Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Dublin - BusConnects
Options
Comments
-
Green Party: Ossian Smyth wrote: »The document below contains the latest evolution of plans from the NTA on the UCD-city centre and Blackrock-Merrion routes.
http://www.ossiansmyth.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/UCD-Ballsbridge-to-City-Centre-Blackrock-to-Merrion-Community-Fourm-18-Sept-2019.pdf
Let me know what you think of the various options presented - or any other options you can imagine.
I like the increased amount of cycle lanes for the bus corridors at Mount Merrion Avenue & Booterstown Avenue. It is a very good upgrade in the use of infrastructure for them which is very positive. Although they are not given the same 4 lane square shared treatment as to what was proposed on the Loughlinstown N11/Cherrywood flyover. Booterstown Avenue only has 2 sides filled up with cycle lanes while Mount Merrion Avenue has 3 sections filled in with cycle lanes. Why is it the case in not having 4 sections filled up with cycle lanes instead of the current proposals for Loughlistown/Cherrywood?
I also liked the inclusion of the new bus shelter located in front of the old toilets at Blackrock Park which is stretched out further onto the main road.
It is badly needed if you are currently trying to wait for a bus at that location. It is very annoying for people to have a lack of seating facilities available at that stop going on for several years until these proposed drawings came into the public record. I am very happy to see that the NTA have included this new shelter in the plans. After that new bus shelter on Mount Merrion Avenue; I see there are new trees being planted & a bigger footpath to be built near the traffic light island between Blackrock SC & Frascati SC just before you turn into Blackrock Main St. Do either DLRCC or the NTA now have to make plans to revise the layout of that traffic light island into the Traffic Simulation model report or will that be a separate plan?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19296
Mod: Can we drop the pedantry and offensive replies. Cards and bans will be next.
0 -
Frequencies isn’t just about the number of buses but the even spacing between them.
You could run 30 buses per hour but you wouldn’t get an even 2 minute frequency near the city centre.
If one bus gets delayed by say 2 minutes it means that instead of 5 minutes between buses there’s 7 minute between the first and second bus and only 3 minutes until the 3rd bus.
This leads to buses becoming unreliable.
One of the main benefits of Luas is that you can rock up to any stop and be guaranteed that the longest you’ll have to wait for a tram is 15 minutes. This makes it extremely reliable as people know that it will take then x minutes to get into town and they can leave a 15 minute buffer on top of this.
If you were to do that with buses and the advertised frequency is 5 minutes or better but it could be 7 minutes or more then you don’t trust it.
My point was that you seemed to be suggesting that the planned infrastructure couldn’t cope with the planned number of buses per hour. My point is that it already does.0 -
My point was that you seemed to be suggesting that the planned infrastructure couldn’t cope with the planned number of buses per hour. My point is that it already does.
My point is it won’t be able to provide a reliable level of service.
What you’re suggesting is that it provides a reliable service already which begs the question why we’re spending all this money?
Also, all this talk of priority signalling is fine on paper but won’t work in real life situations. They suggest that traffic detection loops will pick up as a queue starts to form and stop general traffic to allow a bus through. All good in theory and over very short distances. If this is applied over a 1km stretch which is easily possible that would mean 200 cars held back creating significant levels of traffic further back along the road. To avoid this, cars will likely only be stopped when a bus is approaching meaning it will simply join the traffic queue which means it offers little benefit over a traditional yellow box as is used at a number of terminating bus lanes currently.
Those who suggest that delaying cars is a good thing are ignoring the fact that the GDA strategy targets an increase of modal share for public transport of 30% of current demand and 100% of future demand. On a number of corridors this will mean car modal share is still around the 50% mark. Keep in mind that that was with plans for significantly more capacity improvements such as BRT and Lucan Luas. While I’m all for reducing car traffic, you have to provide a viable and sufficient alternative, which Busconnects is not.
I note that in the Blackrock presentation, they are proposing Dublin style cycle junctions again pointing out the inconsistency.0 -
Those who suggest that delaying cars is a good thing are ignoring the fact that the GDA strategy targets an increase of modal share for public transport of 30% of current demand and 100% of future demand. On a number of corridors this will mean car modal share is still around the 50% mark.
I don't follow your calcs here considering buses currently account for marginally more share than cars.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I thought you thought the GDA was discredited. I don't know when we are expected to use the GDA as a source and when we can choose to ignore it?Those who suggest that delaying cars is a good thing are ignoring the fact that the GDA strategy targets an increase of modal share for public transport of 30% of current demand and 100% of future demand. On a number of corridors this will mean car modal share is still around the 50% mark. Keep in mind that that was with plans for significantly more capacity improvements such as BRT and Lucan Luas. While I’m all for reducing car traffic, you have to provide a viable and sufficient alternative, which Busconnects is not.
How do improve the bus aka a viable and sufficient solution without reducing car without reducing car traffic You can't it's impossible. A metro for all of Dublin isn't a realistic.
You constantly hear this cart before the horse argument from people who have no intention of using public transportation even if a metro stop was in their basement0 -
0
-
LeinsterDub wrote: »I thought you thought the GDA was discredited. I don't know when we are expected to use the GDA as a source and when we can choose to ignore it?
How do improve the bus aka a viable and sufficient solution without reducing car without reducing car traffic You can't it's impossible. A metro for all of Dublin isn't a realistic.
You constantly hear this cart before the horse argument from people who have no intention of using public transportation even if a metro stop was in their basement
Where have I said the GDA strategy was discredited? I said it lacked ambition and doesn’t go far enough but that’s completely irrelevant to this argument.
You can’t say that the bus is viable and sufficient when it clearly isn’t on a number of corridors.
Case in point is the Lucan area.
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/West_Corridor_Study.pdf
One of the options looked at was to provide only the 2 QBCs proposed under Busconnects (Lucan and Liffey valley). It ruled out the option of providing QBCs alone as “providing bus services required to meet the demand will not be possible on a roadway network that is already significantly constrained”. It was based on this that the Lucan Luas was brought forward as the preferred option in addition to DART Expansion.
This scenario is repeated on a number of other corridors.
The south east corridor for example doesn’t even consider the option of providing buses alone because of the number required to meet demand (54). Busconnects tried to account for this by providing a number of additional peak hour services bringing the total to 48. So what do you say to the 400 people who will be left stranded every day?
The preferred option under GDA was metro south but that certainly isn’t getting built before 2035 so some of the other options proposed may need to be reconsidered.
I think you’ll find that I have never bought into the nonsense of a metro for all and instead advocated for a number of additional Luas lines which would be sufficient to meet demand and certainly realistic given the cost of Busconnects.
Saying I’m crying “putting the cart before the horse” would be fine but this isn’t putting the cart before the horse, this is overloading an already full cart and expecting the horse to keep going with no issues because you gave him some extra food.0 -
Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 14,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 14081
The NTA have tendered for real estate services for the project.
https://irl.eu-supply.com/ctm/Supplier/PublicPurchase/154038/0/0?returnUrl=ctm/Supplier/publictenders&b=ETENDERS_SIMPLE0 -
Advertisement
-
Where have I said the GDA strategy was discredited? I said it lacked ambition and doesn’t go far enough but that’s completely irrelevant to this argument.
You can’t say that the bus is viable and sufficient when it clearly isn’t on a number of corridors.
Case in point is the Lucan area.
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/West_Corridor_Study.pdf
One of the options looked at was to provide only the 2 QBCs proposed under Busconnects (Lucan and Liffey valley). It ruled out the option of providing QBCs alone as “providing bus services required to meet the demand will not be possible on a roadway network that is already significantly constrained”. It was based on this that the Lucan Luas was brought forward as the preferred option in addition to DART Expansion.
This scenario is repeated on a number of other corridors.
The south east corridor for example doesn’t even consider the option of providing buses alone because of the number required to meet demand (54). Busconnects tried to account for this by providing a number of additional peak hour services bringing the total to 48. So what do you say to the 400 people who will be left stranded every day?
The preferred option under GDA was metro south but that certainly isn’t getting built before 2035 so some of the other options proposed may need to be reconsidered.
I think you’ll find that I have never bought into the nonsense of a metro for all and instead advocated for a number of additional Luas lines which would be sufficient to meet demand and certainly realistic given the cost of Busconnects.
Saying I’m crying “putting the cart before the horse” would be fine but this isn’t putting the cart before the horse, this is overloading an already full cart and expecting the horse to keep going with no issues because you gave him some extra food.
You’re again talking as if BusConnects is the only transport project going ahead when you know it’s not.
Under Ireland 2040, Luas extensions planned to Lucan, Finglas, Poolbeg and Bray. Metro is planned and Dart expansion is planned. And, as you also know, cycling routes are also going ahead outside of BusConnects.
So, you seem to be using a lot of text to say again that BusConnects should be scrapped for tram lines to be built elsewhere and sooner.0 -
Where have I said the GDA strategy was discredited?
You said we should ignore it's predictions on cycling because you had figures from a different survey that suited your agenda. Now that the GDA suits your agenda we are expected to take it as gospel?
Aka the bus is viable and sufficient for vast areas of DublinYou can’t say that the bus is viable and sufficient when it clearly isn’t on a number of corridors.0 -
LeinsterDub wrote: »You said we should ignore it's predictions on cycling because you had figures from a different survey that suited your agenda. Now that the GDA suits your agenda we are expected to take it as gospel?
Aka the bus is viable and sufficient for vast areas of Dublin
Where did I say that? It think you’ll find I’ve been challenged for using the GDA strategy figures for cycling.
Aka it’s not the solution to a number of corridors0 -
You’re again talking as if BusConnects is the only transport project going ahead when you know it’s not.
Under Ireland 2040, Luas extensions planned to Lucan, Finglas, Poolbeg and Bray. Metro is planned and Dart expansion is planned. And, as you also know, cycling routes are also going ahead outside of BusConnects.
So, you seem to be using a lot of text to say again that BusConnects should be scrapped for tram lines to be built elsewhere and sooner.
I’m talking about the impact Busconnects will have on Dublin which in my view will be negative and in some cases.
Ireland 2040 is a government led plan as opposed to the GDA 2035 which is NTA led. There’s a big difference between what the government propose and what the NTA propose. In all likelihood we’ll have a new government of some description by this time next year who could decide on a totally different capital plan and associated policy.
The proposed QBC to Liffey Valley is likely to delay Lucan Luas beyond 2035. It would be madness to go to the trouble of putting in a QBC and then only a few years later dig it up again to put in a Luas. Why not put in the Luas first and then see if there is even a need for a QBC?
The Luas to Bray simply can’t happen until the green line is upgraded. This has been pushed back to beyond 2035 now.
The Finglas and Poolbeg Luas will have little effect in the overall scheme of things... Poolbeg one will be dependent on glass bottle site development going ahead which mightn’t happen.
Your final sentence sums it up quite well. I might add that what I’m saying is that we should be building adequate capacity along core radial corridors. This is most likely in the form of trams. Certain corridors may well be fine with QBCs but the extent of QBCs proposed in Busconnects is incapable of delivering the capacity required and in some cases unnecessary.
To summarise what I believe would be an appropriate and achievable plan for Dublin:
Phase 1 - Luas Line to Knocklyon via Harold’s Cross etc.
Phase 2 - Luas Line to Lucan
Phase 3 - Luas Line to Clongriffin
Phase 4 - Luas Line to UCD
Phase 5 - Luas from UCD to Kilmacud
Phase 6 - Green Line upgrade to metro including extension south to Bray - only possible following phase 5
On top of this, there would be minor upgrades to some QBC corridors to allow them provide a reliable service.
I’m assuming that Finglas Luas, Metro, DART expansion and cycle network investment proceed as planned.0 -
To summarise what I believe would be an appropriate and achievable plan for Dublin:
Phase 1 - Luas Line to Knocklyon via Harold’s Cross etc.
Phase 2 - Luas Line to Lucan
Phase 3 - Luas Line to Clongriffin
Phase 4 - Luas Line to UCD
Phase 5 - Luas from UCD to Kilmacud
Phase 6 - Green Line upgrade to metro including extension south to Bray - only possible following phase 5
On top of this, there would be minor upgrades to some QBC corridors to allow them provide a reliable service.
I’m assuming that Finglas Luas, Metro, DART expansion and cycle network investment proceed as planned.
And what should people do while they wait till 2060 for your fictional network?0 -
Where did this Luas on the Chapelizod bypass come from? Line F is supposed to through Kylemore, Ballyfermot etc.0
-
Why are people entertaining such blatantly unachievable nonsense? Some car drivers just want to keep setting the bar higher and higher for what will get them off their selfish arses and onto public transport/their feet/a bike.
Their time is over, and we need to stop debating the necessity of car reduction measures, and start discussing exactly what form they'll be. It's the only way car drivers will change behaviour.0 -
Why are people entertaining such blatantly unachievable nonsense? Some car drivers just want to keep setting the bar higher and higher for what will get them off their selfish arses and onto public transport/their feet/a bike.
Their time is over, and we need to stop debating the necessity of car reduction measures, and start discussing exactly what form they'll be. It's the only way car drivers will change behaviour.
I love how you’ve assumed that I drive as justification for your argument and that could be the only possible reason that I would oppose Busconnects.
Let’s clear that one up straight away... I don’t drive and ideally I won’t have to drive in the future.
I’m guessing someone else will now claim I’m one of those NIMBYs whose front garden is being taken... not one of those either.
It says it all when opposing a system which will not provide adequate capacity is seen as setting the bar higher and higher.
As I have said before, all for car reduction measures IF there is a viable alternative. As pointed out on a number of corridors, Busconnects is not sufficient.0 -
LeinsterDub wrote: »And what should people do while they wait till 2160 for your fictional network?
The original Luas started construction in 2001 and by the end of 2018 had a length of 42km so to build the 50km as proposed above using that as a timeline would bring it to around 2040.
Talking about 2060 is scaremongering.0 -
The original Luas started construction in 2001 and by the end of 2018 had a length of 42km so to build the 50km as proposed above using that as a timeline would bring it to around 2040.
Talking about 2060 is scaremongering.
We've been talking about dart expansion since the 80s and metro since the 90s. Luas Finglas isn't set to be delivered before 2035. Don't deny the reality of the political process which these will be delivered0 -
Advertisement
-
LeinsterDub wrote: »We've been talking about dart expansion since the 80s and metro since the 90s. Luas Finglas isn't set to be delivered before 2035. Don't deny the reality of the political process which these will be delivered
And what gives you such optimism for the 16 Busconnects corridors?
Justifying not building something because we’ve been slow to build in the past is very pessimistic.
If we are to, and we need to, take congestion and climate change seriously then we need to up our game.0 -
-
And what gives you such optimism for the 16 Busconnects corridors?
Justifying not building something because we’ve been slow to build in the past is very pessimistic.
If we are to, and we need to, take congestion and climate change seriously then we need to up our game.
It's not pessimistic it's realistic.
Because a lot of bus connects is minor tweaks or isn't controversial. The recent engagements by the NTA has shown a lot of the issues can be addressed and at the end of the day it's not a binary choice we need both buses and other modes. Bus is still the backbone of public transportation in London despite their 100's of km of rail0 -
LeinsterDub wrote: »It's not pessimistic it's realistic.
Because a lot of bus connects is minor tweaks or isn't controversial. The recent engagements by the NTA has shown a lot of the issues can be addressed and at the end of the day it's not a binary choice we need both buses and other modes. Bus is still the backbone of public transportation in London despite their 100's of km of rail
We’ve been through this all before.
The bus network as it is currently proposed will no function unless the infrastructure is delivering in full. Saying it’s just minor tweaks is ignoring the problem areas.
Never said it was a binary choice. What I have repeated said is that on a number of corridors bus cannot handle the capacity. What we should be doing is building high capacity corridors complimented by bus routes.
Buses carry more people in London but as I have already pointed out the tube carries 4x as many people when you compare them on a per km basis.0 -
I love how you’ve assumed that I drive as justification for your argument and that could be the only possible reason that I would oppose Busconnects.
Let’s clear that one up straight away... I don’t drive and ideally I won’t have to drive in the future.
I’m guessing someone else will now claim I’m one of those NIMBYs whose front garden is being taken... not one of those either.
It says it all when opposing a system which will not provide adequate capacity is seen as setting the bar higher and higher.
As I have said before, all for car reduction measures IF there is a viable alternative. As pointed out on a number of corridors, Busconnects is not sufficient.
I don't care a jot whether you drive or not (never claimed you did, as you'd see if you would read or represent people's posts properly) you're still talking out your rear with utterly terrible Luas crayon routes. As others have already pointed out, you'll still need BusConnects to fill the gap for the next few decades before such a system would get built.
This idea of having to wait for the bus system to improve before cars can be removed is demonstrably nutso. You can never achieve the former in Dublin without doing the latter first. If you set that as a precondition, you're clearly NOT interested in the bus system improving, because you've just set circular reasoning which ensures it never can.
We can't wait around for car drivers to get comfortable with using public transport. They are literally poisoning us and future generations every day. **** them. Time to make them so uncomfortable in their X5s and Discoveries that they have to do what everyone else does - walk, cycle, park and ride, or use public transport.0 -
I don't care a jot whether you drive or not (never claimed you did, as you'd see if you would read or represent people's posts properly) you're still talking out your rear with utterly terrible Luas crayon routes. As others have already pointed out, you'll still need BusConnects to fill the gap for the next few decades before such a system would get built.
This idea of having to wait for the bus system to improve before cars can be removed is demonstrably nutso. You can never achieve the former in Dublin without doing the latter first. If you set that as a precondition, you're clearly NOT interested in the bus system improving, because you've just set circular reasoning which ensures it never can.
We can't wait around for car drivers to get comfortable with using public transport. They are literally poisoning us and future generations every day. **** them. Time to make them so uncomfortable in their X5s and Discoveries that they have to do what everyone else does - walk, cycle, park and ride, or use public transport.Why are people entertaining such blatantly unachievable nonsense? Some car drivers just want to keep setting the bar higher and higher for what will get them off their selfish arses and onto public transport/their feet/a bike.
If the above wasn’t in relation to my proposal then who was it directed at?
What makes the proposed routes terrible? They are all based on proposed Luas or BRT routes?
Busconnects will take until the end of the next decade to be delivered. Others on here have suggested it will be delivered in parts extending the length of time. I’ve already pointed out that such a network could easily be delivered by 2040 and even sooner if required.
As I have pointed out multiple times at this stage, by providing tram lines you significantly reduce the number of corridors effected as trams have a much larger catchment area. Building Busconnects in its current form and then putting in tram lines would have an impact on far more corridors than you need to.
You cannot force people out of their cars by putting in a system which won’t have the capacity to handle them. What part of that don’t you understand?
The fact that you refer to park and ride and public transport as two separate modes shows your ignorance of this. What do people ride when they park? If we were to proceed as you suggest, what do you do with the 400 people who cannot get on a bus along the n11 corridor because that’s what the modelling is saying will happen? Do you just let them be late for work on a daily basis? The Luas and DART are already full!
As a final attempt to try and make you understand the problem...
You have a leaky roof. So you put a bucket under the leak. Now the bucket is filling up. You can’t keep emptying the bucket all day so you have 2 choices which cost roughly the same. Do you either buy a bigger bucket and hope that it holds enough water until you can empty it or do you fix the roof?
Suggesting Busconnects as the interim solution is just buying a bigger bucket hoping it will solve the problem. What we need to do is fix the problem and the only way to do that is providing public transport with enough capacity to cater for demand. Then you can start to look at restricting cars because they have a viable alternative.
At this stage I’ve given up trying to explain the problems with the project. I will save my energy for the next round of public consultations and An Bord Pleanala because I cannot sit idly by while the proposed works go ahead which will change Dublin irreparablely only to realise in 20 years time it was the wrong option.0 -
If the above wasn’t in relation to my proposal then who was it directed at?
What makes the proposed routes terrible? They are all based on proposed Luas or BRT routes?
Busconnects will take until the end of the next decade to be delivered. Others on here have suggested it will be delivered in parts extending the length of time. I’ve already pointed out that such a network could easily be delivered by 2040 and even sooner if required.
As I have pointed out multiple times at this stage, by providing tram lines you significantly reduce the number of corridors effected as trams have a much larger catchment area. Building Busconnects in its current form and then putting in tram lines would have an impact on far more corridors than you need to.
You cannot force people out of their cars by putting in a system which won’t have the capacity to handle them. What part of that don’t you understand?
The fact that you refer to park and ride and public transport as two separate modes shows your ignorance of this. What do people ride when they park? If we were to proceed as you suggest, what do you do with the 400 people who cannot get on a bus along the n11 corridor because that’s what the modelling is saying will happen? Do you just let them be late for work on a daily basis? The Luas and DART are already full!
As a final attempt to try and make you understand the problem...
You have a leaky roof. So you put a bucket under the leak. Now the bucket is filling up. You can’t keep emptying the bucket all day so you have 2 choices which cost roughly the same. Do you either buy a bigger bucket and hope that it holds enough water until you can empty it or do you fix the roof?
Suggesting Busconnects as the interim solution is just buying a bigger bucket hoping it will solve the problem. What we need to do is fix the problem and the only way to do that is providing public transport with enough capacity to cater for demand. Then you can start to look at restricting cars because they have a viable alternative.
At this stage I’ve given up trying to explain the problems with the project. I will save my energy for the next round of public consultations and An Bord Pleanala because I cannot sit idly by while the proposed works go ahead which will change Dublin irreparablely only to realise in 20 years time it was the wrong option.
You've really ruined this thread. Many people won't agree with you, that's okay you can just leave it.0 -
-
Bus lanes carry more people than general traffic lanes (containing cars) and therefore provide an increase in the capacity of the road space to carry commuters.You cannot force people out of their cars by putting in a system which won’t have the capacity to handle them. What part of that don’t you understand?
Same with cycle lanes.
Forcing people out of their cars by dedicating more road space to buses and safe cycleways will increase the overall capacity of the system.
So no, I don't understand your point here.0 -
Advertisement
-
As a final attempt to try and make you understand the problem...
You have a leaky roof. So you put a bucket under the leak. Now the bucket is filling up. You can’t keep emptying the bucket all day so you have 2 choices which cost roughly the same. Do you either buy a bigger bucket and hope that it holds enough water until you can empty it or do you fix the roof?
Link to where this 50km of fictional of tram line has been costed?0
Advertisement