BusConnects effects on North Kildare

L1011

Seeing this done on another East regional forum - there's massive change proposed for the Dublin Bus routes that serve Kildare.

https://www.labour.ie/emmetstagg/news/15306185393010417.html

All of this will be coupled by major changes in priority for buses at junctions and better stops (shelters, signage, etc). If you don't think it'll happen - the buses are already ordered, the money is reserved in the budgets for the infrastructure - two BILLION over a fairly short time period to buy the gardens needed for widening and so on.

Basically, the 66 will be the C3 and will go up to 4x as frequent. It'll be much the same in Kildare but will skip Chapelizod so will be quicker in. There may be a few junction changes and stop moves to make it go faster.

The 67 will be the C4 and run to Celbridge only, never Maynooth. It'll go via Leixlip and skip Chapelizod so it'll be quicker in but as much quicker as the C3 becomes

There will be a new Maynooth-Tallaght bus the W8 and a new Hazelhatch Station-Confey Station bus the 259, both basically every 30 minutes all the time.

The 66A is gone but you can get a 259 down the Hill, there should be a C3 or C4 within minutes and the same ticket will do. The 66B will be replaced by the C4 route through Leixlip

Celbridge looks to have less buses on weekday and particularly weekend evenings, hopefully that'll be fixed before it happens. Everywhere gets way more buses on peak (Leixlip as little as every 5 minutes during peak) and during weekday daytime.

People living further in to Confey may want to make submissions about the 259 going to the station instead of the estate; anyone in Celbridge thinking going through Leixlip is slower needs to remember it'll be more than cancelled out by skipping Chapelizod.

Lepidoptera

This is looking pretty good

fitz

Ridiculous that the 67 replacement will have to go through Leixlip. Any gains that bypassing Chapelizod bring will be completely undone by that, and likely increase journey times. No word on getting rid of going through Lucan either. Reminds me of the old Nitelink route that went through Lucan, Leixlip, Maynooth, then Celbridge. That bypassed Chapelizod, and still took an hour when there was no traffic.

It currently takes a 67 about 15-20 minutes to get to the N4. Add another 15-20 minutes to get through Leixlip, another 15-20 to get through Lucan, and you'll be looking at an hour to get as far as Liffey Valley on a standard 67. This sounds like it'll be a disaster.

If they want to encourage the use of public transport, make the busses as direct as possible. Use the current X routes, and put a ring service of small busses in place to connect Leixlip/Lucan/Celbridge/Maynooth.

L1011

There'll be bus priority measures in Leixlip so it won't take that long; end to end will be faster than the 67 is now (not by much, but still faster). Remember the existing route is 60km/h and riddled with stops and slow drivers.

Making buses as direct as possible is the point of this plan, but only further in to the city. If you provide direct routes to every end destination they all get one every hour or two and the service is useless. There'll be 3x the buses in peak times with this for no increase (a slight reduction) in journey time.

X routes and feeder services is effectively what is being done, we're just too far out from the centre for that to be practical. That's where the bus priority measures come in - fix traffic holdups in Leixlip and Lucan villages and ensure Maynooth passengers don't need to go through Celbridge village. There is plenty of cash for that.

judeboy101

fitz wrote: »

Ridiculous that the 67 replacement will have to go through Leixlip. Any gains that bypassing Chapelizod bring will be completely undone by that, and likely increase journey times. No word on getting rid of going through Lucan either. Reminds me of the old Nitelink route that went through Lucan, Leixlip, Maynooth, then Celbridge. That bypassed Chapelizod, and still took an hour when there was no traffic.

It currently takes a 67 about 15-20 minutes to get to the N4. Add another 15-20 minutes to get through Leixlip, another 15-20 to get through Lucan, and you'll be looking at an hour to get as far as Liffey Valley on a standard 67. This sounds like it'll be a disaster.

If they want to encourage the use of public transport, make the busses as direct as possible. Use the current X routes, and put a ring service of small busses in place to connect Leixlip/Lucan/Celbridge/Maynooth.

Leixlip has 2 train stations and 2 radial routes servicing it. Celbridge, with a way larger population, has one radial route (which goes through leixlip) no train stations (hazelhatch is NOT in celbridge) .

L1011

judeboy101 wrote: »

Leixlip has 2 train stations and 2 radial routes servicing it. Celbridge, with a way larger population, has one radial route (which goes through leixlip) no train stations (hazelhatch is NOT in celbridge) .

Celbridge and Leixlip need to be linked by public transport, the current 66b route has to be included. The entire purpose of this to reduce the number of routes to allow an increase in frequency

Celbridge will have buses to the city slightly faster than currently at up to 4x the frequency; as well as frequent buses to Hazelhatch if someone wants to use that - door to door will likely be faster than the bus when the extra services come onstream in December.

Realistically, potential successful lobbying to get the Celbridge radial put back on the old route would just result in Celbridge having less buses. Saving five minutes en route versus saving 10 minutes waiting at the stop is a fairly obvious choice. Frequency always comes over minor speed improvements.

fitz

L1011 wrote: »

Celbridge and Leixlip need to be linked by public transport, the current 66b route has to be included. The entire purpose of this to reduce the number of routes to allow an increase in frequency

Celbridge will have buses to the city slightly faster than currently at up to 4x the frequency; as well as frequent buses to Hazelhatch if someone wants to use that - door to door will likely be faster than the bus when the extra services come onstream in December.

Realistically, potential successful lobbying to get the Celbridge radial put back on the old route would just result in Celbridge having less buses. Saving five minutes en route versus saving 10 minutes waiting at the stop is a fairly obvious choice. Frequency always comes over minor speed improvements.

I really have no idea how you think going through Leixlip is going to take less time than going through Chapelizod.

Celbridge has upwards of 5000 more people than Leixlip or Maynooth. Why does Leixlip require that frequency of service? Why do two routes need to go through Leixlip, particularly at peak times when they're more likely to only be picking up a handful of people before being full. Increasing frequency is bugger-all use if it's not improving journey times. Busses from Celbridge through Leixlip will increase journey times. Not a chance in hell they won't.

The terminal is at Salesians. Where is that bus going to go from there to service Leixlip? Think about the route. Either it loops around via Celbridge Main Street and back up towards Salesians, over to Leixlip via the interchange and through Leixlip Village, or it keeps the current route as far as Young's cross, goes left and into Leixlip that way, cutting out the stops between Young's cross and the N4, or it carries on at Young's cross, goes left at the N4 down into Leixlip and then doubles back?
I can't see how any of these routes make sense and won't add more time than is gained by bypassing Chapelizod.

And the point about frequency trumping journey times is doesn't stand up when talking about peak times. If public transport doesn't get you from A to B as quickly and directly as possible, why use it? Every if it only added 10 minutes each way, that's 1 hour 40 minutes a week of time you could be spending at home.

Bypassing Lucan and Chapelizod on all Celbridge, Maynooth or Leixlip based services wouldn't result in minor speed improvements, that would make a material difference to journey times. Connecting local towns using a circle line that runs non stop between them makes way more sense to me.

r93kaey5p2izun

I think it's disappointing that Kilcock remains outside the DB network given it is growing so fast. I would have liked to see one of the local connector routes include Kilcock.

I don't understand the decision to put both of the main routes through Leixlip when it already has much better options compared to Celbridge. I say that as someone who actually travels to Leixlip more often.

L1011

The route is via HP to merge in the 66B.

When all the infrastructural improvements are done - before the route gets changed - the end to end time will be quicker. They aren't just altering the route, there will be significant bus priority measures at all various pinch points. The rough infrastructure plans were released a few weeks ago. They will also be re-planning the number and location of stops to reduce the close spacing there is currently. Expected reductions from Liffey Valley in will be in the order of 25 minutes at peak times.

Celbridge to the city centre will a absolutely be quicker after

Leixlip is going to lose the 66a and b services to the centre so would have ended up getting no improvement in frequency without this change, and it also provides transport betweeb the two towns which has never existed despite being obviously needed

lordgoat

River Weak Abdominal wrote: »

I think it's disappointing that Kilcock remains outside the DB network given it is growing so fast. I would have liked to see one of the local connector routes include Kilcock.

I don't understand the decision to put both of the main routes through Leixlip when it already has much better options compared to Celbridge. I say that as someone who actually travels to Leixlip more often.

For me:

The overall idea is a good one. But it will come down to how it is executed.
Lucan should be skipped (from Maynooth/Leixlip/Celbridge) as much as possible, it's a lobster pot for traffic.

If the N4 had a dedicated bus corridor from Maynooth all the way in, that would be the way to go for peak times. As it stands the middle of all three towns are a nightmare for buses getting through quickly. And there is very little if anything that can be done to improve them.

scheister

From my reading so far its a bit strange one for celbridge.

The route i understand is starting at salesians up to youngs cross and into leixlip at this point. From there to via Lucan liffey valley palmerstown then Heuston station via bypass.

Frequency of the bus goes from every 30 mins to 20 mins off peak and every 10 minutes during peak time. So during peak time we go from 4 to 12 buses.

But the 67x replacment will only run 3 times each direction compared to 9 in morning and 8 in evening at present. So in morning we are losing a bus. Also Clane Road now cut out from what i see.

If we want to get to maynooth i dont think we have a direct route think we swap from C4 to C3 in Leixlip

L1011

The W8 will run from Maynooth to Tallaght via Celbridge so you still have a route to Maynooth.

Clane Road will have the 259 which will allow you to get to a C3, C4, Hazelhatch or Confey stations for onward connections; at all times of day not just mornings/evenings.

There's going to be a significant increase in services from Hazelhatch to Grand Canal Dock (so Drumcondra, Connolly, Tara and Pearse all served) from December and the expectation is that because that is vastly faster than the bus for the distance covered it will continue to grow in popularity; particularly with a proper scheduled and advertised bus to it. The current feeder is invisible really.

The Mulk

L1011 wrote: »

The W8 will run from Maynooth to Tallaght via Celbridge so you still have a route to Maynooth.

Clane Road will have the 259 which will allow you to get to a C3, C4, Hazelhatch or Confey stations for onward connections; at all times of day not just mornings/evenings.

There's going to be a significant increase in services from Hazelhatch to Grand Canal Dock (so Drumcondra, Connolly, Tara and Pearse all served) from December and the expectation is that because that is vastly faster than the bus for the distance covered it will continue to grow in popularity; particularly with a proper scheduled and advertised bus to it. The current feeder is invisible really.

I think the proposed 259 will be a great service for people on the Clane side of Celbridge, the W8 is a weird proposal, but will be handy for the people of Newcastle getting to Hazelhatch or the Luas.
Also handy for people getting to Maynooth Uni. from Tallaght/Rathcoole/Newcastle
The idea seems to be to get everyone on to trains, with eventual electrification of both lines

CeilingFly

Probably the first time a properly future proofed public transport plan created by people with brains and common sense has ever been published and the fact that they got the funding first, then published the new bus lane measure and only after all that was done, did they publish the actual meat in the sandwich.

Any chance the same team could now start working on the health service?

Zebra3

Looks decent enough for Maynooth.

The new service connecting Maynooth with Tallaght will open up a huge number of PT possibilities. Anyone know the number for this route?

C3s skipping Lucan village would be a dream. Very few from Maynooth and Leixlip get off there. A stop at the N4 junction up from Lucan village would be of far greater benefit to most in time saved instead of serving Lucan village.

L1011

W8 for the Maynooth Tallaght route. Makes multiple workplaces that are effectively impossible without a car practical and also serves the hospital and ITT

At the very least the 252/3/4 express buses have to be changed to skip Lucan

Spanish Eyes

Am I right in thinking the C4 for Celbridge will no longer serve R403 (Where Weston aerodrome is)?

Probably makes sense as there is possibly little demand for a service along that road, it is mostly open fields! Hope the diversion through Leixlip is sorted with priority for buses and so on. Lucan should also be bypassed IMV with the 252 connecting with C3 and C4 on the N4, well it looks like a loop that could do this. Maybe a step too far just now though.

Even looking at my own area, although I will need to transfer, it is looking good. I hope it works out, and vested interests, local residents associations, politicos and Facebook warriors don't scupper it without giving it a chance! It is the best opportunity we have to improve bus transport now, the money is there which is a huge plus.

ghostdancer

Zebra3 wrote: »

Looks decent enough for Maynooth.

The new service connecting Maynooth with Tallaght will open up a huge number of PT possibilities. Anyone know the number for this route?

C3s skipping Lucan village would be a dream. Very few from Maynooth and Leixlip get off there. A stop at the N4 junction up from Lucan village would be of far greater benefit to most in time saved instead of serving Lucan village.

I don't know how workable it is, but I think that one (which is already used by the 66x/67x?) and maybe swinging into the shelter beside Woodies, should be the only 2 stops inbound, and then outbound, the one around Texaco on the N4, and another on the N4 between the footbridge and the Spa Hotel (basically across from the inbound one).

I can't see the need for going into Lucan Village at all tbh. those 2 stops are a max of 10mins walk from the village.

trying to serve everyone and making sure that no-one needs to walk more than 300m to the next bus stop is one of the reasons why the whole system is so slow.

LXFlyer

L1011 wrote: »

There'll be bus priority measures in Leixlip so it won't take that long; end to end will be faster than the 67 is now (not by much, but still faster). Remember the existing route is 60km/h and riddled with stops and slow drivers.

Making buses as direct as possible is the point of this plan, but only further in to the city. If you provide direct routes to every end destination they all get one every hour or two and the service is useless. There'll be 3x the buses in peak times with this for no increase (a slight reduction) in journey time.

X routes and feeder services is effectively what is being done, we're just too far out from the centre for that to be practical. That's where the bus priority measures come in - fix traffic holdups in Leixlip and Lucan villages and ensure Maynooth passengers don't need to go through Celbridge village. There is plenty of cash for that.

We have yet to see what any of the proposed infrastructure works may be, so I don't know how you can say with certainty that there will be measures in Leixlip, and secondly the NTA have stated that they can't guarantee that the works (whatever and wherever they may be) will be in place before the network changes are made. The recently published high level maps regarding bus corridors started at Lucan and never mentioned Leixlip at all.

I would be far more wary of making absolute statements about this.

Don't get me wrong - there's a lot of good stuff in it, but I'd caution about being so definite about the infrastructure.

LXFlyer

L1011 wrote: »

The W8 will run from Maynooth to Tallaght via Celbridge so you still have a route to Maynooth.

Clane Road will have the 259 which will allow you to get to a C3, C4, Hazelhatch or Confey stations for onward connections; at all times of day not just mornings/evenings.

There's going to be a significant increase in services from Hazelhatch to Grand Canal Dock (so Drumcondra, Connolly, Tara and Pearse all served) from December and the expectation is that because that is vastly faster than the bus for the distance covered it will continue to grow in popularity; particularly with a proper scheduled and advertised bus to it. The current feeder is invisible really.

Just to mention that any increase in rail services will be during the off-peak hours only - no changes in service levels are planned in the peaks. Welcome news it is, but again it's not going to affect the main commuting periods.

Zebra3

Given how narrow the Main Street in Leixlip is, it's hard to see what they could do there.

lordgoat

Zebra3 wrote: »

Given how narrow the Main Street in Leixlip is, it's hard to see what they could do there.

This is my concern as well and it's the same for Lucan, Maynooth and Celbridge.
Buses leaving every 5 mins, as it stands means some days they will be lining up due to the amount of traffic on the street ahead of them.

mloc123

lordgoat wrote: »

This is my concern as well and it's the same for Lucan, Maynooth and Celbridge.
Buses leaving every 5 mins, as it stands means some days they will be lining up due to the amount of traffic on the street ahead of them.

It is disappointing that while they have spent the last 2 months digging up the main st in Celbridge they have made no improvements to it... do we need parking on both sides? Could they have got bus lanes in or even cycle paths?

lordgoat

mloc123 wrote: »

It is disappointing that while they have spent the last 2 months digging up the main st in Celbridge they have made no improvements to it... do we need parking on both sides? Could they have got bus lanes in or even cycle paths?

Come to Maynooth... We have cycle paths wider than some bus lanes...

n97 mini

I think it all looks very good. There will be some minor changes required I'm sure, but overall it's very positive.

L1011 wrote: »

People living further in to Confey may want to make submissions about the 259 going to the station instead of the estate;

There's no room to turn a bus at Confey station. You'd even have trouble turning a mini-bus, so I can see the 66A terminus being retained.

mloc123

lordgoat wrote: »

Come to Maynooth... We have cycle paths wider than some bus lanes...

Cycle paths in maynooth are overkill (speaking as somebody that cycles).

L1011

n97 mini wrote: »

There's no room to turn a bus at Confey station. You'd even have trouble turning a mini-bus, so I can see the 66A terminus being retained.

The docs say it'll have to be a minibus but yes, that'll be problematic regardless.

Zebra3

mloc123 wrote: »

Cycle paths in maynooth are overkill (speaking as somebody that cycles).

Not really.

And the ones on the road beside Dunnes leading down to the Main Street are always full of vehicles.

L1011

Zebra3 wrote: »

Not really.

And the ones on the road beside Dunnes leading down to the Main Street are always full of vehicles.

Being upgraded within months, new bridge going in.

Zebra3

L1011 wrote: »

Being upgraded within months, new bridge going in.

They’ll need to ensure the cycle lanes are at a different level to the road though and start enforcing the law.

Even saw the guards parked in the cycle lane a few weeks ago.

L1011

Zebra3 wrote: »

They’ll need to ensure the cycle lanes are at a different level to the road though and start enforcing the law.

Even saw the guards parked in the cycle lane a few weeks ago.

The plans aren't out yet as far as I know; but I'd expect that for the road itself it'll be similar to the Straffan Road - bike path with the cycle path and an obvious lip to the road.

For the extra bridge I'd guess that the northbound footpath and cycle path will be on the new bridge and entirely seperated from the road, and the space used by them current will be shifted to the other side to widen the southbound equivalent

The original plans knocking around were to widen the existing bridge (like was done in Leixlip in 2006 or so, keep one side intact) and I haven't seen new ones yet.

mloc123

Zebra3 wrote: »

Not really.

And the ones on the road beside Dunnes leading down to the Main Street are always full of vehicles.

Sorry, referring to the ones on carton road. They have made them so wide, wider than needed I think. Leaves the remaining road very narrow.

I would understand the width if the cycle lane was just on one side of the road but they are both sides.

L1011

Carton Road?

mloc123

L1011 wrote: »

Carton Road?

Damn. Straffan road

mcgovern

The 259 route from Leixlip will see most people get on at the first stop at Confey Train Station (and as other have said, there is no room for a bus stop there, even a minibus) and then get off one or two stops later in the village. Bus will then continue on for the rest of the journey largely empty. So this will add quite a bit to journey times from Confey, and then we are also losing the terminus in Riverforest and the other stop in Riverforest, so people will also have to walk further to get to a bus stop.
And if you have made your way to the train station, you might as well just get the train as it is will be even quicker now getting into city centre and much fast getting you back, and you won't have to wait 30 minutes in the rain in the village for a bus up the hill.

L1011

Make submissions about the Confey Station stop being implausible and Riverforest being cut off if it affects you - its an obvious change to make to the 259 route.

The wait in the village would have been a wait in the city centre (probably a lot longer) for a 66A in the past - its just moved the location and reduced the max wait.

LXFlyer

L1011 wrote: »

Make submissions about the Confey Station stop being implausible and Riverforest being cut off if it affects you - its an obvious change to make to the 259 route.

The wait in the village would have been a wait in the city centre (probably a lot longer) for a 66A in the past - its just moved the location and reduced the max wait.

I do think the wait time concept is being exaggerated here.

For people in the kinds of outer locations such as River Forest and Confey (and indeed quite a few others), where frequency is lower, average wait time is an irrelevance, as people don't tend to wait for the bus at the bus stop for extended periods, as you seem to be suggesting, but in much the same way as many rail passengers do, they actually use the timetable and go for the bus when it is due to operate. Most people can organise themselves in this way.

Given the 66a is a clockface service this isn't that difficult.

This notion of average wait times is relevant only where high frequency services operate.

Personally I'd expect the proposed service to simply use the current 66a terminus.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

L1011

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Once frequency is high enough, people don't bother with timetables. Look at the Luas.

Back in the days when Maynooth had less than hourly 66 and 67A services (often within minutes of each other at that) and less than hourly trains you could hit a dead zone in the mid morning where if you missed the last mode out (train, I think) it was 80 minutes before anything left to Dublin. I would have killed for an option to connect to the more frequent 66s from Leixlip or 67s from Celbridge because I would still have got their vastly earlier.

Sitting on your arse at home or in work waiting for actual hours for the direct bus rather than taking the non-direct alternative and actually getting where you want to go is a rather odd decision.

LXFlyer wrote: »

Personally I'd expect the proposed service to simply use the current 66a terminus.

Maps very specifically have it not, only the few peak directs will. That needs to be pushed as a change by residents.

LXFlyer

L1011 wrote: »

Once frequency is high enough, people don't bother with timetables. Look at the Luas.

Back in the days when Maynooth had less than hourly 66 and 67A services (often within minutes of each other at that) and less than hourly trains you could hit a dead zone in the mid morning where if you missed the last mode out (train, I think) it was 80 minutes before anything left to Dublin. I would have killed for an option to connect to the more frequent 66s from Leixlip or 67s from Celbridge because I would still have got their vastly earlier.

Sitting on your arse at home or in work waiting for actual hours for the direct bus rather than taking the non-direct alternative and actually getting where you want to go is a rather odd decision.

Not everywhere requires a LUAS level of service.

The bus (and rail) services have changed significantly across the city since the service levels you outlined.

Most bus corridors already actually have a clockface timetable - on the N4, the 66/66a/66b already offer a 15 minute integrated service to Leixlip and the 26 and 67 are timetabled in between those.

Where this notion of average waits falls apart is in the outer areas where you're switching from a high frequency route to a low one (30 mins +). It may be fine going into town, but how do you ensure you make the connection in the other direction?

So people take the high frequency route from town to connect into this 30 minute service home. If they miss the connection for whatever reason they're stuck with waiting at the interchange stop for possibly 25 minutes or longer - a wait that they don't have right now as they're doing other things. They *could* have a long wait at a location that they don't have right now.

Those people already know when a direct bus operates, and are in general capable of organising their lives in such a way so they aren't waiting at bus stops for up to an hour for those direct services. That's the flaw in this argument. They aren't waiting around doing nothing.

Don't get me wrong - there's some good things in the plan, and the interchange concept can work where frequencies on both routes are high, but you start experiencing problems when they are as low as 30 minutes.

L1011

The benefits of increased frequency make the edge-cases not even worth considering in my opinion. Also, seeing what people in work do when waiting for irregular services, the sole advantage their 'doing other things' has is being in an office

The benefits far outweigh the negatives and the negatives are being whipped up by people who, in most cases (clearly not you) don't have the vaguest idea what they're talking about and are crying for retention of the existing incoherent malfunctioning mess rather than any fixes to the proposed replacement.

LXFlyer

L1011 wrote: »

The benefits of increased frequency make the edge-cases not even worth considering in my opinion. Also, seeing what people in work do when waiting for irregular services, the sole advantage their 'doing other things' has is being in an office

The benefits far outweigh the negatives and the negatives are being whipped up by people who, in most cases (clearly not you) don't have the vaguest idea what they're talking about and are crying for retention of the existing incoherent malfunctioning mess rather than any fixes to the proposed replacement.

I lived for many years on a lower frequency route and I managed to cope. I simply don’t accept the rather patrionising notion that I sat around working longer - I managed to occupy myself in other ways as indeed most people did. I never waited at bus stops unnecessarily unless there was a delay to the service.

I’m not in any way saying that the network doesn’t need a refresh - of course it does, but for many of the outlying areas withdrawing direct bus routes could have serious negative consequences as the proposed connecting routes have proposed frequencies of 30 and 60 minutes. Miss one of those buses and you are stuck somewhere that you dont really want to be for an extended time.

I don’t think you can simply wipe those considerations aside.

People need to look at what is proposed in detail and assess whether it is an improvement for their area. Some of it (and the extended orbitals for example) are, but there are negative consequences of this and I think people should be entitled to voice them without being dismissed as cranks either.

It’s important that people examine the proposals in detail - especially the frequencies of the proposed routes.

L1011

You got used to making up time due to a poor frequency, people will get used to making up less time due to occasional waits on a vastly higher frequency. It's not a real problem.

I am only dismissing as cranks the suggestions coming from those who have clearly not read and understood the proposals and are making useless suggestions. There are many.

LXFlyer

L1011 wrote: »

You got used to making up time due to a poor frequency, people will get used to making up less time due to occasional waits on a vastly higher frequency. It's not a real problem.

I am only dismissing as cranks the suggestions coming from those who have clearly not read and understood the proposals and are making useless suggestions. There are many.

The point is that I used the time productively. I wasn't waiting for the bus - and it annoys me when people tell me otherwise. This abuse of the notion of average wait times is daft.

You and many others keep telling people who have lower frequency bus or rail services, and actually use the timetables, and are well capable of organising themselves around them, that their journey will be faster when it pointedly will not be.

At the same time, the frequency of some of the supposed high frequency connecting services is actually dropping at certain locations when compared with today. That needs to be factored in to how people assess the proposals affect them.

I'm not sure that definitively telling people that their service will be better is quite the best strategy to take. People are capable of making their own minds up with respect to their own areas and their regular and potentially new journeys.

Maybe just pause a bit and stop being so definitive.

There are good and bad elements to this plan, and I think people are entitled to their own opinion on it.

I certainly fear that implementing this plan without the infrastructure elements in place beforehand, something suggested by the NTA as perfectly possible, is a recipe for absolute chaos, as you will not have the ability to reliably deliver buses to interchange locations on schedule.

There's a lot of potential pitfalls to this paln, and I think it's rather folly to pooh-pooh them as inconsequential.

L1011

There is a disconnect between a transport enthusiast and a member of the general public when it comes to working around timetables. Go have a pint in Bison Bar and watch people stand outside for an hour for a 66A perhaps. Or many pints, depending on drinking speed.

Yes, implementing this without the infrastructure done before WILL be chaos. It has to be done per-spine and only when the bulk of the infrastructure including all the interchange works are done.

I can see the pitfalls, the problem is people are screeching about minor ones without providing even the vaguest suggestion on fixing them othe than "retain the existing service". Which is generally useless.

LXFlyer

L1011 wrote: »

There is a disconnect between a transport enthusiast and a member of the general public when it comes to working around timetables. Go have a pint in Bison Bar and watch people stand outside for an hour for a 66A perhaps. Or many pints, depending on drinking speed.

Yes, implementing this without the infrastructure done before WILL be chaos. It has to be done per-spine and only when the bulk of the infrastructure including all the interchange works are done.

I can see the pitfalls, the problem is people are screeching about minor ones without providing even the vaguest suggestion on fixing them othe than "retain the existing service". Which is generally useless.

Excuse me for one minute.

I am not a transport enthusiast. I am someone who has an interest in the business of public transport. There is one hell of a difference.

That's a fairly pathetic insult to be honest and I would appreciate it if you would retract it.

I know plenty of people who live in areas served by lower frequency routes and they do manage to get on with their lives without waiting around unnecessarily. They also are capable of using the RTPI information. I think you're extrapolating the habits of a minority of users on those type of routes.

I'm making the point that the argument about average waiting times doesn't apply to all circumstances.

As for how you think this will be implemented, I think you may be in for a bit of a shock. The approach you're outlining is not in line with NTA thinking who (based on my contact with them) see the network and infrastructure elements as completely separate.

L1011

I would consider myself a transport enthusiast and don't see it as an insult, however I'll retract it should you see it as one; but I'd like an explanation of why you see it as insulting first. Because its quite likely you'll insult other people in the process.

I honestly believe that those who are able to adjust their life around poor service without it negatively impacting on them are the minority; and that the poor service pretty much ensures that other people just drive. They may not be the minority of those using the useless services at present, of course - hence the entire damn purpose of this effort. When using public transport requires major forward planning, people drive.

Some people are going to be minorly inconvenienced for the vastly greater good. Oh well.

LXFlyer

L1011 wrote: »

I would consider myself a transport enthusiast and don't see it as an insult, however I'll retract it should you see it as one; but I'd like an explanation of why you see it as insulting first. Because its quite likely you'll insult other people in the process.

I honestly believe that those who are able to adjust their life around poor service without it negatively impacting on them are the minority; and that the poor service pretty much ensures that other people just drive.

Some people are going to be minorly inconvenienced for the vastly greater good. Oh well.

I'm insulted because you're applying labels to me frankly that are unnecessary and inappropriate.

I am interested in the business and in how it is operated and maximising its potential, and I've managed to effect real changes in services by direct proposals to the transport companies over the years, most of which arose from observations from my daily commutes around this city. That's a bit different to being an enthusiast.

I think with regard to the more outlying areas you're fundamentally wrong, about how people organise themselves, and how they will feel with regard to the risk of missed connections and long enforced waits.

The interchange function potentially will work far better within the city area where there is generally more choices available but I think will need to be reviewed for the outlying ones.

L1011

You're taking a pejorative meaning which I would never have used. I'd have used vastly more specific terms for those!

We are never going to agree on the connection thing, I suspect.

CeilingFly

Surely that unless you have a paid professional interest in the public transport arena, that would make you a public transport enthusiast.

That a couple of suggestions have been taken on board is nice, but it would not change the description unless you'd want "senior" transport enthusiast.


The lower term of those with a passing interest would be transport "anoraks"

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.