Dublin - BusConnects

is_that_so

SortCrude wrote: »

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

8-10 bus routes descending on it from different directions with very different timetables. It has a good bus lane all the way to the city centre. Even with that many you can still find yourself waiting up to 20m outside peak hours. In rush hour the numbers of potential passengers can leave people waiting almost as long to get on already packed and bunched buses.

SortCrude

Last Stop wrote: »

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

It's the most cost effective and feasible way to get something done to mitigate the spiraling disaster that is commuting in Dublin, in this decade.

Last Stop

SortCrude wrote: »

It's the most cost effective and feasible way to get something done to mitigate the spiraling disaster that is commuting in Dublin, in this decade.

What you’ve effectively said in simple English is it’s quick and cheap.

SortCrude

Last Stop wrote: »

What you’ve effectively said in simple English is it’s quick and cheap.

'cost effective' doesn't quite translate to 'cheap'. Maybe 'best bang for buck' would work better.

Don't get me wrong, it would be fantastic if the government decided to increase investment in infrastructure enough to pay for multiple Luas lines and Dart Underground in the next decade. I'd gladly vote for any political party promising to do so.

Unfortunately, Bus-Connects is the best we can do with our government's penny pinching attitude towards infrastructure. I'd prefer if this wasn't the case, but accept that this is the reality.

CatInABox

I know that you like the Luas Last Stop, but even if we built the Luas lines that you are looking for, we'd still need to fix the issues with our bus system. To me, it makes sense that we'd fix the issues that we have with the system that moves the most amount of people in Dublin before we went looking for more Luas lines. Again, even if we built your Luas lines first, the Bus system would still be moving more people every day than the Luas system, as happens in most other cities.

Also, you seem to imply that quick and cheap is somehow a bad thing. It's not. BusConnects will be up and running for years before a single shovel would be put into the ground for any of your Luas lines. You might be happy to wait for years for a Luas line, but the vast majority of people in Dublin would prefer faster improvements.

Finally, you keep saying that this is a €2 billion project, but seem to have absolutely no idea about the breakdown of whats involved. There's a complete restructure of the Leap Card system (which is going to benefit the Luas, Bus, Rail, even taxis), a complete phase out of cash payments, hundreds of new hybrid buses (again, this is something that would be needed even if we went for your Luas lines), new park and ride centres and a massive improvement in cycling infrastructure (with basically no segregated infrastructure, cycling matches the Luas for usage).

Last Stop

SortCrude wrote: »

'cost effective' doesn't quite translate to 'cheap'. Maybe 'best bang for buck' would work better.

Don't get me wrong, it would be fantastic if the government decided to increase investment in infrastructure enough to pay for multiple Luas lines and Dart Underground in the next decade. I'd gladly vote for any political party promising to do so.

Unfortunately, Bus-Connects is the best we can do with our government's penny pinching attitude towards infrastructure. I'd prefer if this wasn't the case, but accept that this is the reality.

So again what you’re saying is it’s cheap. I also accept that this is the reality but an under no illusions that Busconnects has significant drawbacks

Last Stop

CatInABox wrote: »

I know that you like the Luas Last Stop, but even if we built the Luas lines that you are looking for, we'd still need to fix the issues with our bus system. To me, it makes sense that we'd fix the issues that we have with the system that moves the most amount of people in Dublin before we went looking for more Luas lines. Again, even if we built your Luas lines first, the Bus system would still be moving more people every day than the Luas system, as happens in most other cities.

Also, you seem to imply that quick and cheap is somehow a bad thing. It's not. BusConnects will be up and running for years before a single shovel would be put into the ground for any of your Luas lines. You might be happy to wait for years for a Luas line, but the vast majority of people in Dublin would prefer faster improvements.

Finally, you keep saying that this is a €2 billion project, but seem to have absolutely no idea about the breakdown of whats involved. There's a complete restructure of the Leap Card system (which is going to benefit the Luas, Bus, Rail, even taxis), a complete phase out of cash payments, hundreds of new hybrid buses (again, this is something that would be needed even if we went for your Luas lines), new park and ride centres and a massive improvement in cycling infrastructure (with basically no segregated infrastructure, cycling matches the Luas for usage).

The network redesign will solve an awful lot of the issues with the network.
Why would you not build Luas lines first and then see if bus corridors are needed? This would be the case on several of the routes.

I know that buses move more people per day but that is largely due to the scale of the network. They are inefficient as a form of mass transport and should really be used to compliment high capacity corridors.

Again if we were to actually invest, we could have lines in operation within or just over a decade. Actual work is seen as progress to many people.

The largest proportion of the 2bn is on the CBCs. The need for new buses is part of continuous fleet investment which is common practice for a functioning transport system. I really don’t see it as an argument.

machaseh

Last Stop wrote: »

The network redesign will solve an awful lot of the issues with the network.
Why would you not build Luas lines first and then see if bus corridors are needed? This would be the case on several of the routes.

We don't build LUAS routes first because experience has taught us that in a country where one old woman complaining about her view being ruined can block an entire LUAS/subway line project, it will just take way too long.

Last Stop

machaseh wrote: »

We don't build LUAS routes first because experience has taught us that in a country where one old woman complaining about her view being ruined can block an entire LUAS/subway line project, it will just take way too long.

So based on this experience we’ve decided to go with a project that will impact 4x as many routes?? The logic is baffling.

machaseh

Last Stop wrote: »

So based on this experience we’ve decided to go with a project that will impact 4x as many routes?? The logic is baffling.

I agree with you that much more could and should be done to extend the luas, but before we get new laws that limit the influence of NIMBY folks it's just probably not gonna happen.

I hope that at least they can extend the green line to Blanchardstown (and preferably also a branch to Ballymun/Ikea/Airport) and make a branch extension route from somewhere on the green line to Rathfarnham. That would be the very basic minimum in my opinion.

Last Stop

machaseh wrote: »

I agree with you that much more could and should be done to extend the luas, but before we get new laws that limit the influence of NIMBY folks it's just probably not gonna happen

Again Busconnects has 4x as many corridors!?! How will this have less Nimbyism?

cgcsb

Last Stop wrote: »

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

Even after a metro is built a functioning bus service is still required, as we see with every other city in the world.

Last Stop

cgcsb wrote: »

Even after a metro is built a functioning bus service is still required, as we see with every other city in the world.

Not disagreeing with that. But a functioning bus service does not require
- 3 minute frequencies
- 230km of additional bus lanes

By providing high capacity corridors, you reduce the demand on buses which means that they don’t need to run as frequently. Less frequent buses can accommodate more delays in their running without bunching and therefore do not require CBCs

bk

Look at London, with it's fantastic London Underground service. Yet London Bus carries more passengers then the London Underground!

And yes, plenty of London Bus routes have 3 minutes or better frequency and they have spent vast amounts of money on bus lanes and priorities, the congestion charging system being the most visible element of that investment.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love if we had 3 or 4 Metro lines, but we would still need a high quality bus service.

Last Stop

bk wrote: »

Look at London, with it's fantastic London Underground service. Yet London Bus carries more passengers then the London Underground!

And yes, plenty of London Bus routes have 3 minutes or better frequency and they have spent vast amounts of money on bus lanes and priorities, the congestion charging system being the most visible element of that investment.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love if we had 3 or 4 Metro lines, but we would still need a high quality bus service.

Again that’s because of the scale of London!!
London also has a population of 12m vs 1m in Dublin. How would London function without the underground. We both know the answer is it wouldn’t regardless of how many buses it has!

I’m not saying we don’t need a high quality bus service, I’m saying that what we need first is a number of Luas lines to serve high demand corridors.

Stark

What you're saying seems to change in every other post depending on what point you're reflexively arguing against.

Last Stop

Stark wrote: »

What you're saying seems to change in every other post depending on what point you're reflexively arguing against.

How? I’ve consistently stated that we need a number of Luas lines to serve high demand corridors complemented by the redesigned bus network.

bk

It is really very simple. The 2bn being spent on BusConnects will give you a very high quality service on the core 16 corridors and improvements to bus services throughout the entire city.

2bn would only get you 2, maybe 3 Luas routes at best.

BusConnects offers far more benefit across the entire city and more bang for buck.

I'd also say that Metrolink and DART Expansion are more important then any new Luas lines. Though reasonable extensions to existing lines should of course be done.

Last Stop

bk wrote: »

It is really very simple. The 2bn being spent on BusConnects will give you a very high quality service on the core 16 corridors and improvements to bus services throughout the entire city.

2bn would only get you 2, maybe 3 Luas routes at best.

BusConnects offers far more benefit across the entire city and more bang for buck.

I'd also say that Metrolink and DART Expansion are more important then any new Luas lines. Though reasonable extensions to existing lines should of course be done.

And those 2 or 3 Luas lines (I’d argue 4) do the same work as 8 of the 16 corridors. Another 1 is not required as part of the spine network. Another one directly overlaps with metro. Yes you may still need to invest in the other corridors but the whole point is that you do the job once and you do it right. Building 16 bus corridors now which will in time need to be replaced (not upgraded before someone suggests it’s like the green line) by Luas or metro or whatever is wasteful.

Absolutely DART and Metro are more important. No one here is arguing against that.

SortCrude

Last Stop wrote: »

So again what you’re saying is it’s cheap. I also accept that this is the reality but an under no illusions that Busconnects has significant drawbacks

If a project being 'cheap' is a bad thing, why aren't you arguing for multiple underground metro links rather than this tacky, cheap Luas alternative?

Last Stop

SortCrude wrote: »

If a project being 'cheap' is a bad thing, why aren't you arguing for multiple underground metro links rather than this tacky, cheap Luas alternative?

I’ve already explained this but in case you didn’t understand; the corridors suggested do no have the demand to justify it!

MJohnston

bk wrote: »

2bn would only get you 2, maybe 3 Luas routes at best.

I think you're even being overly optimistic here. The Green Line largely occupied a route that was empty space from a former railway line. The Red line largely took up canal embankments, empty fields, or central reservations of large and straight roads.

The only remaining fully new route that a Luas line could occupy that would match these conditions is probably a hypothetical route up the N4.

Realistically, the next new Luas/Metro line that needs to happen is out through Terenure and the south-west quadrant. The only way we get that line is via tunnelling, or large scale CPOing of private lands. That line is going to be a lot more expensive than either of the previous lines (setting aside usual inflationary considerations).

I think 2bn gets us part of this Terenure line. Before that, the only thing that would make sense would be a Finglas extension, which is risky because I don't think the GL has the capacity for it.

SortCrude

Last Stop wrote: »

I’ve already explained this but in case you didn’t understand; the corridors suggested do no have the demand to justify it!

(**Disclaimer, I'm not actually proposing multiple underground metros, I'm playing devil's advocate.)

50% of Irish Luas lines (i.e. the green line) demonstrate that they become a victim of their own success, leading to increased population along their route. Withing 20 years of construction they'll be at capacity, creating a situation where we'll regret having gone for the cheap option rather than investing in superior metro lines.

Last Stop

MJohnston wrote: »

I think you're even being overly optimistic here. The Green Line largely occupied a route that was empty space from a former railway line. The Red line largely took up canal embankments, empty fields, or central reservations of large and straight roads.

The only remaining fully new route that a Luas line could occupy that would match these conditions is probably a hypothetical route up the N4.

Realistically, the next new Luas/Metro line that needs to happen is out through Terenure and the south-west quadrant. The only way we get that line is via tunnelling, or large scale CPOing of private lands. That line is going to be a lot more expensive than either of the previous lines (setting aside usual inflationary considerations).

I think 2bn gets us part of this Terenure line. Before that, the only thing that would make sense would be a Finglas extension, which is risky because I don't think the GL has the capacity for it.

You do know roads are publicly owned?

A line to Clongriffin would replace the central median
A line to UCD would replace the central median
A line to Rathfarnham would replace the bus lane. The study found a total of 150 properties would be effected (30 between Christchurch and the dodder)
The Lucan line follows the exact same route as Busconnects between Ballyfermot and Liffey valley. After this it passes mainly through parkland.

Based on the cost of Metrolink, a line from Charlemont - Terenure- Rathfarnham - Knocklyon would cost 1bn

Last Stop

SortCrude wrote: »

(**Disclaimer, I'm not actually proposing multiple underground metros, I'm playing devil's advocate.)

50% of Irish Luas lines (i.e. the green line) demonstrate that they become a victim of their own success, leading to increased population along their route. Withing 20 years of construction they'll be at capacity, creating a situation where we'll regret having gone for the cheap option rather than investing in superior metro lines.

You do realise you’ve just completely undermined your whole argument? You’ve tried to spin it so much that you’ve inadvertently pointed to what I’ve been saying all along.

But even at that, let me explain why Luas works on these corridors as opposed to metro.
UCD - DART to east, eventually metro to west. Metro converges towards DART at bray
Rathfarnham - metro to east, low density, limited space for expansion
Lucan - DART to north and south
Clongriffin - DART to east.

SortCrude

Last Stop wrote: »

You do realise you’ve just completely undermined your whole argument? You’ve tried to spin it so much that you’ve inadvertently pointed to what I’ve been saying all along.

But even at that, let me explain why Luas works on these corridors as opposed to metro.
UCD - DART to east, eventually metro to west. Metro converges towards DART at bray
Rathfarnham - metro to east, low density, limited space for expansion
Lucan - DART to north and south
Clongriffin - DART to east.

Yes, that was the point. The logic you're using to dismiss Bus Connects in favor of your alternative can also be used to dismiss your alternative.

donvito99

He's now going to say something along the lines of "you've completely undermined your entire point" or "you've completely ignored my point".

What was a thread about the very real Bus Connects plan has been hijacked and turned into a very-hypothetical-Luas-down-every-central-median-to-replace-buses-thread.

dublinman1990

Does anyone know what time is the revised network redesign being published tomorrow?

Marcusm wrote: »

Double deckers are used fairly heavily in Hong King.

Really. That's a good one.

Sure; if a driver was beeping the horn from the steering wheel from inside his bus; he probably give it a good hong-king on his way to the terminus.

I'll get my coat.......:pac:

Last Stop

SortCrude wrote: »

Yes, that was the point. The logic you're using to dismiss Bus Connects in favor of your alternative can also be used to dismiss your alternative.

No the logic I’m using to dismiss Busconnects is that to cater for the CURRENT demand on the corridor you can either provide 1 Luas Line or 2-3 QBCs. The Luas Line can run at a lower frequency to start and be increased over time. Busconnects will be running at close to full capacity on day 1.

SortCrude

Last Stop wrote: »

No the logic I’m using to dismiss Busconnects is that to cater for the CURRENT demand on the corridor you can either provide 1 Luas Line or 2-3 QBCs. The Luas Line can run at a lower frequency to start and be increased over time. Busconnects will be running at close to full capacity on day 1.

A single underground metro line could also run at lower frequency to start. It would also have the advantage of not requiring the insane levels of CPOs your proposed routes would have. And it would be a better investment in the long run.
Why is your preference a Luas rather than an underground Metro? Isn't that preference a little cheap and shortsighted?