Dublin - BusConnects

SortCrude

Last Stop wrote: »

2 of the 3 issues you mentioned in the final sentence (wait time and crowding) are directly linked to buses bunching. While there are benefits to Busconnects and it will improve things, if buses continue to bunch the benefits will be outweighed.

Busconnects will improve the overall bus network, which will reduce bunching. Reduced bunching is better than the current setup, even if bunching isn't entirely eradicated.
So no, continued bunching does not mean that the benefits of Busconnects will be outweighed.

is_that_so

cgcsb wrote: »

Bunching is caused by buses being held up in road traffic
Separation from road traffic where possible will reduce this

Not true. For example, it happens on the Swords Road/Drumcondra route at almost any time of day. I have no doubt other routes encounter the same scenario.

SortCrude

is_that_so wrote: »

Not true. For example, it happens on the Swords Road/Drumcondra route at almost any time of day. I have no doubt other routes encounter the same scenario.

What do you think is causing bunching on this particular route?

Last Stop

SortCrude wrote: »

Busconnects will improve the overall bus network, which will reduce bunching. Reduced bunching is better than the current setup, even if bunching isn't entirely eradicated.
So no, continued bunching does not mean that the benefits of Busconnects will be outweighed.

Your first sentence is just a generic statement with nothing to back it up. How will Busconnects improve the overall bus network and more specifically how will it reduce bunching? Yes it simplifies the network but to do this it needs to increase the frequencies along the spines and core routes.
I’ve already acknowledged the effects of the CBCs but with such high frequencies a delay outside the CBCs will have a knock on effect as I have given an example of.
If the new bus routes cannot be trusted in terms of when they will arrive and their advertised frequencies on the spines then of course the benefits of the redesigned bus network will be outweighed!

donvito99

Only on Boards could somebody find a way to make out that more bus lanes will not deliver a better bus service...

Last Stop

donvito99 wrote: »

Only on Boards could somebody find a way to make out that more bus lanes will not deliver a better bus service...

Boards is a pretty odd place. You also have people arguing that buses are better than Luas because they can overtake each other

SortCrude

Last Stop wrote: »

Your first sentence is just a generic statement with nothing to back it up.

You're venturing into wacky conspiracy theory territory if you think a plan that "aims to deliver 230kms of dedicated bus lanes and 200kms of cycle tracks along 16 of the busiest corridors in Dublin" won't improve the overall bus network.

Last Stop wrote: »

How will Busconnects improve the overall bus network and more specifically how will it reduce bunching?

This has been explained well by other posters in in this thread. Go look it up on Wikipedia or something.

gjim

Even with complete segregation, without central control, buses will bunch.

There is a feedback loop - the longer a bus is trailing behind it's schedule, the more passengers are likely to be waiting at the next stop (e.g. there are likely to be twice as many passenger waiting if the leading bus is 20minutes ahead instead of 10). As a result the bus will have to stop for longer, further slowing down a trailing bus and causing buses behind to catch up further. The ones behind, in turn will have LESS passengers to deal with and will speed up - sometimes they will end up so unloaded that the driver will be in a position to skip stops causing further bunching.

Here's a nice visual simulation which demonstrates the effect: http://setosa.io/bus/

You can deal with the problem by monitoring the situation centrally and forcing extra delays on all the buses behind a lagging bus ahead but this reduces the overall throughput of the system.

A practical way to alleviate the problem is to make loading/unloading passangers as fast as possible. This means using articulated buses and NOT double deckers as artics can have double the number of doors. Also, no ticket checking on entry or exit which slows entry/exit down. And certainly no driver cashbox/ticket sales - all ticket sales occur off-bus.

Many other European cities use urban buses like this. All BART style systems and trolley buses have these features for this reason. Are double-decker buses used anywhere outside the UK or Ireland?

It's also a key part of why the Luas is a much more efficient people carrier. If the Luas operated like the buses in Dublin do, then I'm guessing trams would be stuck at each stop for maybe two minutes longer? That doesn't sound so bad until you realize that this would add 48 minutes to an end-to-end trip on the Green line. Given Bloombridge to Bride's Glen is currently about 1 hour 9 minutes, with the same number of trams in operation, your passengers/hour capacity of the system would drop by a shocking 42%.

A more radical - or future BusConnects - plan should get rid of double decker buses and replace them with articulated 4 or 5 door buses and use Luas style ticketing and fare protection.

gjim

Btw - don't read the above a defence of LastStop's arguments. Without bus segregation and improved route infrastructure (i.e. Bus Connects), you're screwed anyway in terms of capacity. Dealing with bunching on a segregated system is much easier than on one where buses mingle with general traffic.

Last Stop

SortCrude wrote: »

You're venturing into wacky conspiracy theory territory if you think a plan that "aims to deliver 230kms of dedicated bus lanes and 200kms of cycle tracks along 16 of the busiest corridors in Dublin" won't improve the overall bus network.
This has been explained well by other posters in in this thread. Go look it up on Wikipedia or something.

The biggest benefit of Busconnects is the redesigned network.
Along a number of the CBCs there already is a large percentage of the route covered by bus lanes. N11, Lucan and Finglas for example.

The drawback of the redesigned network is it concentrates on the 16 CBCs (actually 14 as Terenure to Tallaght is on the A spine and Ringend is on no spine). As I have already stated, unless there is continuous bus lanes until the end each route on the spine, there will be delays and this will lead to bunching.
You can’t argue that building more bus lanes will automatically improve the network when buses will continue to be delayed further out and remain unreliable.

Last Stop

gjim wrote: »

Btw - don't read the above a defence of LastStop's arguments. Without bus segregation and improved route infrastructure (i.e. Bus Connects), you're screwed anyway in terms of capacity. Dealing with bunching on a segregated system is much easier than on one where buses mingle with general traffic.

Complete agree with this but I still remain of the view that if we are spending €2bn on a project to improve the bus network then reducing bunching should form a significant part of this.

Last Stop

gjim wrote: »

A more radical - or future BusConnects - plan should get rid of double decker buses and replace them with articulated 4 or 5 door buses and use Luas style ticketing and fare protection.

There was a plan for a BRT network (well 3 lines) which would have done exactly this. Unfortunately it was dropped and replaced by Busconnects.
Interestingly, this change led to the addition of the Kimmage and UCD Ballsbridge corridors which were not part of the GDA strategy Core Bus Network. I presume this was because you lost capacity when BRT was dropped. If I was living in Kimmage or Nutley lane I’d be targeting this when it comes to the oral hearing. Unless there is a report outlining why BRT was dropped, it is going to be very difficult to justify something that is not in the NTA strategy over something that is!

SortCrude

Last Stop wrote: »

The biggest benefit of Busconnects is the redesigned network.
Along a number of the CBCs there already is a large percentage of the route covered by bus lanes. N11, Lucan and Finglas for example.

The drawback of the redesigned network is it concentrates on the 16 CBCs (actually 14 as Terenure to Tallaght is on the A spine and Ringend is on no spine). As I have already stated, unless there is continuous bus lanes until the end each route on the spine, there will be delays and this will lead to bunching.

Nobody is claiming the Bus-Connects is a silver bullet that will end bunching. However, every meter of road where buses have their own lane rather than being held up sharing with general traffic contributes to it's reduction.

That said; whether or not, or how much, Bus-Connects reduces bunching isn't an important metric for whether or not it's a worth while project.

Last Stop

SortCrude wrote: »

Nobody is claiming the Bus-Connects is a silver bullet that will end bunching. However, every meter of road where buses have their own lane rather than being held up sharing with general traffic contributes to it's reduction.

That said; whether or not, or how much, Bus-Connects reduces bunching isn't a metric for whether or not it's a worth while project.

But bunching is one of the key issues with the current network and as has been explained bunching has significant knock on consequences.
Your very first sentence on here stated Busconnects will reduce bunching and with such high frequencies I firmly believe if anything it will increase it. I mean we struggle with bunching on some QBC corridors with 10min frequencies, even with CBCs 3-4 minutes looks virtually impossible without bunching for reasons other than segregation from general traffic.

donvito99

Last Stop wrote: »

But bunching is one of the key issues with the current network and as has been explained bunching has significant knock on consequences.

Bunching is a issue on a network without comprehensive bus lanes on the sections of routes prone to delays.

Your very first sentence on here stated Busconnects will reduce bunching and with such high frequencies I firmly believe if anything it will increase it. I mean we struggle with bunching on some QBC corridors with 10min frequencies, even with CBCs 3-4 minutes looks virtually impossible without bunching for reasons other than segregation from general traffic.

You suggest that increased frequencies will increase bunching, despite the fact that an increased frequency completely negates the effect of bunching.

Bus Connects will substantially address the cause of delay on the network which occurs on the approaches to the city's centre, not on the extremities of the city as you suggest without any evidence (typically).

SortCrude

Last Stop wrote: »

But bunching is one of the key issues with the current network and as has been explained bunching has significant knock on consequences.
Your very first sentence on here stated Busconnects will reduce bunching and with such high frequencies I firmly believe if anything it will increase it. I mean we struggle with bunching on some QBC corridors with 10min frequencies, even with CBCs 3-4 minutes looks virtually impossible without bunching for reasons other than segregation from general traffic.

That's like saying "twice as many buses will produce twice as many opportunities for bunching to happen", which is technically correct, I suppose.

Upgrading the network to reduce overall journey times is the key issue addressed by Bus-Connects.

Marcusm

gjim wrote: »

Even with complete segregation, without central control, buses will bunch.

There is a feedback loop - the longer a bus is trailing behind it's schedule, the more passengers are likely to be waiting at the next stop (e.g. there are likely to be twice as many passenger waiting if the leading bus is 20minutes ahead instead of 10). As a result the bus will have to stop for longer, further slowing down a trailing bus and causing buses behind to catch up further. The ones behind, in turn will have LESS passengers to deal with and will speed up - sometimes they will end up so unloaded that the driver will be in a position to skip stops causing further bunching.

Here's a nice visual simulation which demonstrates the effect: http://setosa.io/bus/

You can deal with the problem by monitoring the situation centrally and forcing extra delays on all the buses behind a lagging bus ahead but this reduces the overall throughput of the system.

A practical way to alleviate the problem is to make loading/unloading passangers as fast as possible. This means using articulated buses and NOT double deckers as artics can have double the number of doors. Also, no ticket checking on entry or exit which slows entry/exit down. And certainly no driver cashbox/ticket sales - all ticket sales occur off-bus.

Many other European cities use urban buses like this. All BART style systems and trolley buses have these features for this reason. Are double-decker buses used anywhere outside the UK or Ireland?

It's also a key part of why the Luas is a much more efficient people carrier. If the Luas operated like the buses in Dublin do, then I'm guessing trams would be stuck at each stop for maybe two minutes longer? That doesn't sound so bad until you realize that this would add 48 minutes to an end-to-end trip on the Green line. Given Bloombridge to Bride's Glen is currently about 1 hour 9 minutes, with the same number of trams in operation, your passengers/hour capacity of the system would drop by a shocking 42%.

A more radical - or future BusConnects - plan should get rid of double decker buses and replace them with articulated 4 or 5 door buses and use Luas style ticketing and fare protection.

Double deckers are used fairly heavily in Hong King.

Re articulated buses, this will require a step change in passenger attitude and fare enforcement. They were rolled out fairly significantly under Ken Livingstone in the U.K. and one of the observed phenomena was a dramatic reduction in the number of recorded passengers - basically anyone who didn’t have a pass could choose not to tap on and only do so if they saw an inspector. This led to enforcement taking the form of 3-4 inspectors plus 2 cops and long dwell times on inspections. The 453 became known as the 45Free.

Last Stop

donvito99 wrote: »

Bunching is a issue on a network without comprehensive bus lanes on the sections of routes prone to delays.



You suggest that increased frequencies will increase bunching, despite the fact that an increased frequency completely negates the effect of bunching.

Bus Connects will substantially address the cause of delay on the network which occurs on the approaches to the city's centre, not on the extremities of the city as you suggest without any evidence (typically).

Increasing frequencies does not negate the effect of bunching. It MAY negate the perception but not the effect.

But the routes that approach the city centre come from the “extremities”... that’s my point! My evidence is that this is the cause of delays on a number of buses that ha e QBCs closer to the city. N11 and N4 for example.

Last Stop

SortCrude wrote: »

That's like saying "twice as many buses will produce twice as many opportunities for bunching to happen", which is technically correct, I suppose.

Upgrading the network to reduce overall journey times is the key issue addressed by Bus-Connects.

Yes and no. In a literal sense you are correct but what I mean is that the gaps between buses are so small that even a small delay will lead to bunching.

Journey times is only one factor in people’s decision to use public transport. Reliability is another

SortCrude

Last Stop wrote: »

Journey times is only one factor in people’s decision to use public transport. Reliability is another

An unreliable bus schedule where you can expect a bus after waiting for 20 minutes being upgraded to an unreliable schedule where you can expect a bus after waiting for 10 minutes is somehow worse, because there are now twice as many unreliable buses?

Last Stop

SortCrude wrote: »

An unreliable bus schedule where you can expect a bus after waiting for 20 minutes being upgraded to an unreliable schedule where you can expect a bus after waiting for 10 minutes is somehow worse, because there are now twice as many unreliable buses?

Unreliable is unreliable and what you’re now saying is that Busconnects is great; yes the buses will be delayed but they’ve added more so you won’t notice the difference! If that’s the case why don’t they just add more buses now and save the €2bn?

SortCrude

Last Stop wrote: »

If that’s the case why don’t they just add more buses now and save the €2bn?

Because Bus-Connects is not a €2bn investment to make buses stick to their schedule as well as trains do.

machaseh

Last Stop wrote: »

Unreliable is unreliable and what you’re now saying is that Busconnects is great; yes the buses will be delayed but they’ve added more so you won’t notice the difference! If that’s the case why don’t they just add more buses now and save the €2bn?

Because we need extra infrastructure for more buses.

Last Stop

SortCrude wrote: »

Because Bus-Connects is not a €2bn investment to make buses stick to their schedule as well as trains do.

So if it’s not an investment to make buses reliable (which would involve sticking to schedules) then what is it?

Last Stop

machaseh wrote: »

Because we need extra infrastructure for more buses.

And we need more buses to provide additional capacity which could be provided by other modes?

SortCrude

Last Stop wrote: »

So if it’s not an investment to make buses reliable (which would involve sticking to schedules) then what is it?

It will make buses more reliable. More importantly, it will reduce journey times.

Last Stop wrote: »

And we need more buses to provide additional capacity which could be provided by other modes?

If the government decided to quadruple investment in infrastructure over the next 10 years, and nimbys weren't an issue, then yes, ditching Bus-Connects for better alternatives would be on the table. Unfortunately that's not reality.

machaseh

Last Stop wrote: »

And we need more buses to provide additional capacity which could be provided by other modes?

Such as which other modes? The car?

Last Stop

SortCrude wrote: »

It will make buses more reliable. More importantly, it will reduce journey times.

How will it make buses more reliable if they can’t stick to their schedules? Simply saying it doesn’t make it true
The benefits of journey time savings will be completely undermined if the buses aren’t reliable.

A 5 minute delay on a single route for example increases wait time on the route by 50% and on the spine by 100%!!!

Last Stop

machaseh wrote: »

Such as which other modes? The car?

Luas, BRT, Rail

Last Stop

SortCrude wrote: »

If the government decided to quadruple investment in infrastructure over the next 10 years, and nimbys weren't an issue, then yes, ditching Bus-Connects for better alternatives would be on the table. Unfortunately that's not reality.

So once again I’ll ask, we are building Busconnects not because it’s the best solution but because it’s the cheapest?
Even if we built other modes incrementally over time it would have a far greater impact! Justifying not building something because we have underinvested for decades isn’t a great argument