Dublin - BusConnects

tom1ie

donvito99 wrote: »

Templeogue, as an example, won't get additional road space for bus lanes now but "bus priority signals" instead, if the latest reports are accurate.

IMO the jury is still out on whether this will actually work for long stretches of road to be covered and it seems to me to be the very least they can do to advantage buses over private vehicles.

Pardon my ignorance but what are bus priority signals? Are they just traffic lights controlling a bus gate or something? How does it allow busses to overtake cars stuck in a que?
Thanks.

donvito99

tom1ie wrote: »

Pardon my ignorance but what are bus priority signals? Are they just traffic lights controlling a bus gate or something? How does it allow busses to overtake cars stuck in a que?
Thanks.

The idea is where the road ahead narrows to one lane, the private traffic is held back at a signal and the bus proceeds into the road ahead which has had traffic cleared by the signal ahead.

It's illustrated in the BusConnects community forum slides.

AndrewJRenko

Sam Russell wrote: »

Without enforcement, they might as well forget Busconnects entirely.

Without any major investment. improvements can be achieved.

For example, the South Circular from Leonards Corner to the Bleeding Horse could improve hugely by making the existing bus lanes 7AM to 7PM, with clearway over the same time. The double yellows are studiously ignored by the 'just a minute' shoppers, and the double parking white vans doing their deliveries.

Enforcement is a small effort that would pay for itself.

And the whole Camden/Wexford/Aungier/George's St debacle - that could be dramatically reduced with a little bit of enforcement.

tom1ie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And the whole Camden/Wexford/Aungier/George's St debacle - that could be dramatically reduced with a little bit of enforcement.

I agree, There’s no point in building these Qbcs unless we get anpr cameras to enforce these qbcs.
The outgoing minister for transport put paid to that though.

Sam Russell

tom1ie wrote: »

I agree, There’s no point in building these Qbcs unless we get anpr cameras to enforce these qbcs.
The outgoing minister for transport put paid to that though.

Well ,8th Feb should put paid to him.

CatInABox

Buses bought.

Alexander Dennis got the contract, 100 Enviro400Er Battery/Diesel buses in the first tranche, up to the full 600. Glad that they went with an established bus already, no point trialing out new tech on our streets, we can't afford for anything to go wrong.

See here.

MJohnston

The statement about 2.5-5km range is a strange, almost counterproductive way to frame these buses to the public. Presumably the diesel engine and regenerative braking, etc. recharge the batteries as they move? So it'd be better to compare fuel economy and emissions to previous diesel-only buses.

Seth Brundle

€450,000 :eek:
I hadn't realised the cost of a bus - bloody hell!

Seth Brundle

Whatever the cost, they'll end up getting stuck in town behind a queue of traffic sitting in the bus lane :rolleyes:

MJohnston

Least they might not be spewing out toxic fumes while they're doing so though.

Seth Brundle

MJohnston wrote: »

Least they might not be spewing out toxic fumes while they're doing so though.

They're hybrid (not fully electric) and have diesel engines and electric batteries (unless they'll have stop/start engines).

L1011

Seth Brundle wrote: »

€450,000 :eek:
I hadn't realised the cost of a bus - bloody hell!

Cost has rocketed since Euro 6 came in and the hybrid packs will be adding even more. Older units were about 300k

MJohnston

Seth Brundle wrote: »

They're hybrid (not fully electric) and have diesel engines and electric batteries (unless they'll have stop/start engines).

Yes and hybrid *cars* tend to use the electric engine when driving off from a standing start, or when idling.

The way this Enviro400ER is described, I'm not sure if it can work like that, but it seems to be designed to run on electric only in traffic hotspots, then run on diesel when there's less traffic (while presumably recharging).

So we *should* hopefully see emissions and pollution decrease from buses stuck in traffic.

Dats me

MJohnston wrote: »

Yes and hybrid *cars* tend to use the electric engine when driving off from a standing start, or when idling.

The way this Enviro400ER is described, I'm not sure if it can work like that, but it seems to be designed to run on electric only in traffic hotspots, then run on diesel when there's less traffic (while presumably recharging).

So we *should* hopefully see emissions and pollution decrease from buses stuck in traffic.

Just from googling the model number they say it can do "geofenced zero emmissions" and that they use it on a line in Brighton to have zero pollution through the centre - would 5km get you from canal to canal? It'll certainly do Stephen's Green to Parnell Square.



They also mention it stopping the diesel engine when the bus isn't moving.


The article says 66 people capacity - does anyone know anything about buses here, I though they could carry up to 100?

LXFlyer

Dats me wrote: »

Just from googling the model number they say it can do "geofenced zero emmissions" and that they use it on a line in Brighton to have zero pollution through the centre - would 5km get you from canal to canal? It'll certainly do Stephen's Green to Parnell Square.



They also mention it stopping the diesel engine when the bus isn't moving.


The article says 66 people capacity - does anyone know anything about buses here, I though they could carry up to 100?

I would imagine that’s the number of seats - that’s similar to the SG class.

cgcsb

Bus connects website is still claiming that the second phase of the cbc consultation will go ahead in early 2020, and then 12 months later a submission will be somehow made to abp, also in 2020. Seemingly forgetting that there are 12 months in a year and Bus connects is 2 years behind programme at least.

I expect the work is done and the consultation is being suppressed ahead of the election, probably for the best, you don't want the candidates playing football with it. A SF led government might actually push the button on it. The 'concerned residents' of templeogue and nutley lane were never SF voters anyway and the issues in most other areas seem to have been resolved at community level.

I still don't see a conceivable way that metrolink can go ahead politically speaking but on the bright side I don't foresee the rural broadband black hole getting opened up either.

spaceHopper

cgcsb wrote: »

A SF led government might actually push the button on it. The 'concerned residents' of templeogue and nutley lane were never SF voters anyway and the issues in most other areas seem to have been resolved at community level.

They want to rip the arse out of Shankill village and there's be a few votes there for SF

LXFlyer

cgcsb wrote: »

Bus connects website is still claiming that the second phase of the cbc consultation will go ahead in early 2020, and then 12 months later a submission will be somehow made to abp, also in 2020. Seemingly forgetting that there are 12 months in a year and Bus connects is 2 years behind programme at least.

I expect the work is done and the consultation is being suppressed ahead of the election, probably for the best, you don't want the candidates playing football with it. A SF led government might actually push the button on it. The 'concerned residents' of templeogue and nutley lane were never SF voters anyway and the issues in most other areas seem to have been resolved at community level.

I still don't see a conceivable way that metrolink can go ahead politically speaking but on the bright side I don't foresee the rural broadband black hole getting opened up either.

I don’t see any reason why Metrolink from Swords to Charlemont can’t happen.

There is very little political opposition to that in terms of the route etc.

What happens south of Charlemont is a different story and will most certainly change in some form from the original plan.

I’d expect the revised BusConnects infrastructure plans to go to consultation sometime later in February and then a final plan by year end/early 2021. That much is possible given that it will have significantly less CPO activity, and will see a much greater focus on diversions of general traffic and the use of bus gates and traffic queue relocators in the south central Dublin area than the original plan.

Peregrine

cgcsb wrote: »

Bus connects website is still claiming that the second phase of the cbc consultation will go ahead in early 2020, and then 12 months later a submission will be somehow made to abp, also in 2020. Seemingly forgetting that there are 12 months in a year and Bus connects is 2 years behind programme at least.

I expect the work is done and the consultation is being suppressed ahead of the election, probably for the best, you don't want the candidates playing football with it. A SF led government might actually push the button on it. The 'concerned residents' of templeogue and nutley lane were never SF voters anyway and the issues in most other areas seem to have been resolved at community level.

I still don't see a conceivable way that metrolink can go ahead politically speaking but on the bright side I don't foresee the rural broadband black hole getting opened up either.

Yes, the BusConnects consultation and the MetroLink mini consultation were both pushed back because of the election.

Pete_Cavan

cgcsb wrote: »

A SF led government might actually push the button on it.

There isn't going to be a SF led government, they don't have enough candidates for a start and not all of their candidates will get elected. I doubt SF will be too interested in BusConnects in a PFG, they will be more concerned about removing people from the USC net and bringing the pension age back to 65, both things which will they would happy raid the capital budget to pay for.

I still don't see a conceivable way that metrolink can go ahead politically speaking but on the bright side I don't foresee the rural broadband black hole getting opened up either.

The contract is signed for the NBP, that ship has sailed.

Dats me

spaceHopper wrote: »

They want to rip the arse out of Shankill village and there's be a few votes there for SF

Not anymore, you can see updates under "community forum" on the core bus corridors part of.the website

cgcsb

spaceHopper wrote: »

They want to rip the arse out of Shankill village and there's be a few votes there for SF

My understanding is that this has been resolved to the satisfaction of the community.

cgcsb

LXFlyer wrote: »

I don’t see any reason why Metrolink from Swords to Charlemont can’t happen.

There is very little political opposition to that in terms of the route etc.

What happens south of Charlemont is a different story and will most certainly change in some form from the original plan.

I’d expect the revised BusConnects infrastructure plans to go to consultation sometime later in February and then a final plan by year end/early 2021. That much is possible given that it will have significantly less CPO activity, and will see a much greater focus on diversions of general traffic and the use of bus gates and traffic queue relocators in the south central Dublin area than the original plan.

There's only one reason why it won't happen and that's how much it costs as a single item of expenditure plus massive potential for time and cost over runs. A SF government would be more prone to increasing current spend for ideological reasons, for example making public transport free to passengers. Expect huge money thrown at health and increasing the wages of public employees. A right wing led government would spend the money on motorways and weird stuff like 'rural broadband'.

LXFlyer

cgcsb wrote: »

There's only one reason why it won't happen and that's how much it costs as a single item of expenditure plus massive potential for time and cost over runs. A SF government would be more prone to increasing current spend for ideological reasons, for example making public transport free to passengers. Expect huge money thrown at health and increasing the wages of public employees. A right wing led government would spend the money on motorways and weird stuff like 'rural broadband'.

There isn’t going to be an SF government (they only have 42 candidates) so I think we can move on from that argument from the outset.

cgcsb

LXFlyer wrote: »

There isn’t going to be an SF government (they only have 42 candidates) so I think we can move on from that argument from the outset.

Well.no government is going to be a majority government. Every possible outcome is a coalition government

Zebra3

It’s highly unlikely that SF will be lead party in government.

Sam Russell

Mod: Can we leave politics to the politics forum.

I know politics affects infrastructure, but try to keep it, where appropriate, to the politics forum.

bk

Seth Brundle wrote: »

They're hybrid (not fully electric) and have diesel engines and electric batteries (unless they'll have stop/start engines).

They are actually a Plugin Hybrid Model (PHEV). This is much better then your typical Hybrid. With a typical hybrid the engine is always running. These on the other hand have a relatively large 39kWh battery that can be plugged in and charged at the depot.

This means the bus can run for up to a few km with the Diesel engine fully shut off.

Firstly the engine shut's off at slower speeds as you approach and leave bus stops. But it also has a geofencing option, where it completely shut's off in certain areas, for instance the core city center. Very handy for reducing pollution in the most conjested area and should also help with planning objections from residents to BusConnects, etc.

MJohnston

bk - any idea whether the battery can be recharged via the diesel once it kicks over to that engine?

bk

MJohnston wrote: »

bk - any idea whether the battery can be recharged via the diesel once it kicks over to that engine?

Yes, the Diesel engine can then recharge it, for instance once it leaves the geofenced zone. It seems like a nice system.