Dublin Bus Network Review

qerty

lxflyer wrote: »

You've just had a group of changes implemented (Merrion Road and Ranelagh). I think it is better to do this in a phased manner, giving time to check each one as they go along and make any changes necessary.

Also, the Swords/Templeogue/Rathfarnham areas are still under consultation and the results may well impact on other areas.

For the other areas, I would imagine that, as I suggested before in this thread, the internal process of agreeing driver rosters for the new routes is ongoing - that can take time if there are multiple rejections of the rosters.

It may be complicated by the fact that I understand some of the new merged cross-city routes will be operated by two depots rather than one, so there are two sets of drivers to agree to rosters rather than one.

I totally agree and understand those issues, but areas that will not be impacted by the swords road consultation should AT LEAST have their webpage updated. The Finglas east map and clondalkin map is still wrong and the Finglas west and Ballyfermot areas have not been update since October.

Come on, even if it takes another year for the changes to be implemented, it would be nice to have the CORRECT Final plans on the website, bar the ones still under consultation.

qerty

lxflyer wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're coming from? Many of the details were updated in the last month on the website post-consultation.

Ballyfermot, Cabra, Finglas west, Howth road, Cabra and the malahide road have not been updated. The consultations are finished quite a while.
The malahide road was updated only to be changed in the swords road consultation.

LXFlyer

qerty wrote: »

I totally agree and understand those issues, but areas that will not be impacted by the swords road consultation should AT LEAST have their webpage updated. The Finglas east map is still wrong and the Finglas west and Ballyfermot areas have not been update since October.

Come on, even if it takes another year for the changes to be implemented, it would be nice to have the CORRECT Final plans on the website, bar the ones still under consultation.

The Ballyfermot and Finglas West pages have changed - both say the changes will be implemented during Summer 2011.

They just didn't change the date at the top.

Other than the 128 being changed to the 15 the Malahide Road section is I think correct?

I note that the Swords map has had a few errors corrected as of today, so perhaps they are working through the other ones as well.

Remember that there is probably a limited number of people working on the project - they have been preparing/attending the roadshows, working throught the feedback etc, - so it can take a little bit of time to get everything updated.

qerty

lxflyer wrote: »

The Ballyfermot and Finglas West pages have changed - both say the changes will be implemented during Summer 2011.

They just didn't change the date at the top.

I note that the Swords map has had a few errors corrected as of today, so perhaps they are working through the other ones as well.

Remember that there is probably a limited number of people working on the project - they have been preparing/attending the roadshows, working throught the feedback etc, - so it can take a little bit of time to get everything updated.

I disagree. The ballyfermot map has been updated to say summer 2011..but the details haven't been touched and the map is original map. While I agree that it can take time....Db have managed to be quick enough in changing misakes/releasing maps etc etc. in the past and IMO its unacceptable that a web page cannot be updated correctly to accurately reflect a massive that is network direct. Its not that hard.

LXFlyer

qerty wrote: »

I disagree. The ballyfermot map has been updated to say summer 2011..but the details haven't been touched and the map is original map. While I agree that it can take time....Db have managed to be quick enough in changing misakes/releasing maps etc etc. in the past and IMO its unacceptable that a web page cannot be updated correctly to accurately reflect a massive that is network direct. Its not that hard.

I stand corrected - it has not been updated for the recent changes to the 76/76a following the Tallaght consultations.

A2000

Have noticed that the consultation for Bulfin could have been handled better. The 19 is currently every 20 mins approx. The proposal was for it to be replaced with 123 every 10 mins or twice the service of the 19 which would be imo acceptable. Now its going to be the 68 with a frequency of every hour. So they went from 3 buses per hour to 6 and now to one. While the 68 keeps the original route it will be unreliable due to the distance from Newcastle to Bulfin. Also unless there is an RTPI installed at Bulfin it will be almost impossible to judge what time it will arrive there.

The 69 also poses an issue for Islandbridge. It will be served by 26 & 69 both city bound but in opposite directions. Will be a matter of dodging traffic to get to the stop depending on which bus comes first unless the plan is to send 26 via parkgate st when this happens?

KD345

A2000 judging from the press reports. Bulfin residents didn't want the 123 as it takes a different route to the city than the 19 which is why the 68 is being redirected.

qerty

A2000 wrote: »

The 69 also poses an issue for Islandbridge. It will be served by 26 & 69 both city bound but in opposite directions. Will be a matter of dodging traffic to get to the stop depending on which bus comes first unless the plan is to send 26 via parkgate st when this happens?

Hmmm that's an interesting one, I would personally prefer if the 26 was routed along the full length of Conyingham road down to Parkgate street and the 69 being routed to Heuston along to Hawkins street. (the current 79 route from kilmainham onwards)

Islandbridge is a bit like Stillorgan village, it is in the middle (literally) of two corridors that both possess a high level of service. Less than 5 minutes walk to either corridor and routing services through this stretch actually adds un-necessary journey time, especially during peak times. That junction is extremely busy.

thomasj

I do think think that they need to sort out the numbering system of their routes during this phase of network direct. a few suggestions i would make:

- 15s: 15 merging with 128/74 should be renamed 128 and thus should be renamed 28. the 15b as its running stocking lane to the far docklands should be renamed 74 and the 15a thus renamed 15.

An effort in my mind would be to remove suffixes from all city routes. all city routes should be numbered 1-99 with local routes numbered 101-199 suffixes should only be used for expresso, peak hour and nitelink services.

LXFlyer

I think renumbering other routes to an existing route number is rather fraught with danger as it leads to mass confusion - hence the dropping of the plan to rename the 19a to 19 and instead it is being renumbered to the unused 9 instead.

Devilman40k

lxflyer wrote: »

I think renumbering other routes to an existing route number is rather fraught with danger as it leads to mass confusion - hence the dropping of the plan to rename the 19a to 19 and instead it is being renumbered to the unused 9 instead.

I thought the renumbering of routes was to happen once all the route changes/mergers had been completed ?

thomasj

lxflyer wrote: »

I think renumbering other routes to an existing route number is rather fraught with danger as it leads to mass confusion - hence the dropping of the plan to rename the 19a to 19 and instead it is being renumbered to the unused 9 instead.

thats a good point but i can think of seven routes where this wouldnt be a problem 120 (dropping the first digit), 122, 123, 128, 130, 46a, 54a, im sure there are more! At least they have sorted the 20b, 29a, 48a, 78a

generally though new thinking is needed. you need to creat the new route number, brand it, advertise it, educate people sure its been.done before!

A2000

I think the problem with Bulfin could easily be rectified with some slight re routing.

From Galtymore rd 123 to operate proposed 122 route Keeper rd Herberton bridge and Rialto bridge and into st james hospital.

From Mourne rd route 122 turn left over Suir Bridge Bulfin estate and current 19 route to city. This maintains the frequency the disputed 19 route and also maintains the cross city aspect of the 19 as far as Phibsborough anyway for the people in Bulfin.

26 could then be withdrawn from Islandbridge and it would be served by both 68 & 69 giving half hourly service which is what it has now.

LXFlyer

thomasj wrote: »

lxflyer wrote: »

I think renumbering other routes to an existing route number is rather fraught with danger as it leads to mass confusion - hence the dropping of the plan to rename the 19a to 19 and instead it is being renumbered to the unused 9 instead.

thats a good point but i can think of seven routes where this wouldnt be a problem 120 (dropping the first digit), 122, 123, 128, 130, 46a, 54a, im sure there are more! At least they have sorted the 20b, 29a, 48a, 78a

generally though new thinking is needed. you need to creat the new route number, brand it, advertise it, educate people sure its been.done before!

You couldn't get rid of the 46a! It's immortal courtesy of Bagatelle!!

thomasj

Hmmmmm given the fuss over monkstown at the moment i could imagine them reacting to the renumering

stop

lxflyer wrote: »

You couldn't get rid of the 46a! It's immortal courtesy of Bagatelle!!

And for another generation - Zig & Zag

Cookie_Monster

lxflyer wrote: »

You couldn't get rid of the 46a! It's immortal courtesy of Bagatelle!!

I can't see why not, it should have been dropped once the original 46 got canned anyway.

The numbering system in Dublin has gone off the wall in recent years, needs to be rationalised right back down

patrickbrophy18

The route numbers are very confusing alright. I am aware that a route number followed by a letter usually denotes the fact that one route is a variation of the other. However, this is not always the case. For example, the 17 and 17a have absolutely nothing to do with one another. The 17 begins it's journey at Blackrock and finishes in Rialto while the 17a begins it's journey at Kilbarrack and terminates in Blanchardstown Center. It might be better to change the 17a to 107 given that the 17a is somewhat parallel to the 104 bus with the 102 bus further to the north ergo, following a logical route numbering pattern.

Sulmac

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I can't see why not, it should have been dropped once the original 46 got canned anyway.

The numbering system in Dublin has gone off the wall in recent years, needs to be rationalised right back down

+1

I'd also add Luas, DART and Commuter services to numbered routes as they do in some other cities (like Amsterdam).

Bus route numbers should be bunched together by corridor/QBC, as far as possible (and orbital routes given special numbers too).

CIE

thomasj wrote: »

I do think think that they need to sort out the numbering system of their routes during this phase of network direct. a few suggestions i would make:

- 15s: 15 merging with 128/74 should be renamed 128 and thus should be renamed 28. the 15b as its running stocking lane to the far docklands should be renamed 74 and the 15a thus renamed 15.

An effort in my mind would be to remove suffixes from all city routes. all city routes should be numbered 1-99 with local routes numbered 101-199 suffixes should only be used for expresso, peak hour and nitelink services.

I pointed out in other posts the many unused numbers, past and present. Alpha suffixes (and prefixes, albeit nonexistent in DB's system) should only be for variants of a core route, and be of equal or less frequency than the un-affixed variant; furthermore, they should be in order with no gaps (i.e. no missing As or Bs, to wit the number shouldn't jump from 6 to 6B without a 6A). It'd be quite creative to see what could be done with 25A and 25B for example (numbers 23 and 24 still remain disused), but it'd be worth it in the long run. As it stands though, un-affixed triple-digit numbers should be left alone rather than re-classified (e.g. route 145, which at least retains association with the much-deprecated 45 in terms of operating between the city centre and Bray).

Bazzer2

thomasj wrote: »

At least they have sorted the 20b, 29a, 48a, 78a

By 'sorted', do you mean the standalone suffixed number is either merged, re-numbered or scrapped? Where does that leave the 78?

schemingbohemia

in the grand scheme of things i think the numbering of services comes way down the list of priorities. you could call the 46a the banana and it would still go the same route - though perhaps that name might be more suitable to an orbital route like the 75.

not all change is good or indeed necessary.

LXFlyer

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I can't see why not, it should have been dropped once the original 46 got canned anyway.

The numbering system in Dublin has gone off the wall in recent years, needs to be rationalised right back down

I was being just slightly facetious!

LXFlyer

Bazzer2 wrote: »

By 'sorted', do you mean the standalone suffixed number is either merged, re-numbered or scrapped? Where does that leave the 78?

The 78 is to be cancelled - there won't be a 78 or a 78a going forward as the 78a/40 merged route will be route 40.

Cookie_Monster

lxflyer wrote: »

I was being just slightly facetious!

Fair enough, but the point is still valid.

In regards to the 145, when this was first announced I heard it was supposed to become the 45B

thomasj

I think that the 78 should be the renumbered 26 as the 26 serves ballyfermot and cherry orchard just like the 79.

Then reassign routes 24-26 to the 25/a/b

Assign 23 to the 123
22 to the 122 (back where it should be)
20 or 21 to the 120

Give it some time for the 19 as we know it to disappear then renumber thr 17 the 19, the other side of the 18. Renumber the 17a the 17.

Reassign the 40d the 36 as the 236 (which i would renumber the 136) already serves tyrrelstown.

Reassign the 140 the 35, a former finglas route and next to the other direct finglas route 36.

SandyfordGuy

236 doesn't serve tyrellstown anymore, 238 does.

qerty

thomasj wrote: »

I think that the 78 should be the renumbered 26 as the 26 serves ballyfermot and cherry orchard just like the 79.

The 26 does not serve Ballyfermot and Cherryorchard just like the 79.
The 26 serves Ballyfermot road only and does not serve cherryorchard.
The 79 does not serve the section of Ballyfermot road the 26 does with the exception of 2 stops. It alone serves Cherryorchard.

Also, how can the 78 be renumbered the 26 when the 26 already exists and the 78 is destined to be merged (scrapped) when the 78a/40/40a are amalgamated.

LXFlyer

I think Thomasj is getting mixed up between Cherry Orchard Estate and Cherry Orchard Hospital qerty, which the 26 does indeed serve but which is not served by the 79 except when there's bad snow!

thomasj

Okay it wasnt the greatest of posts apologies for that im only human but my point is seen as though route numbers are being freed up now is the time to be tidying up route numbers.

You are right i meant to say ballyfermot road and shouldnt have referred to cherry orchard.

With regards to 26, seen as though the 78(s) are merging with the 40s. why not rename the 26 to the 78, next to the 79 and give the 24, 25 and 26 routes to the 25/a/b.