how long does this phase last do you know?
also do you know wheneabouts that application for planning is due? q4 2020?

Dats me

tom1ie wrote: »

when you say consultation, does that mean the period of time the nimbys can put forward their moans and groans and try and torpedo the plan? how long does this phase last do you know?
also do you know wheneabouts that application for planning is due? q4 2020?

In fairness the last consultation seems to have lead to a reduction in car lanes to save trees which I think is really good, trees are lovely and car congestion is not.


Q4 2020 I think yeah - but I don't know anything special I've just looked at BusConnects.ie semi recently

ohographite

Was the BusConnects corridor along much of the Luas Red Line (Greenhills - Drimnagh - City Centre) planned to be there to ease overcrowding on the Red Line? I don't know if the Red Line actually has serious overcrowding issues, because I seldom use it, so I'm wondering if that's why the plan was to have a bus corridor with a very similar catchment.

Qrt

ohographite wrote: »

Was the BusConnects corridor along much of the Luas Red Line (Greenhills - Drimnagh - City Centre) planned to be there to ease overcrowding on the Red Line? I don't know if the Red Line actually has serious overcrowding issues, because I seldom use it, so I'm wondering if that's why the plan was to have a bus corridor with a very similar catchment.

The Greenhills CBC and Red Line are pretty much totally separate, they serve vastly different areas.

Also, the Drimnagh one which I assume is the one along the Long Mile Road etc. Serves clondalkin and most of it is in place already I think, just optimisation required.

tom1ie

Qrt wrote: »

The Greenhills CBC and Red Line are pretty much totally separate, they serve vastly different areas.

Also, the Drimnagh one which I assume is the one along the Long Mile Road etc. Serves clondalkin and most of it is in place already I think, just optimisation required.

Why the hell is it taking so long just to implement the optimization measures? Surely that’s just traffic light transponders to give bus priority plus bus gates etc. this is really starting to drag on.

sharper

tom1ie wrote: »

Why the hell is it taking so long just to implement the optimization measures? Surely that’s just traffic light transponders to give bus priority plus bus gates etc. this is really starting to drag on.

Create Plan->Announce->Consult->Revise->Drop->Create->Announce

That's the way public transport works in Ireland. Perpetually in the planning stage even if it just needs someone to go out and paint a road.

Obviously things do happen but they tend to be attached to other projects or just done quietly.

Nobody in the Irish Times takes a bus anywhere so if the government doesn't announce it they haven't a clue what's happening with public transport.

LXFlyer

tom1ie wrote: »

Why the hell is it taking so long just to implement the optimization measures? Surely that’s just traffic light transponders to give bus priority plus bus gates etc. this is really starting to drag on.

Eh did you not look at the plans for the corridors.

It’s a hell of a lot more than what you’re suggesting with a lot of potential CPO activity, and relocated traffic (particularly in south central Dublin) which will have serious knock-on effects on orbital routes, some of which are already chock-a-block.

The Greenhills/South Clondalkin Route has major CPO activity - it involves much more than “optimisation”.

I’m all for improving the lot of public transport users as I’m one myself, but to implement the initial plans as they were would have been crazy.

Unfortunately this is going to take time.

The consultants produced the initial plans, and in October/November they are going to come back with revised plans following the initial consultation that hopefully will involve reducing the space given to cars as opposed to simply widening roads even more.

In the meantime we will see the revised network design published later this month for consultation, taking the massive number of submissions from the original consultation. All the indications are that this will be significantly altered from the first draft with far more direct connections to/from the city centre.

Qrt

LXFlyer wrote: »

The Greenhills/South Clondalkin Route has major CPO activity - it involves much more than “optimisation”.

I meant the Long Mile/Nangor Roads. Much of the stretches have bus lanes now afaik.

The Greenhills Road plan is quite out there, but I can’t imagine much opposition since it’s 95% commercial or open space, and the realignments have been planned for over a decade.

LXFlyer

Qrt wrote: »

I meant the Long Mile/Nangor Roads. Much of the stretches have bus lanes now afaik.

The Greenhills Road plan is quite out there, but I can’t imagine much opposition since it’s 95% commercial or open space, and the realignments have been planned for over a decade.

It is the Crumlin Road section (i.e. the inner section) which is common to both of the above that will be the real issue.

I suspect that once we go through the next phase of consultation, the less challenging elements of the schemes will be progressed relatively quickly.

But I do think we have to be fair here - the volume of information accompanying these schemes is massive, and expecting instant results is probably a bit much. 16 corridors were put out for consultation. You can’t run that at the same time as the network consultation, as it will result in people suffering information overload.

The plan is for the infrastructure improvements to be implemented on a corridor basis (as per the plans on the website), rather than piecemeal as I understand it, which means the full corridor plan needs to be finalised.

Most of the improvements between Nangor Road and Drimnagh involve providing segregated cycle lanes, with land take for this and extended bus lanes too.

The BusConnects website indicates the next infrastructure consultation will be in November 2019, with plans submitted to ABP for statutory approval in the second half of 2020.

tom1ie

LXFlyer wrote: »

Eh did you not look at the plans for the corridors.

It’s a hell of a lot more than what you’re suggesting with a lot of potential CPO activity, and relocated traffic (particularly in south central Dublin) which will have serious knock-on effects on orbital routes, some of which are already chock-a-block.

The Greenhills/South Clondalkin Route has major CPO activity - it involves much more than “optimisation”.

I’m all for improving the lot of public transport users as I’m one myself, but to implement the initial plans as they were would have been crazy.

Unfortunately this is going to take time.

The consultants produced the initial plans, and in October/November they are going to come back with revised plans following the initial consultation that hopefully will involve reducing the space given to cars as opposed to simply widening roads even more.

In the meantime we will see the revised network design published later this month for consultation, taking the massive number of submissions from the original consultation. All the indications are that this will be significantly altered from the first draft with far more direct connections to/from the city centre.

EH, yes i did.
However this was ages ago. I was directly answering a post from a different poster regarding the long mile road section.
There are parts of this project that should have started already, trying to do everything as one big project will inevitably end in failure as the nimbys will band together and get the plan scrapped.
start with the low hanging fruit.
Start with the n4 qbc section direct to the quays, there are only a couple of pinch points on this and when complete can be used as a shinning example of whats possible.
We all know greenhills, crumlin, terenure templeogue etc will be a **** show due to nimbys, so show the general public how well it can work so that we take the sting out of the nimbys.
EH, what ya think of that!

LXFlyer

tom1ie wrote: »

EH, yes i did.
However this was ages ago. I was directly answering a post from a different poster regarding the long mile road section.
There are parts of this project that should have started already, trying to do everything as one big project will inevitably end in failure as the nimbys will band together and get the plan scrapped.
start with the low hanging fruit.
Start with the n4 qbc section direct to the quays, there are only a couple of pinch points on this and when complete can be used as a shinning example of whats possible.
We all know greenhills, crumlin, terenure templeogue etc will be a **** show due to nimbys, so show the general public how well it can work so that we take the sting out of the nimbys.
EH, what ya think of that!

Again you don’t seem to understand how this project is being managed.

They are going to apply to ABP for all the improvements on a full individual corridor basis - they aren’t doing parts of corridors piecemeal. That was made clear at the outset. This will involve full EIS preparation. But on this project virtually all of the improvements are interlinked with one another on each of the 16 corridors. There are none of the corridors that can be implemented without statutory ABP approval.

Hence we are moving to the second round of consultations on the plans, for which it does seem for the limited public info available that major changes to many of the original plans are happening.

The consultations ran from November 2018 to May 2019. It’s clear they have now worked through them all, and are probably ready to go with round 2, but the imminent network redesign phase 2 consultation (delayed so as not to happen during summer months) means that they have to wait until that is finished. People will suffer information overload otherwise.

Realistically you aren’t going to see the first works started until 2021 on any of this, and that will be I’m sure the easier corridors first.

tom1ie

LXFlyer wrote: »

Again you don’t seem to understand how this project is being managed.

They are going to apply to ABP for all the improvements on a full individual corridor basis - they aren’t doing parts of corridors piecemeal. That was made clear at the outset. This will involve full EIS preparation. But on this project virtually all of the improvements are interlinked with one another on each of the 16 corridors. There are none of the corridors that can be implemented without statutory ABP approval.

Hence we are moving to the second round of consultations on the plans, for which it does seem for the limited public info available that major changes to many of the original plans are happening.

The consultations ran from November 2018 to May 2019. It’s clear they have now worked through them all, and are probably ready to go with round 2, but the imminent network redesign phase 2 consultation (delayed so as not to happen during summer months) means that they have to wait until that is finished. People will suffer information overload otherwise.

Realistically you aren’t going to see the first works started until 2021 on any of this, and that will be I’m sure the easier corridors first.

I understand perfectly well. Which is to say it’s not being managed well at all.

The reason bc won’t work is because the nta have taken on such a big project. The overall picture should have been the plan we have with the radial and orbital qbc’s but they should have concentrated on the low hanging fruit first and then go on to tackle the problem areas.
That strategy would have seen qbc’s in operation now, and much less political and local opposition to the overall plan.
There is no way the nta will ever defeat community not corridor with the political backing that they have, that is solely down to the way the nta have approached this.

Peregrine

tom1ie wrote: »

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

tom1ie wrote: »

when you say consultation, does that mean the period of time the nimbys can put forward their moans and groans and try and torpedo the plan? how long does this phase last do you know?
also do you know wheneabouts that application for planning is due? q4 2020?

tom1ie wrote: »

LXFlyer wrote: »

Again you don’t seem to understand how this project is being managed.

I understand perfectly well. Which is to say it’s not being managed well at all.

No. You don't.

Nothing wrong with that but please don't waste everyone's time arguing that fact.

CatInABox

I don't think that there's an easier way of doing it to be honest. Doing it piecemeal might be fine in some areas, but once you get down to land take and CPOs, then there's going to be people out protesting no matter what. There's an argument to be made that if they concentrated on only one area/route, the NTA would find it easier to push changes through as there'd only be protests from that area, but equally they'd lose the argument that this is a major project to revolutionise public transport in the city. Right now, they can point to the time savings from the entire project, instead of just the one or two minutes per street.

LXFlyer

tom1ie wrote: »

I understand perfectly well. Which is to say it’s not being managed well at all.

The reason bc won’t work is because the nta have taken on such a big project. The overall picture should have been the plan we have with the radial and orbital qbc’s but they should have concentrated on the low hanging fruit first and then go on to tackle the problem areas.
That strategy would have seen qbc’s in operation now, and much less political and local opposition to the overall plan.
There is no way the nta will ever defeat community not corridor with the political backing that they have, that is solely down to the way the nta have approached this.

Really?

How can you implement the cycle lane segregation on any corridor without going through ABP as in every case it involves CPO? Many (if not most) of the bus improvements are dependent on moving cyclists out of bus lanes.

As I said before this is an bus and cycle integrated project. You can’t really do one without the other based on the designs.

I fundamentally disagree regarding getting changes through. It is perfectly possible to come up with solutions - that is what the current discussions with community forums is all about achieving and it seems to be solving some of the problem spots. Some people won’t like them but let’s see.

They aren’t doing everything in one go, they’re doing everything on a corridor. So corridors will be submitted to ABP in a phased manner.

Let’s wait and see what comes out as a result in November.

I don’t disagree that the lack of any orbital routes in the plans is going to create mayhem with the redirected traffic.

Sam Russell

Mod: Please respect other posters and leave modding to the mods.

Post deleted.

tom1ie

CatInABox wrote: »

I don't think that there's an easier way of doing it to be honest. Doing it piecemeal might be fine in some areas, but once you get down to land take and CPOs, then there's going to be people out protesting no matter what. There's an argument to be made that if they concentrated on only one area/route, the NTA would find it easier to push changes through as there'd only be protests from that area, but equally they'd lose the argument that this is a major project to revolutionise public transport in the city. Right now, they can point to the time savings from the entire project, instead of just the one or two minutes per street.

Thanks for the constructive argument cat in a box.

cgcsb

I think there's a valid point here:

Most of the infrastructure for bus connects already exists and most of the remainder can be done within the existing powers of DCC/NTA. By that I mean bus gates, more bus lanes, bus priority signalling, banning turns etc.
This can be done as part of day to day maintenance, without any fuss.

The CPOing of property is where you get into hot water and Rightly or wrongly this has been bundled together with improvements that don't require any planning permission. Why I'm not sure but there is a propensity in the Irish public sphere to create a few glossy brochures for projects that would be ho-hum tweaking and maintenance in most of the rest of the world.

But anyway now we have the glossy brochure and absolutely no commitment by government to begin any of the work for at least 2 years. That in it's self is quite damning. We obviously have a broken system when things as simple as a few new bus lanes, traffic lights and banned turns have multiple consultants, public consultations and planning applications costing several multiples of the cost of the road paint and the camera technology.

If we were somewhere like China it'd just be done. Not that I'm advocating a totalitarian state but there should be a happy medium. In all honesty how can western society progress if very simple projects take decades in 'planning'.

tom1ie

cgcsb wrote: »

I think there's a valid point here:

Most of the infrastructure for bus connects already exists and most of the remainder can be done within the existing powers of DCC/NTA. By that I mean bus gates, more bus lanes, bus priority signalling, banning turns etc.
This can be done as part of day to day maintenance, without any fuss.

The CPOing of property is where you get into hot water and Rightly or wrongly this has been bundled together with improvements that don't require any planning permission. Why I'm not sure but there is a propensity in the Irish public sphere to create a few glossy brochures for projects that would be ho-hum tweaking and maintenance in most of the rest of the world.

But anyway now we have the glossy brochure and absolutely no commitment by government to begin any of the work for at least 2 years. That in it's self is quite damning. We obviously have a broken system when things as simple as a few new bus lanes, traffic lights and banned turns have multiple consultants, public consultations and planning applications costing several multiples of the cost of the road paint and the camera technology.

If we were somewhere like China it'd just be done. Not that I'm advocating a totalitarian state but there should be a happy medium. In all honesty how can western society progress if very simple projects take decades in 'planning'.

Exactly. Let’s concentrate on the low hanging fruit with a view to working towards the bigger bc picture. We will eventually build up enough momentum the political establishment will not be able to back the local nimbys.
The way we are doing it now, we’ll never see improvements.

CatInABox

cgcsb wrote: »

The CPOing of property is where you get into hot water and Rightly or wrongly this has been bundled together with improvements that don't require any planning permission. Why I'm not sure but there is a propensity in the Irish public sphere to create a few glossy brochures for projects that would be ho-hum tweaking and maintenance in most of the rest of the world.

This is actually an interesting point, and it may be what's behind the big bang approach, rather than piecemeal. CPOs need to hit a legal level where they show that the purchase is vitally necessary for the project, and it may be easier to show that the CPO is needed in a major BusConnects style project than a smaller piecemeal project.

Last Stop

If we’ve gotten to a stage where we are considering doing it piecemeal, we may as well pull the plug and save a few quid.

IF Busconnects is to be successfully implemented, it requires full bus lanes along the spines. Anything less than this (and even this is likely to be borderline) will result in spines failing to meet their target frequencies and demand exceeding supply. On some routes, the NTAs own figures suggest that even a QBC will not meet demand.

The suggestion that you could add in bits here and there without going through ABP would likely cost more in the long run.

I’m still of the view as stated previously that the real solution to Dublin’s problems is an extensive tram network but naturally there isn’t the political will to do something this brave.

tom1ie

Last Stop wrote: »

If we’ve gotten to a stage where we are considering doing it piecemeal, we may as well pull the plug and save a few quid.

IF Busconnects is to be successfully implemented, it requires full bus lanes along the spines. Anything less than this (and even this is likely to be borderline) will result in spines failing to meet their target frequencies and demand exceeding supply. On some routes, the NTAs own figures suggest that even a QBC will not meet demand.

The suggestion that you could add in bits here and there without going through ABP would likely cost more in the long run.

I’m still of the view as stated previously that the real solution to Dublin’s problems is an extensive tram network but naturally there isn’t the political will to do something this brave.

An extensive tram network will not work either as it won’t have the capacity, nor the space for it.
We need an extensive underground metro system especially in terenure Rathfarnham Greenhills kimmage etc.
problem being we just don’t have the money.

sharper

Last Stop wrote: »

If we’ve gotten to a stage where we are considering doing it piecemeal, we may as well pull the plug and save a few quid.

They already said they're going to do the network redesign in stages. That's far more difficult, more damaging and more confusing than doing the infrastructure in stages.

Last Stop

tom1ie wrote: »

An extensive tram network will not work either as it won’t have the capacity, nor the space for it.
We need an extensive underground metro system especially in terenure Rathfarnham Greenhills kimmage etc.
problem being we just don’t have the money.

Dublin is a city of 1m people and will like max out at 2m due to its geographic location. It does not need an extensive underground metro system. It needs an underground N/S line (I.e. Metrolink) and an east west line (I.e. DART Underground). Anything more than this would be overkill for such a small city and country.

A tram Line in terenure Rathfarnham Greenhills kimmage would have sufficient capacity as the NTA have indicated in the GDA strategy there is not really much space for growth.
Space for a tram line can be created by removing vehicle traffic. That of course is easier said than done. Look at Nottingham for an example of how it can be done.

Last Stop

sharper wrote: »

They already said they're going to do the network redesign in stages. That's far more difficult, more damaging and more confusing than doing the infrastructure in stages.

Agree to a point. As I have mentioned the network will only work if the infrastructure is there. Without the infrastructure, Busconnects is a sitting duck just waiting to be shot by those who oppose it.
However I do agree that staging the network redesign does not make any sense as people will lose some routes that were there before and will be there after leading to much public outcry etc etc.

tom1ie

Last Stop wrote: »

Dublin is a city of 1m people and will like max out at 2m due to its geographic location. It does not need an extensive underground metro system. It needs an underground N/S line (I.e. Metrolink) and an east west line (I.e. DART Underground). Anything more than this would be overkill for such a small city and country.

A tram Line in terenure Rathfarnham Greenhills kimmage would have sufficient capacity as the NTA have indicated in the GDA strategy there is not really much space for growth.
Space for a tram line can be created by removing vehicle traffic. That of course is easier said than done. Look at Nottingham for an example of how it can be done.

there is no space for buses and we wont move the cars to make room for buses, yet your saying we'll move the cars for trams? really?
the only answer is either build the corridors for the bus or go underground for a metro.

Last Stop

tom1ie wrote: »

there is no space for buses and we wont move the cars to make room for buses, yet your saying we'll move the cars for trams? really?
the only answer is either build the corridors for the bus or go underground for a metro.

A tram line is a much easier sell than a bus lane. The Luas is an incredibly popular service as has been shown by house prices close to Luas stops. A bus lane on the other hand is often viewed as an inconvenience and building a bus lane by taking someone’s front garden is naturally going to be opposed.

CatInABox

I think that some are over egging the "phased introduction" of BusConnects. From the leaks, it looks like a lot of the requirements for interchanging has been drastically reduced, and there's far more direct routes into the city centre and out. This will mean that a phased introduction won't be useless, as in some cases it's just renaming the bus route and attaching it onto the equivalent route out the opposite side.

As to the idea that the network won't work without the infrastructure, I don't think that's a serious problem either. We currently already run a bus network on our existing streets, and it works fine. Not great, but just "fine". I'd expect the new network to operate fine as well. Obviously, there'll be a massive improvement once the Core Corridors infrastructure is built, but the idea that the new network will fall over on day one isn't realistic in my opinion. There's also going to be infrastructure introduced as part of the network redesign, not as part of the core corridors project, which will help as well.

sharper

Last Stop wrote: »

Agree to a point. As I have mentioned the network will only work if the infrastructure is there. Without the infrastructure, Busconnects is a sitting duck just waiting to be shot by those who oppose it.
However I do agree that staging the network redesign does not make any sense as people will lose some routes that were there before and will be there after leading to much public outcry etc etc.

The original plan was to introduce the network redesign before the infrastructure changes even began. I wasn't hugely happy with that idea but that was the intention.

Even with a phased network design introduction we don't yet know if it'll be done in co-ordination with the infrastructure. Remember the bus corridor project wasn't supposed to be complete until 2027.

The slow start and then slow implementation time is the source of people's frustrations here. It's like trying to bail out a sinking ship with a single mug including breaks of 10 minutes every 5 minutes. Sure the general idea is ok but it needs to be scaled up and the tempo increased.

tom1ie

Last Stop wrote: »

tom1ie wrote: »

there is no space for buses and we wont move the cars to make room for buses, yet your saying we'll move the cars for trams? really?
the only answer is either build the corridors for the bus or go underground for a metro.

A tram line is a much easier sell than a bus lane. The Luas is an incredibly popular service as has been shown by house prices close to Luas stops. A bus lane on the other hand is often viewed as an inconvenience and building a bus lane by taking someone’s front garden is naturally going to be opposed.

That's ridiculous.
If you can build a dedicated lane for a tram at 100 million a km you can build a dedicated lane for a bus at 50 million (figures used for illustrative points).
How are you going to build a tram from greenhills to the city centre?
Is there some sort of hidden land route everyone else bar yourself is unaware of?
Are you talking about banning cars off the road to make way for the trams? How do you think that will go down with the motoring lobby?
Are you talking about building dedicated tram lanes that require cpoing at at least twice the price of bus connects?