Dublin - BusConnects

CatInABox

Last Stop wrote: »

Where did I say it was hard? I said it wasn’t feasible... there’s a huge difference

In your opinion and it's easy to throw around opinion as fact. It is feasible, it's literally part of the BusConnects project. I could easily say that it's not feasible to build trams all over Dublin, because we can't afford what you're talking about.

We're not spending 2 billion on the core corridors, we're spending 2 billion on the core corridors, a network redesign, a brand new payment system with a massive IT back end (which, by the way, will be used by the Luas and Irish Rail), hundreds of new buses, park and ride facilities, more RTPI signs, etc.

CatInABox

Last Stop wrote: »

I don’t agree with NIMBYISM but I have raised some serious issues here which no one has been able to address and even point here is effectively a defence of the NTA who got in wrong in the first phase and are now playing catch up.

People have addressed your issues Last Stop. It's just that you're so wedded to your opinion that you don't want to see it.

Last Stop

monument wrote: »

Yet, Dublin is at 7-10% modal share before it has a single continuously segregated cycle route from city centre to any suburb.

I'm a big fan of tram, but you're data is wrong -- modal share for cycling has been around the same as tram use for Dublin City Council residents for years.




The regions of Holland are predominately, The Netherlands (ie the country) is a little more mixed. And there's still high modal share in less flat places. Electric bicycles can help too.



Same can be said about public transport and expensive trams more than anything (except metro or heavy rail).

Cycling is a cheap way to provide sustainable transport with higher returns than other modes.



Then you're just spreading an excuse. The real barrier is danger from motorists and lack of infrastructure to reduce that.



Which somehow does not apply to giving space to trams? :pac:




How much do you think that ranks in being a barrier to cycling when people cycling shorter trips don't need showers etc, and the vast bulk of work places have them are getting them or can be adapted? Again, you're making excuses, not providing reasons.



A few points on this:

• More people are able to cycle than those who can drive.
• People can also be carried by bicycle.
• Luas-like tram systems can only reach a percentage of the population
• More people cycling is of benefit to the country, even to people who don't cycle

Amsterdam is far from a paradise for cyclists. Utrecht is a far better example to follow.



Sure a balance to the second part, but why the second part? Is it even a reachable goal a city with Dublin's density (around about Amsterdam's) to get city-wide 50%, all-trips modal share for public transport?

You mentioned 50%... why not target that as the level of cycling in Dublin? It would still mean loads of options for people who can't cycle or have problems with cycling like some boards.ie posters.

7-10 is low? If I got 10% in an exam I wouldn’t be happy and thinking great room for improvement.
The modal share is the same despite their being only 2 tram lines. Everyone can access a bike?

This was a list of reasons people could give for not cycling - you called them excuses.

Define a “little bit more mixed”? As in similar to the hill at Christchurch or a gentle incline? How does cycling modal split fare in the more mixed areas as all the evidence presented in Amsterdam and Utrecht is based on areas in Holland itself correct? So based on that my point is valid. Throwing in ebikes as a solution is a token gesture.

But the point is you can’t build half a tram line but you can build half a cycle lane... therefore it is easier to stop funding despite only certain parts being build which leads to the whole network collapsing. Adding a tram line now and another in 20 years still helps significantly where as adding 1km of cycle lane now and another in 20 years won’t encourage people to cycle.
Again point me to figures on the return on investment in particular passenger numbers or reduction in traffic when a cycle lane is provided. Surely that’s available for some schemes?

It’s a reason people use. An excuse yes but it’s a reason why people don’t cycle. I’m not denying the main issue but my point was a list reasons why we won’t be like the Dutch and this is a valid reason.

I have not suggested closing access to any streets etc. Or reducing the width of a significant amount of roads which would be required to install cycle lanes. This comes down to catchment areas. A tram serves an area 1km around the stop. To be served by a cycle network you effectively need a cycle lane on every street.

Don’t care where it ranks, it’s a reason. If you’re suggesting adapting then your adding to the cost of cycling infrastructure. I know the vast majority of places will definitely not pay for such facilities out of their own pocket unless it becomes law.

My point is some people can’t drive or cycle and therefore rely on public transport. Investment in trams accommodates everyone equally.
The catchment area of a tram is significant (around 1km) so I don’t see your point here. Developing a tram network would serve a significant proportion of the city.
More people on trams is also a bento the country?

My point remains valid.

With investment in a tram network and redesigned bus network, there would be a significant increase in public transport use. 50% is ambitious but there is far better chance of getting 50% of using public transport than using bikes even if just based on the fact that there is a percentage of people who physically can’t cycle.

A 50% modal split on cycling would be extremely difficult. The GDA plans 2000km of cycle lanes to maintain 10%. How many more would be required to reach 50%. At this stage the costs are surely favouring trams. Even a doubling of modal share to 20% would put a massive strain on even the best parts the cycling infrastructure such as the grand canal cycleway and the Drury st bike park. 50% public transport on the other hand could be achieved

Last Stop

donvito99 wrote: »

That's silly. And if it were true, we would have double width bus lanes and barely navigable car lanes. Road space should be allocated based on EFFICIENCY. Cyclists are massively efficient and should be provided with infrastructure that his not a total joke otherwise annexed by cars.

Buses are more efficient than cyclists and trams more than buses

Last Stop

CatInABox wrote: »

In your opinion and it's easy to throw around opinion as fact. It is feasible, it's literally part of the BusConnects project. I could easily say that it's not feasible to build trams all over Dublin, because we can't afford what you're talking about.

We're not spending 2 billion on the core corridors, we're spending 2 billion on the core corridors, a network redesign, a brand new payment system with a massive IT back end (which, by the way, will be used by the Luas and Irish Rail), hundreds of new buses, park and ride facilities, more RTPI signs, etc.

In my opinion as a qualified civil engineer it’s not. 200km of cycle lanes does not equate to the level of investment required to meet Dutch standards so to suggest its part of Busconnects is simply incorrect.

There is a to a single park + ride being build as part of Busconnects so that’s one element. If the payment system benefits everyone then why is it being included in the budget for this single project? The network redesign has cost €3MILLION to date and I would be shocked if it exceeds €10m so 0.5% of the total budget. The new buses would not be required if the money was spent on trams.

LXFlyer

You’re living in cloud cuckoo land with all this potential tram line expansion that you think is viable..

Trams really only deliver tangible improvements where they are fully segregated or not sharing the same space with buses. The cross-city LUAS has paralysed much of the bus network at peak times, and has negatively impacted on far more public transport users than those who have benefitted. It was implemented without any proper assessment of the impact on the bus service and no plan to cope.

LUAS to Rathfarnham was assessed by the RPA some time ago and found that journey times would not improve over current times, and that reliability couldn’t be guaranteed. Those are the key requirements for a rail based solution.

DART Underground remains the game changer as it allows for high speed and high capacity east/west rail through the city. Metrolink offers that on a more limited basis on a north/south route through the city.

Apart from extensions to Finglas and M2 Park & Ride, south towards Bray, and east to the Glass Bottle site, and Metro West being reincarnated, I don’t see much more scope for tram line expansion.

The only realistic option for me to solve south Dublins’s issues are improved and enforced bus priority, and an underground rail line. Trams just won’t work.

Last Stop

CatInABox wrote: »

People have addressed your issues Last Stop. It's just that you're so wedded to your opinion that you don't want to see it.

Where has anyone proven that

Buses are more efficient than trams?
Busconnects would take more traffic off the roads the tram lines I’ve proposed
Busconnects has the capacity to meet demand on certain corridors
3 bus corridors have a greater catchment area than a single tram line in the SW area

If you can point me to each of the above I’ll willingly concede but until then I remain of the view that no one has addressed my issues.

Last Stop

LXFlyer wrote: »

You’re living in cloud cuckoo land with all this potential tram line expansion that you think is viable..

Trams really only deliver tangible improvements where they are fully segregated or not sharing the same space with buses. The cross-city LUAS has paralysed much of the bus network at peak times, and has negatively impacted on far more public transport users than those who have benefitted. It was implemented without any proper assessment of the impact on the bus service and no plan to cope.

LUAS to Rathfarnham was assessed by the RPA some time ago and found that journey times would not improve over current times, and that reliability couldn’t be guaranteed. Those are the key requirements for a rail based solution.

DART Underground remains the game changer as it allows for high speed and high capacity east/west rail through the city. Metrolink offers that on a more limited basis on a north/south route through the city.

Apart from extensions to Finglas and M2 Park & Ride, south towards Bray, and east to the Glass Bottle site, and Metro West being reincarnated, I don’t see much more scope for tram line expansion.

The only realistic option for me to solve south Dublins’s issues are improved and enforced bus priority, and an underground rail line. Trams just won’t work.

Luas cross city highlighted the flaws in the currently bus network in which the vast majority of buses pass O’Connell st and/or college green. Running a tram line through both of these areas was obviously going to cause disruption.

If you compare a Luas line in Rathfarnham with a bus corridor via Rathmines which is what we are in effect assessing here then there is no way the bus will be quicker and/or provide an adequate level of service to meet demand.

Agree with your points regarding DART underground but think you’re underestimating the impact Metrolink will have.

A tram line to Lucan is certainly in play on top of the ones you’ve mentioned.

The issue is that bus priority won’t be enforced. We’ve seen this with the college green bus gate which bans all cars. How are they going to enforce the kimmage bus gate where certain cars are allowed pass... it’s impossible. Tram priority on the other hand is much easier to enforce due to the reduced number of routes occupied, frequency of trams and design of the tram line itself to avoid lane sharing (unlike on a number of the proposed bus corridors)

LXFlyer

LUAS to Rathfarnham has already been rejected as not delivering sufficient improvements due to lack of sufficient priority and segregation. That is not going to change. You need to accept that. It is not happening.

I also don’t see the BusConnects corridors happening to the degree planned in the first draft in the south central areas for a whole variety of reasons. We will see tinkering and maybe some re-routing of traffic in the area, but given there’s quite a mix of orbital and radial traffic mixing, that is going to be very tricky to manage. The impact on orbital routes could be catastrophic.

The bus priority measures will have to be enforced using red light cameras and other cameras - the legislation to do that is being developed.

The ONLY solution that will resolve the underlying problems is a Metro line.

You are completely wrong about the College Green bus gate. It worked fine prior to the LUAS construction works. The problem now is that two lanes of traffic were taken out to facilitate LUAS and a two way cycle lane, 50% of which is never used.

It’s kind of staggering that you’re blaming the bus service for the issues in the city centre. I was consistently against the LUAS route because I was pretty sure that the bus service would end up being shafted, despite the fact that it continues to carry the lion’s share of public transport users into the city. And that is precisely what has happened.

It is abundantly clear that the negative impact of LUAS cross-city on the bus service was ignored by the RPA and the politicians for whom buses were viewed as an inconvenience despite being the lifeblood of our city.

The reason that the buses serve College Green is that the stops there are where significant numbers of people want to go - one look at the numbers getting off at the Central Bank will tell you that. There are limited acceptable diversion options, and if what was leaked here about the revised network, then the network designers have realised that too, as did ABP.

It infuriates me as a bus user reading posts like yours which frankly seem to see buses as an afterthought which should be consigned to the periphery of the city centre.

If DART Underground and Metrolink were both in place then you would have a case, but until they happen, buses will remain the workhorse of our PT.

If DART to/from Hazelhatch is going to be in place why would Lucan LUAS even be relevant? It would be a waste as it won’t have sufficient priority.

jd

LXFlyer wrote: »

The reason that the buses serve College Green is that the stops there are where significant numbers of people want to go - one look at the numbers getting off at the Central Bank will tell you that. There are limited acceptable diversion options, and if what was leaked here about the revised network, then the network designers have realised that too, as did ABP.

That's not really fair. One of the constraints given to Jarrett Walker for the first draft of the network redesign was to assume that the College Green Plaza was going to happen. ABP kicked that one way down the road, so the "A spines" can now be routed on College Green to/from Dame Street, rather than being routed Parliament Street to/from Sth. Great George's Street.

LXFlyer

jd wrote: »

That's not really fair. One of the constraints given to Jarrett Walker for the first draft of the network redesign was to assume that the College Green Plaza was going to happen. ABP kicked that one way down the road, so the "A spines" can now be routed on College Green to/from Dame Street, rather than being routed Parliament Street to/from Sth. Great George's Street.

Well Parliament St was removed as an alternative by DCC - as a result any other routing except College Green isn’t going to work.

Last Stop

LXFlyer wrote: »

LUAS to Rathfarnham has already been rejected as not delivering sufficient improvements due to lack of sufficient priority and segregation. That is not going to change. You need to accept that. It is not happening.

I also don’t see the BusConnects corridors happening to the degree planned in the first draft in the south central areas for a whole variety of reasons. We will see tinkering and maybe some re-routing of traffic in the area, but given there’s quite a mix of orbital and radial traffic mixing, that is going to be very tricky to manage. The impact on orbital routes could be catastrophic.

The bus priority measures will have to be enforced using red light cameras and other cameras - the legislation to do that is being developed.

The ONLY solution that will resolve the underlying problems is a Metro line.

You are completely wrong about the College Green bus gate. It worked fine prior to the LUAS construction works. The problem now is that two lanes of traffic were taken out to facilitate LUAS and a two way cycle lane, 50% of which is never used.

It’s kind of staggering that you’re blaming the bus service for the issues in the city centre. I was consistently against the LUAS route because I was pretty sure that the bus service would end up being shafted, despite the fact that it continues to carry the lion’s share of public transport users into the city. And that is precisely what has happened.

It is abundantly clear that the negative impact of LUAS cross-city on the bus service was ignored by the RPA and the politicians for whom buses were viewed as an inconvenience despite being the lifeblood of our city.

The reason that the buses serve College Green is that the stops there are where significant numbers of people want to go - one look at the numbers getting off at the Central Bank will tell you that. There are limited acceptable diversion options, and if what was leaked here about the revised network, then the network designers have realised that too, as did ABP.

It infuriates me as a bus user reading posts like yours which frankly seem to see buses as an afterthought which should be consigned to the periphery of the city centre.

If DART Underground and Metrolink were both in place then you would have a case, but until they happen, buses will remain the workhorse of our PT.

If DART to/from Hazelhatch is going to be in place why would Lucan LUAS even be relevant? It would be a waste as it won’t have sufficient priority.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/proposed-luas-line-would-not-meet-running-cost-1.919741
An Irish times article in 2008. Now since then there has been a significant level of growth in this area which increases demand and given that 3 bus corridors are proposed, the argument of considerable adverse impacts (namely 150 gardens and 10 buildings) becomes far less convincing. The Rathfarnham corridor alone suggests 225 properties would be impacted. As you will see in the article, there is no mention of “lack of sufficient priority and segregation” so don’t know where you are getting that from if an article reporting on the feasibility study fails to mention it.

How many times do I have to say this... if Busconnects infrastructure is not delivered in full then it will not work .the frequencies are are pushing what buses can do anyway but without priority you may as well forget about it.

Red light cameras are quite expensive hence they have only been deployed at certain Luas junctions to date. If we can’t get variable speed limits through the Dail then good look getting this through.
Such cameras won’t solve the issue of the kimmage corridor BTW. How could you confirm if someone has a reason to use the route or not... you can’t and trying to enforce it would open a serious can of worms when it comes to GDPR so it won’t happen and we’ll end up with the same issues there is today only €2bn poorer.

Metro is not the only so,union. Yes we need Metrolink as a N/S core line but to suggest that a city of 1m cannot be served adequately without a metro network does not match with how other cities around the world function.

There is only 2 lanes of traffic N/S in College Green so how could Luas take 2 of them away? E/W the cycle lane was added to appease cyclists (which I’m sure you can discuss the merits of with others on this forum). That still doesn’t address the issues of how many routes unnecessarily use college green/ O’Connell st. Take the 54a for example which terminates/ starts at Pearse st. If that terminated at the west side of college green, it would take 24 buses per hour out of the equation for the sake of a 200m extra walk for some people. That’s just one example. It is not correct to blame Luas cross city for all of the problems at college green. Yes it has caused some problems but it has also highlighted an underlying issue which went unaddressed for decades.

Buses SHOULD be consigned to the edge of the city centre along with cars. They are inefficient as a method of mass transport. Replacing them with more efficient transport methods would free up more space for other users such as pedestrians and dare I say cyclists. Very few other city in the world relies on buses to the degree Dublin does.

Lucan Luas has an extremely strong business case and will serve areas which are too far from the DART line so you’re completely wrong on that one.

I’m well aware that a number of the routes I proposed are not fully segregated but there trams so that’s normal. Look at trams anywhere else and they run on street. We’ve been rather fortunate with the Luas that it runs on such segregated routes means some think it’s the norm when in relatively outside the city centre, the Luas is pushing towards a low capacity metro type system as opposed to tram.

Last Stop

LXFlyer wrote: »

Well Parliament St was removed as an alternative by DCC - as a result any other routing except College Green isn’t going to work.

You could have run D and F spines via Winetavern st with contraflow bus lane and A via SSG

monument

LXFlyer wrote: »

The ONLY solution that will resolve the underlying problems is a Metro line.

London, NYC etc all have metro lines and still had/have massive underlining issues with street and the movement of people. We really need to stop seeing one thing as a solution.

LXFlyer wrote: »

LUAS to Rathfarnham was assessed by the RPA some time ago and found that journey times would not improve over current times, and that reliability couldn’t be guaranted. Those are the key requirements for a rail based solution.

Wasn't the reasoning for the above is that they did not think CPOs were viable? Yet, here we are with BusConnects CPOing a ton of garden

Last Stop wrote: »

All 3 examples you gave are in a single country. If it was as easy as you suggest then it would be replicated all over the world. But of course it isn’t.

You're already been told that just because something is hard to do, that isn't a good reason not to do it.

Last Stop wrote: »

I’m suggesting that in the proposed example, it is all at the one level meaning it’s just coloured pavement so it is as good as a mixed area as pedestrian will walk straight across the cycle path.

Telling the truth is now scaremongering? Are you saying cyclists won’t be coming fast?

When I refer to people with disabilities I am referring to people in wheelchairs or who those require assistance to walk. That is the traditional definition of disabilities I concede but you are using this minor point to avoid the the issue which is under the new proposal priority is given to cyclists over all pedestrians. You’re also incorrect in saying that a mixed zone is worse a in a mixed zone the pedestrian has priority.

I can see the difference in colour but not in levels as there does not appear to be one. Can you point to where on the drawing it shows where cyclists move from above road level to at road level where the crossing is? If they at the same level as pedestrians then that is not good segregation.

Ah, thanks for confirming you're disregarding more than one person saying that you're reading the drawings wrong and you're selectively using people with disabilities and pedestrians to attack segregating people cycling from fast and heave volumes of traffic.

For everybody else, there's this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo

Last Stop wrote: »

I like the way you belittle my proposal to 1 or 2 tram lines where I have suggested at least 4 to start with covering over 50km. This would mean that people would travel by tram instead of their car as it is quick and easier. The same cannot be said for buses or cycling.

We’ve seem the figures in the return on investment of trams vs buses but surprise surprise there isn’t an figures available for cycling. Surely there is figures to show the effect that the grand canal cycleway has had but there’s not. I like to believe that this is because cycle lanes aren’t as good an investment as people suggest.

The more you go on the clearer it is that you just dislike cycling. You're just listing off cycling fallacies like it's a playbook -- cycling investment is better than any other transport for return on investment, see: https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/23/it%E2%80%99s-too-expensive-to-provide-for-cycling etc etc

40km odd of a Luas network to date has cost around €1.5 billion -- so €2 billion will probably cover 50km, but if that's across 4 lines, they are fairly short lines. Not leaving much for the rest of the city anyway. I actually think we should be building more tram routes over bus routes, but you'd still have to do much of what BusConnects proposes to do and you're talking nonsense about both buses and cycling.

LXFlyer

monument wrote: »

London, NYC etc all have metro lines and still had/have massive underlining issues with street and the movement of people. We really need to stop seeing one thing as a solution.

Wasn't the reasoning for the above is that they did not think CPOs were viable? Yet, here we are with BusConnects CPOing a ton of garden

It was also that it could not deliver sufficient speed improvements or reliable journey times.

As I have said all along, I don't see the planned CPO activity in the south central area actually happening - I think that the opposition to it locally will put pay to that.

Personally I do happen to think that the BusConnects corridor plans do cause too great a change to the nature of the area, creating much wider roads than what we have already and I think the displaced traffic is going to cause mayhem on the orbital routes, most of which are chock a block as it is.

I have all along said that I think that the only practical solution in the area, given the narrow roads and pinch points, is to swing Metrolink into that area, and develop P & R facilities to feed into it further out.

LXFlyer

Last Stop wrote: »

You could have run D and F spines via Winetavern st with contraflow bus lane and A via SSG

I doubt that all of the buses currently using the Camden Street-Georges St corridor could be added to share the LUAS line for that length of distance without causing serious disruption to LUAS.

LXFlyer

Last Stop wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/proposed-luas-line-would-not-meet-running-cost-1.919741
An Irish times article in 2008. Now since then there has been a significant level of growth in this area which increases demand and given that 3 bus corridors are proposed, the argument of considerable adverse impacts (namely 150 gardens and 10 buildings) becomes far less convincing. The Rathfarnham corridor alone suggests 225 properties would be impacted. As you will see in the article, there is no mention of “lack of sufficient priority and segregation” so don’t know where you are getting that from if an article reporting on the feasibility study fails to mention it.

How many times do I have to say this... if Busconnects infrastructure is not delivered in full then it will not work .the frequencies are are pushing what buses can do anyway but without priority you may as well forget about it.

Red light cameras are quite expensive hence they have only been deployed at certain Luas junctions to date. If we can’t get variable speed limits through the Dail then good look getting this through.
Such cameras won’t solve the issue of the kimmage corridor BTW. How could you confirm if someone has a reason to use the route or not... you can’t and trying to enforce it would open a serious can of worms when it comes to GDPR so it won’t happen and we’ll end up with the same issues there is today only €2bn poorer.

Metro is not the only so,union. Yes we need Metrolink as a N/S core line but to suggest that a city of 1m cannot be served adequately without a metro network does not match with how other cities around the world function.

There is only 2 lanes of traffic N/S in College Green so how could Luas take 2 of them away? E/W the cycle lane was added to appease cyclists (which I’m sure you can discuss the merits of with others on this forum). That still doesn’t address the issues of how many routes unnecessarily use college green/ O’Connell st. Take the 54a for example which terminates/ starts at Pearse st. If that terminated at the west side of college green, it would take 24 buses per hour out of the equation for the sake of a 200m extra walk for some people. That’s just one example. It is not correct to blame Luas cross city for all of the problems at college green. Yes it has caused some problems but it has also highlighted an underlying issue which went unaddressed for decades.

Buses SHOULD be consigned to the edge of the city centre along with cars. They are inefficient as a method of mass transport. Replacing them with more efficient transport methods would free up more space for other users such as pedestrians and dare I say cyclists. Very few other city in the world relies on buses to the degree Dublin does.

Lucan Luas has an extremely strong business case and will serve areas which are too far from the DART line so you’re completely wrong on that one.

I’m well aware that a number of the routes I proposed are not fully segregated but there trams so that’s normal. Look at trams anywhere else and they run on street. We’ve been rather fortunate with the Luas that it runs on such segregated routes means some think it’s the norm when in relatively outside the city centre, the Luas is pushing towards a low capacity metro type system as opposed to tram.

I know that one of the reasons that Rathfarnham LUAS was cast into the dustbin was poor reliability from the lack of segregation from personal contact with RPA engineers.

Lucan has probably the second best QBC in the city and once DART is in place, it really would be a waste of money in my view to then add a LUAS line in between them as well.

The reason the buses are in the heart of the city centre is that for most of us there are no high capacity rail alternatives, and they are essential to keep the city moving and get people into the city centre. Until DART Underground and Metrolink happen, that's not going to change and people need to realise that.

Re College Green - I said that LUAS and the cycle lanes took two traffic lanes away. The two combined.

You might also need to re-do your maths. The 54a only operates every 30 minutes. Not sure how you think that removes 24 buses an hour?

Dyr

donvito99 wrote: »

That's silly. And if it were true, we would have double width bus lanes and barely navigable car lanes. Road space should be allocated based on EFFICIENCY. Cyclists are massively efficient and should be provided with infrastructure that his not a total joke otherwise annexed by cars.

Massively inefficient given the low usage to space allocated, basically handing road space over to a small group of very vocal hobbyists. Emphasis should be on mass public transit in peak hours rather than private transit like bicycles and cars

Last Stop

monument wrote: »

London, NYC etc all have metro lines and still had/have massive underlining issues with street and the movement of people. We really need to stop seeing one thing as a solution.

Agreed

Wasn't the reasoning for the above is that they did not think CPOs were viable? Yet, here we are with BusConnects CPOing a ton of garden

Correct

You're already been told that just because something is hard to do, that isn't a good reason not to do it.

I’ve said it’s not feasible. Doesn’t answer my question as to why not other country has done it? Surely the Germans would have tried if it was that easy?

Ah, thanks for confirming you're disregarding more than one person saying that you're reading the drawings wrong and you're selectively using people with disabilities and pedestrians to attack segregating people cycling from fast and heave volumes of traffic.

Again show me where there is a change of level at the junction.
I’m not arguing with the segregation of cyclists of course thats beneficial. I’m arguing against doing this to the detriment of pedestrians. You still haven’t explained why there needs to be a gap between the road and the cycle lane unlike how the Dutch design their junctions

The more you go on the clearer it is that you just dislike cycling. You're just listing off cycling fallacies like it's a playbook -- cycling investment is better than any other transport for return on investment, see: https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/23/it%E2%80%99s-too-expensive-to-provide-for-cycling etc etc

Sending a link to a pro cycling website with no link to any reports or similar really doesn’t help your case. The UK report says between 2:1 and 35:1.... would that’s vague. A Luas line has a cost benefit ratio of 4:1 typically so if any of the proposed cycle lanes are around the 2:1 mark then Luas is a better alternative as I have said all along.

40km odd of a Luas network to date has cost around €1.5 billion -- so €2 billion will probably cover 50km, but if that's across 4 lines, they are fairly short lines. Not leaving much for the rest of the city anyway. I actually think we should be building more tram routes over bus routes, but you'd still have to do much of what BusConnects proposes to do and you're talking nonsense about both buses and cycling.

UCD - 4km
Rathfarnham - 9km
Lucan - 15km
Clongriffin - 10km
Total - 38km

So my figures are correct leaving some change for possible additional lines to be developed or investment in buses/ cycling in other areas.
Again building the 4 above lines would significantly reduce what Busconnects is planning and would have a greater impact on traffic congestion

Last Stop

LXFlyer wrote: »

It was also that it could not deliver sufficient speed improvements or reliable journey times.

Again nothing to back this up except anecdotal evidence. Why wasn’t it mentioned in the article about the feasibility study so? Surely this trumps CPO every day of the week and if I was ruling out a line I would rule it out on reliability over CPO everyday of the week.

As I have said all along, I don't see the planned CPO activity in the south central area actually happening - I think that the opposition to it locally will put pay to that.

Personally I do happen to think that the BusConnects corridor plans do cause too great a change to the nature of the area, creating much wider roads than what we have already and I think the displaced traffic is going to cause mayhem on the orbital routes, most of which are chock a block as it is.

I have all along said that I think that the only practical solution in the area, given the narrow roads and pinch points, is to swing Metrolink into that area, and develop P & R facilities to feed into it further out.

The area is grinding to a halt as it. Something has to be done. If it’s not a tram then it’s buses. We can’t just do nothing as the city will cease to function. A metro would cost an extra €1bn on top of Metrolink so there is no way that’s going to be build and there is little to no demand in this area outside the M50 because of the Dublin mountains. The GDA strategy clearly recognises this.

Last Stop

LXFlyer wrote: »

I doubt that all of the buses currently using the Camden Street-Georges St corridor could be added to share the LUAS line for that length of distance without causing serious disruption to LUAS.

What are you not about? You said that under Busconnects they couldn’t identify an alternative to college green. I have suggested down Winetavern st for corridors D and F and vis St Stephens Green for corridor A.
I did not mention current buses or increasing sharing with Luas (as line A replaces line F)

LXFlyer

Last Stop wrote: »

Again nothing to back this up except anecdotal evidence. Why wasn’t it mentioned in the article about the feasibility study so? Surely this trumps CPO every day of the week and if I was ruling out a line I would rule it out on reliability over CPO everyday of the week.



The area is grinding to a halt as it. Something has to be done. If it’s not a tram then it’s buses. We can’t just do nothing as the city will cease to function. A metro would cost an extra €1bn on top of Metrolink so there is no way that’s going to be build and there is little to no demand in this area outside the M50 because of the Dublin mountains. The GDA strategy clearly recognises this.

Fine. Don't believe me, but my track record of posting on here is not one of posting heresay.

My view on this particular subject have not changed over the years and you can go right back through my posting history to confirm it. From 30 years of commuting through the specific area, I have believed that anything other than a metro line will just be tinkering and won't actually solve the problem of the slowest bus speeds in the city.

LXFlyer

Last Stop wrote: »

What are you not about? You said that under Busconnects they couldn’t identify an alternative to college green. I have suggested down Winetavern st for corridors D and F and vis St Stephens Green for corridor A.
I did not mention current buses or increasing sharing with Luas (as line A replaces line F)

How would you route the A spine from St Stephen's Green to Dorset Street?

You're effectively removing the bus service from George's Street completely as I am interpreting you, while removing very long established connections to that area by putting the F spine out on a peripheral route. There's a good reason that the original plan had the F spine going via SSG - it was to maintain the link to that part of the city.

Last Stop

LXFlyer wrote: »

I know that one of the reasons that Rathfarnham LUAS was cast into the dustbin was poor reliability from the lack of segregation from personal contact with RPA engineers.

Ah so anecdotal evidence which failed to make the feasibility study report... that’s convenient

Lucan has probably the second best QBC in the city and once DART is in place, it really would be a waste of money in my view to then add a LUAS line in between them as well.

The demand from the area exceeds that which can be provided from a WBC regardless of how good. As I have told you, the catchment from DARTS does not cover this area.

The reason the buses are in the heart of the city centre is that for most of us there are no high capacity rail alternatives, and they are essential to keep the city moving and get people into the city centre. Until DART Underground and Metrolink happen, that's not going to change and people need to realise that.

Replacing key bus corridors with trams would remove the need for a number of buses to get to the city centre. I note that you’re back tracking here and now acknowledging that buses can be consigned to outside the city centre if an alternative is available.

Re College Green - I said that LUAS and the cycle lanes took two traffic lanes away. The two combined.

Which lane did Luas take? It’s shared running though college green

You might also need to re-do your maths. The 54a only operates every 30 minutes. Not sure how you think that removes 24 buses an hour?

Apologies, I have the example of the 54a bus was thinking in terms of all the buses which terminate unnecessary on Pearse st. which you also haven’t acknowledged.

Last Stop

LXFlyer wrote: »

Fine. Don't believe me, but my track record of posting on here is not one of posting heresay.

My view on this particular subject have not changed over the years and you can go right back through my posting history to confirm it. From 30 years of commuting through the specific area, I have believed that anything other than a metro line will just be tinkering and won't actually solve the problem of the slowest bus speeds in the city.

I don’t believe you because it doesn’t make sense. Why would the engineers tasked with seeing if a rail line is viable come to the conclusion that the reason it’s not viable is because of cost when you’re suggesting they found it would not work as a rail line?
There is not sufficient demand for a metro in the area and if we can’t build one where there is demand (Metrolink and in particular the green line) then good luck finding €1bn to build one which would be under-utilised

Last Stop

LXFlyer wrote: »

How would you route the A spine from St Stephen's Green to Dorset Street?

You're effectively removing the bus service from George's Street completely as I am interpreting you, while removing very long established connections to that area by putting the F spine out on a peripheral route. There's a good reason that the original plan had the F spine going via SSG - it was to maintain the link to that part of the city.

Route A would replace route F routing from St Stephens Green.

If you’re closing off college green then yes there are going to be wider consequences and George’s st looking a core corridor is one of them. That may not be a bad thing given there is not enough space to run a CBC along it anyway.
We’re redesigning the entire network and you’re concerned about long established connections when someone could change buses. If line F is fixed then you could run line A via Kevin st and Winetavern st.
Peripheral route? It still goes along the quays?

donvito99

Bambi wrote: »

Massively inefficient given the low usage to space allocated, basically handing road space over to a small group of very vocal hobbyists. Emphasis should be on mass public transit in peak hours rather than private transit like bicycles and cars

Go down to Rathmines Rd Monday morning and try telling the scores of people on bicycles at the top of the queue (despite no cycle lane and otherwise blocked inbound general traffic lanes, how did they manage that?) that they are "a small group of hobbyists".

There will only be more cyclists in the coming years as BusConnects and other projects are picked apart/cancelled, when people realise that they can get to work in a fraction of the time (avg Irish commute is ~3km) and not have to wait on a bus. It is private transport without the usual choking inefficiency. It should be encouraged and the space for facilities whih allows people to do this without being run off the road by our fantastic motorists should come from on street parking and superfluous traffic lanes, not bus lanes.

LXFlyer

Last Stop wrote: »

Ah so anecdotal evidence which failed to make the feasibility study report... that’s convenient


The demand from the area exceeds that which can be provided from a WBC regardless of how good. As I have told you, the catchment from DARTS does not cover this area.


Replacing key bus corridors with trams would remove the need for a number of buses to get to the city centre. I note that you’re back tracking here and now acknowledging that buses can be consigned to outside the city centre if an alternative is available.


Which lane did Luas take? It’s shared running though college green


Apologies, I have the example of the 54a bus was thinking in terms of all the buses which terminate unnecessary on Pearse st. which you also haven’t acknowledged.

I am NOT backtracking. Unless high capacity underground north/south and east/west rail solutions are in place (Metrolink and DART Underground) then there is no way you can move buses out from the city centre area.

There's also a hell of a difference between continuing to use existing tram lines (which the vast majority of other cities have) and putting in brand new tram lines along shared space that doesn't offer any particular speed improvement. I really don't see that happening at all.

Re College Green there were two lanes in each direction. Now there is one in each direction. That's the problem. The appallingly designed two way cycle lane takes up one of those lanes - the revised layout to facilitate LUAS with wider lanes and the larger island removed the other.

Re the 54a - I was responding directly to your point. What other route (apart from the 49) starts on Pearse Street? The 49 is only two buses an hour as well.

Last Stop

donvito99 wrote: »

Go down to Rathmines Rd Monday morning and try telling the scores of people on bicycles at the top of the queue (despite no cycle lane and otherwise blocked inbound general traffic lanes, how did they manage that?) that they are "a small group of hobbyists".

There will only be more cyclists in the coming years as BusConnects and other projects are picked apart/cancelled, when people realise that they can get to work in a fraction of the time (avg Irish commute is ~3km) and not have to wait on a bus. It is private transport without the usual choking inefficiency. It should be encouraged and the space for facilities whih allows people to do this without being run off the road by our fantastic motorists should come from on street parking and superfluous traffic lanes, not bus lanes.

Great more anecdotal evidence. A single busy point in the city doesn’t mean it’s efficient. Again it’s 10% modal share so extremely low compared to other modes despite the coverage (almost everyone has access to a bike and there are a significant number of routes where people can cycle safely)

LXFlyer

Last Stop wrote: »

Route A would replace route F routing from St Stephens Green.

If you’re closing off college green then yes there are going to be wider consequences and George’s st looking a core corridor is one of them. That may not be a bad thing given there is not enough space to run a CBC along it anyway.
We’re redesigning the entire network and you’re concerned about long established connections when someone could change buses. If line F is fixed then you could run line A via Kevin st and Winetavern st.
Peripheral route? It still goes along the quays?

I think that you'll find that the prime objection to the original plans was the enforced changing to get to/from the city centre.

I was thinking more of the distance from Clanbrassil Street/Patrick Street. You could conceivably be doubling people's walking distances from the existing routes if they are heading eastward. That does become an issue here.