BusConnects effects on North Kildare

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.

L1011

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you haven't read the report, you are commenting on hearsay at best, nonsense most likely. Which has to be dismissed.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

L1011

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have only used it when someone has said something that makes it clear they haven't read and understood it.

Awful local media taking information from misinformed politicians has made this vastly worse. The Bray debacle in particular.

LXFlyer

L1011 wrote: »

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.

Well that's how it came across.

I am my expressing opinions as a daily user and customer, from a business perspective, and that is what shapes them.

You're right, I don't think that we will agree in the case of connections when it comes to connecting into 30 minute + frequency services - that's where the pitfalls to the plan are, along with the quite strong likelihood that infrastructure works won't be in place.

Doing this on a spine by spine basis is far less likely to happen given the extensive cross-city nature of the network. Orbitals could change in a phased manner, but the spines would have to happen in one big bang.

But I do also think dismissing people's concerns in the flippant way your posts have isn't helping your argument. People are entitled to their views - you might not agree with them, but you don't have to be as dismissive.

LXFlyer

CeilingFly wrote: »

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"

I'd see myself as someone who uses the service - that's not an enthusiast in my view.

And it has been a lot more than a "couple of" suggestions over the years that have been implemented.

Anyway that's a whole different topic.

r93kaey5p2izun

I'm not sure you realise how condescending your comments come actoss L1011 or if you intend them to be so dismissive and indeed rude. It's very off putting.

I'm an ordinary member of the public who wants to see our city's transport network transformed and I'm trying to get a good understanding of how the plan will work. I want to make a submission on the survey but want to make sure I have the full picture first. I thought boards would provide a good resource for reading the ideas and concerns of others and seeing them teased out and clarified but all the threads are full of self appointed experts shouting everyone down. Posts like yours are gradually reducing my initial enthusiasm for the plan. Instead of explaining the improvements and helping understanding how this will be better they just dismiss and deride concerns which makes me worry that only certain types of users matter in this plan while others can be dismissed as "edge cases" even if in their hundreds.

L1011

LXFlyer wrote: »

Doing this on a spine by spine basis is far less likely to happen given the extensive cross-city nature of the network. Orbitals could change in a phased manner, but the spines would have to happen in one big bang.

It isn't that impractical to operate stub versions of the cross-city routes when one side is gone to the new spine structure; any outlying existing semi-orbital routes would have to be maintained entirely until that spine and supporting routes come on stream obviously

LXFlyer wrote: »

But I do also think dismissing people's concerns in the flippant way your posts have isn't helping your argument. People are entitled to their views - you might not agree with them, but you don't have to be as dismissive.

I would only be dismissive after a number of posts where they have shown they have limited to no knowledge of what is happening and have not made any efforts to inform themselves.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

LXFlyer

River Weak Abdominal wrote: »

I'm not sure you realise how condescending your comments come actoss L1011 or if you intend them to be so dismissive and indeed rude. It's very off putting.

I'm an ordinary member of the public who wants to see our city's transport network transformed and I'm trying to get a good understanding of how the plan will work. I want to make a submission on the survey but want to make sure I have the full picture first. I thought boards would provide a good resource for reading the ideas and concerns of others and seeing them teased out and clarified but all the threads are full of self appointed experts shouting everyone down. Posts like yours are gradually reducing my initial enthusiasm for the plan. Instead of explaining the improvements and helping understanding how this will be better they just dismiss and deride concerns which makes me worry that only certain types of users matter in this plan while others can be dismissed as "edge cases" even if in their hundreds.

I would advise that you go through Chapter 7 (linked to below) in detail, look at the maps, read the narrative, and examine the proposed frequencies and local network changes for yourself and compare with what you have now - that's the best way to see if this will improve your bus service.

https://busconnects.ie/media/1239/chapter7recommendednetworkplan.pdf

Like any plan, some elements will work and others won't. But it's only through examining the proposals, allied with your knowledge of your bus service that you'll come to conclusions regarding the changes.

r93kaey5p2izun

Thank you LXFlyer. I have done that. I have spent a lot of time reading the report and examining the maps and plans. I happen to use the bus a lot (around 40-50 journeys a week) and on a lot of routes most days (25a, 40, 239, 151, 13, 66, 67, 76). I also rely 100% on the bus with no other options. It is a lot to get my head around and I'm disappointed at the tone of discussion on threads on here for ordinary people trying to understand.