Dublin Bus Network Review

thomasj

My point through all of this is dublin bus have made uneccessary changes like suffixed routes where unsuffixed routes were free and changing routes like 30 to the 130.

Now that they are implementing some radical changes to the routes (some which are not correct decisions) why not radically change the route numbers?

Could the majority of dublin bus routes be covered in numbers 1-99 and wiyhout suffixes?

honru

Rename the 46a to the 46 and change the 46e to the 6 or something.

CIE

thomasj wrote: »

My point through all of this is Dublin Bus have made unnecessary changes, like suffixed routes where unsuffixed routes were free and changing routes like 30 to the 130.

Now that they are implementing some radical changes to the routes (some which are not correct decisions) why not radically change the route numbers?

Could the majority of Dublin Bus routes be covered in numbers 1-99 and without suffixes?

Just to reiterate: Excluding numbers that DB plans to revive (and retire prematurely in some cases), currently unused numbers between 1 and 99 ATTOW are 6, 12, 20,* 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 34, 35, 36, 46,* 48, 52, 54,* 55, 57, 58, 60, 62, 64, 71, 72, 73, 80, 81, 82, 87, 88,* 89, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 and 99. So there are thirty-eight unused bus route numbers to choose from in that range.

BTW, I agree with you about 30 to 130. That was as bad as going from 22 to 122 and 34 to 134, such changes IIRC having been inspired by the apparent "success" of the City Imp implementation of route 120, which replaced the former 22A. Sad that the amalgamation of the 30 and 44A wasn't done sooner; that way, the 44C to/from Ballyogan could have been the 44A instead. (Never mind the 51A to Beaumont should have been its own number; maybe if the 21 to/from Inchicore had still been around, that bus should have been extended northwards to Beaumont via Marino? and then the Bawnogue/Clonburris variation of the 51 could have been the 51A. But hindsight is always 20/20.)

Also, some of those infrequent routes with profligate alpha suffixes (e.g. 7B/D) could stand some more consolidation, certainly with their own numbers and possibly increases in service. Frequency sells.

* Un-affixed versions, that is, and of course excluding the Nitelink routes that have unique numbers.

qerty

thomasj wrote: »

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.

Why? The whole point of suffixes is to indicate that one route is a variation of another? The 25/a/b are extremely similar (especially the 25A/B), hence the suffixes, and splitting them into the 25 (25a) and 26 (25b) indicates that there are 2 completely separate routes, when in reality they are only slightly different from one another.
Having routes that share a common route alignment for the majority of the route but with 2 different numbers can be even more confusing for customers that are unfamiliar with the area/routes. At least if you know the 25 goes to lucan you can guess the 25a/b do too, which they do.
Look at the Lucan corridor, it is served by a huge number of routes,18,25,25A,25B,25X,25N,26,66,66A,66B,66X,66N,67,67X,67N,151.
If you were to renumber each and everyone to a seperate route number, you would have a huge number of routes on your hand and that can become very confusing. At least in the current system it is implied that the 25s serve a similar area, the same goes for the 66 and 67 series, which is true. So why renumber them to seperate numbers? Suffixes actually makes the system clearer.

What would be the point in renumbering the 41/a/b/c to 41/42/43 etc. when the routes are very similar? Obviously there are differences but IMO not enough to justify renumbering to separate route numbers. There are a lot of posts on this thread that seem to imply that suffixes are a bad thing, they are not, infact they can be a good thing If managed correctly.
The problem is in that exact point, managing them correctly.This is a system which can work well until you have routes (17/a) which serve completely different areas,unfortunately, and this is the downfall of suffix use in DB's routing system. If a consistent approach to suffix use and route numbering in general is taken, there is no need to remove them from the system.

honru

Yeah, suffixes are fine imo if the routes are largely similar. The 7B appears to follow a route similar to the 145 more than anything, and the 7D has nothing really to do with the 7.

qerty

f®eak s©enery wrote: »

Yeah, suffixes are fine imo if the routes are largely similar. The 7B appears to follow a route similar to the 145 more than anything, and the 7D has nothing really to do with the 7.

I was touching on that point when I was refering to the 17/17a scenario.
If DB uses a consistent system, which it does in some cases and does not in others, then suffixes are fine. I agree that the 7B/D should be renumbered as they are not at all similar to the 7.
The 17a should be renumbered, for example, the 6 as the 17 serves the southside and the 17a serves the northside.

honru

The 17/17a is a peculiar one alright.

Carawaystick

f®eak s©enery wrote: »

The 17/17a is a peculiar one alright.

13 13a

markpb

Carawaystick wrote: »

13 13a

They're almost identical except for minor route variations around Ballymun. The 17/17a serve opposite sides of the city.

CIE

qerty wrote: »

The whole point of suffixes is to indicate that one route is a variation of another

Yes, and in most cases, they truly are not.

qerty wrote: »

The 25/a/b are extremely similar (especially the 25A/B), hence the suffixes, and splitting them into the 25 (25a) and 26 (25b) indicates that there are 2 completely separate routes, when in reality they are only slightly different from one another

What's "extremely similar" between the 25, 25A and 25B really, since you wish to split hairs? The 25 has nothing to do with the 25A and 25B, operating via Chapelizod as it does, and being the only bus route from the city to operate via Lucan Village full-time, and it has half the frequency of the alpha-suffixed routes. The 25B is now the sole bus route that serves Adamstown, following the re-route of the 151. The 25A is the sole bus that operates via Arthur Griffith Park, as has been for several years (I recall when the 25 used to have two branches, one to Dodsborough and the other to AGP, the AGP branch running via Lock Road from Lucan Village and turning right on Esker Road, using AGP as the terminus; the original 25A eventually became the number for this route, until someone at Number 59 decided to turn it into a high-frequency "CitySwift" to serve all the estates surrounding Ballydowd Road; this newer 25A should have had its own number from the start, since its route was nothing like the original 25A or 25).

qerty wrote: »

Having routes that share a common route alignment for the majority of the route but with 2 different numbers can be even more confusing for customers that are unfamiliar with the area/routes. At least if you know the 25 goes to lucan you can guess the 25a/b do too, which they do

Again, they don't. Only the 25 goes to Lucan Village and Dodsborough. The 25A and 25B do not (although, as I mentioned, the 25A once did in the past). The 25 serves Chapelizod; the 25A and 25B use the bypass. The 25A/B are actually two new routes that most likely should get their own numbers, or at least one number with only one alpha suffix for either the Superquinn branch or Adamstown branch.

qerty wrote: »

Look at the Lucan corridor, it is served by a huge number of routes, 18, 25, 25A, 25B, 25X, 25N, 26, 66, 66A, 66B, 66X, 66N, 67, 67X, 67N, 151. If you were to renumber each and everyone to a separate route number, you would have a huge number of routes on your hand and that can become very confusing. At least in the current system it is implied that the 25s serve a similar area, the same goes for the 66 and 67 series, which is true. So why renumber them to separate numbers? Suffixes actually makes the system clearer

No they sure do not. Separate numbers are far more clear. What if someone at Number 59 decided that the bus to Maynooth via Celbridge should really be the 25C, for example? Should I have to ride the 25D to Maynooth via Leixlip or 25E to Confey?

The 66/A/B demonstrate the better-managed form for the alpha-suffix variations, in fact, with the 66A operating from Leixlip Main Street to River Forest in Confey, but a couple of kilometres from the main trunk route, and the 66B doing the same via the Celbridge Road. (I do feel, however, that the 66B in some form should be permanently extended to Celbridge; a permanent bus link between Leixlip and Celbridge would be useful.)

qerty wrote: »

What would be the point in renumbering the 41/a/b/c to 41/42/43 etc. when the routes are very similar? Obviously there are differences but IMO not enough to justify renumbering to separate route numbers. There are a lot of posts on this thread that seem to imply that suffixes are a bad thing, they are not, in fact they can be a good thing If managed correctly.
The problem is in that exact point, managing them correctly.This is a system which can work well until you have routes (17/a) which serve completely different areas, unfortunately, and this is the downfall of suffix use in DB's routing system. If a consistent approach to suffix use and route numbering in general is taken, there is no need to remove them from the system.

Well then you agree with us, in principle. Alpha suffixes that are not managed properly become unwieldy. The 17/A dichotomy is the only one remaining, BTW; the 44A and 51A are gone, and what really gets me is why they did create "17A" when it was a relatively new (from my perspective) route that deserved its own unique route number. And I've always felt that the 41C should have been the 41A from the start...(the new 41A Airport-Swords shuttle may itself disappear if it's found that most of the traffic uses the 102, ironically; there can't be that large of a passenger contingent between the airport and Swords Manor).

CIE

markpb wrote: »

Carawaystick wrote: »

13 13a

They're almost identical except for minor route variations around Ballymun. The 17/17a serve opposite sides of the city.

No, the current 13 and 13A are not quite almost identical. The 13 operates (for now) via the southern half of Ballymun Road, Botanic Road and Whitworth Road, whereas the 13A runs via Griffith Avenue and Drumcondra Road (the old 36/A/B routing). The "Network Direct" route 13 to Clondalkin, IIRC, will operate via Griffith Avenue and Drumcondra Road full-time, what with the 4 operating via Ballymun Road and Botanic Road and taking over those duties; this however will leave the 40 as the sole bus operating via Whitworth Road.

(Anyone recall the original 13A? It operated from Beechwood to Ballymun Roundabout, while the 13's terminus was still at Wadelai Park. Apart from that, it also ran via Ballymun Road, Botanic Road and Whitworth Road during those days.)

qerty

CIE wrote: »

What's "extremely similar" between the 25, 25A and 25B really, since you wish to split hairs? The 25 has nothing to do with the 25A and 25B, operating via Chapelizod as it does, and being the only bus route from the city to operate via Lucan Village full-time, and it has half the frequency of the alpha-suffixed routes. The 25B is now the sole bus route that serves Adamstown, following the re-route of the 151. The 25A is the sole bus that operates via Arthur Griffith Park, as has been for several years (I recall when the 25 used to have two branches, one to Dodsborough and the other to AGP, the AGP branch running via Lock Road from Lucan Village and turning right on Esker Road, using AGP as the terminus; the original 25A eventually became the number for this route, until someone at Number 59 decided to turn it into a high-frequency "CitySwift" to serve all the estates surrounding Ballydowd Road; this newer 25A should have had its own number from the start, since its route was nothing like the original 25A or 25).


Again, they don't. Only the 25 goes to Lucan Village and Dodsborough. The 25A and 25B do not (although, as I mentioned, the 25A once did in the past). The 25 serves Chapelizod; the 25A and 25B use the bypass. The 25A/B are actually two new routes that most likely should get their own numbers, or at least one number with only one alpha suffix for either the Superquinn branch or Adamstown branch.

I did specifically mention the similarity to the 25A/B in my previous post, and I do agree that the 25 itself is sufficiently different for there to be a change there regarding route number. Do the 66 and 67 not operate full time via Lucan Village? Not just the 25?

Also, the area of Lucan does not just refer to Lucan village, so the 25A/B DO serve Lucan. The 78/a serves Clondalkin, as does the 151, although neither serve the village.Splitting hairs indeed. In regards to the 25B being the sole route to serve Adamstown and the 25A being the sole route to serve Arthur griffith, what has that got to do with whether the routes are numbered 25a or 25B? Would you have the 79a runumbered because it solely serves parkwest and the 79 renumbered as it solely serves Spiddal park/road?
(I am aware that the 79/a situation is to be changed in the common weeks, Im jsut trying to make a point :P)

The two routes only differ from the junction Griffeen avenue and Grifeen road and have about 8 stops different. 8 stops different along a common alignment from merrion square? That is "extremely similar" in my view and they should remain suffixed routes, although perhaps be runumbered to the 24(25a) and 24a(25b) to distinguish from the 25, which like I already stated, I agree is now quite different.

qerty

CIE wrote: »

No they sure do not. Separate numbers are far more clear. What if someone at Number 59 decided that the bus to Maynooth via Celbridge should really be the 25C, for example? Should I have to ride the 25D to Maynooth via Leixlip or 25E to Confey?

The 66/A/B demonstrate the better-managed form for the alpha-suffix variations, in fact, with the 66A operating from Leixlip Main Street to River Forest in Confey, but a couple of kilometres from the main trunk route, and the 66B doing the same via the Celbridge Road. (I do feel, however, that the 66B in some form should be permanently extended to Celbridge; a permanent bus link between Leixlip and Celbridge would be useful.)Well then you agree with us, in principle. Alpha suffixes that are not managed properly become unwieldy. The 17/A dichotomy is the only one remaining, BTW; the 44A and 51A are gone, and what really gets me is why they did create "17A" when it was a relatively new (from my perspective) route that deserved its own unique route number. And I've always felt that the 41C should have been the 41A from the start...(the new 41A Airport-Swords shuttle may itself disappear if it's found that most of the traffic uses the 102, ironically; there can't be that large of a passenger contingent between the airport and Swords Manor).

The answer lies in my post, suffixed routes should serve similar areas and a consistent approach should be taken so such a scenario (25c to ballsbridge) does not happen. It can indeed be done the correct way which Ironically, you have just countered your own argument by stating that the 66/a/b demonstrate the better use of suffixes and how they can actually be usefull, even though you argue to remove suffixes and have seperate route numbers.That was the whole point of my post and I must state that I agree with you on one point, and so far one point only, and that is suffixes need to be managed correctly in order to work.

thomasj

If you were to think of dublin buses route network as an office and the routes as files, you would consider dublin bus filing system a disaster! There are huge gaps between numbers it goes upto 270! Theres no consistency some local routes have suffixes others are three digits long, likewise with some cross city routes, compare the 16a to the 122, 123

The suffix system of the 66 group of routes might be effective but sadly its the exception rather than the rule! Very few of the other routes work well like this!

There was a chance for dublin bus to put this in place with the 7 route with a suffix or even the number 6 for cherrywood departures. They didnt!

Some of their planned routes as part of network direct arent showing the suffix system in a more favourable light. Examples such as the 51(d and x when no 51/a/b/c) the 40s (no b or c) the 46s (no 46/b/c/d) the 54a.

With regards to the 25s there maybe not many stops between the 25a and 25b but the difference between the two is one serves a new major town and train station and the other doesnt. Does adamstown not warrant its own route (and number) and it would help avoid confusion and help brand/advertise the route. The same applies to the 40d and tyrrelstown.

Also anothee example of bad practice is the decision to merge the 15/a/b/74/74a/128 and rename them the 15/a/b.
Especially given one is a cross city route and two arent. I would have had the 28, the 74, and the 15 wiping out the suffixes, simple!

jh385

Misticles wrote: »

They're taking away the 2 buses that go near my house (50, 65b) and replacing it with one that goes around the world before it leaves Tallaght... yes the 77a!!

Thats a nice 15 minutes added onto my journey :mad:

Same here. Besides, the 77a isn't a proper replacement for the 50/65b no matter how you look at it - It won't start or terminate from the same place, it doesn't cover the same route, and it takes longer than the 50/65b. So how is that a replacement?

When I went to the 'public consultation' i.e. a desk in The Square. It was a few Dublin bus guys leaning back on their chairs muttering 'ah yeah, cutbacks, sure what can you do?' - I filled in a form, which I'm sure was quickly consigned to their 'filing system'

I had suggested extending the 77 (and not the 77a) up to Citywest, as it's the route most similar to the 50 (plus, it terminates at Ringsend). But, as was pointed out by one of the residents here, that still leaves a big gap in the 65b route.

Anyway, it's over to Marie Corr and the councillors for this one. I don't know where the process is at with Dublin Bus - I'm concerned they're going to spring it on us unannounced any day now, before they have any more complaints. Once they've made the route changes they know it'll be more difficult to get them changed back.

Incidentally, I don't care what numbers they assign the routes, I don't get sentimental about numbers. I just want the routes and frequencies to be retained.

SteM

jh385 wrote: »

Anyway, it's over to Marie Corr and the councillors for this one.

Good luck with that!

backboiler

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?

This was the case near me wth the 19 and 83 routes passing each other on opposite sides of the road, both bound in the same direction and yes, people hovered where they could see both approaches and ran across the road to the 83 stop at the shops if that bus came first. DB's solution? Get rid of the 83 stop and move it around the corner so it was impractical to run between them.

Baron de Robeck

The new rota and timetable for the 68/68A/69/69X was accepted by the "marked in" drivers yesterday so it will probably be implemented pretty quickly.

LXFlyer

backboiler wrote: »

This was the case near me wth the 19 and 83 routes passing each other on opposite sides of the road, both bound in the same direction and yes, people hovered where they could see both approaches and ran across the road to the 83 stop at the shops if that bus came first. DB's solution? Get rid of the 83 stop and move it around the corner so it was impractical to run between them.

People (especially children) hovering between stops and running across the road when a bus appears is not exactly safe.

At times like that people tend not to look very carefully before crossing the road.

I would imagine that was why the stop was moved.

thomasj

Baron de Robeck wrote: »

The new rota and timetable for the 68/68A/69/69X was accepted by the "marked in" drivers yesterday so it will probably be implemented pretty quickly.

Is there going to be a 68a? Whats the difference between the 2?

Baron de Robeck

68A will be short workings, Hawkins Street-Bulfin Road and back. I only got a brief look at the rota before handing it back to its custodian but 68A only appears to run in the late morning & afternoon on Monday to Friday only.

Overall the timetable is a mixture of good and bad. For some reason no Sunday rotas were produced or voted on so possibly they will remain the same as the current Sunday schedule.

Most 69 journeys leave Hawkins Street on the hour every hour and depart Rathcoole 1.5 hours later eg. 10.00 from Hawkins St. leaves Rathcoole at 11.30 etc etc but early morning buses are virtually identical to the current timetable. 69X current times are retained.

68 were more difficult to work out but seem to leave Hawkins Street every hour on the half hour and some journeys still serve Baldonnel. Running times of 1.5 hours are standard reflecting the less direct route of Bulfin Road, South Circular etc

KD345

Route 120 and 122 change from next weekend.

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/News-Centre/Travel-News/Routes-120-and-122-Timetable-Changes/

Selected trips on Route 120 now serve Ballsbridge at peak times.

Route 122 now operates through Rialto.

Rabbitt

I'd imagine the Tallaght routes will be axes fairly sharpish .
The 50 amd 65b are really quiet now with the luas starting in Citywest.

mrsdewinter

KD345 wrote: »

Route 120 and 122 change from next weekend.

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/News-Centre/Travel-News/Routes-120-and-122-Timetable-Changes/

Selected trips on Route 120 now serve Ballsbridge at peak times.

Route 122 now operates through Rialto.

'Selected' is right. What a swizz - 3 buses leaving from Ballsbridge in the evening, the last one at 1720. That's not much use to office workers finishing at 6, is it?

LXFlyer

Rabbitt wrote: »

I'd imagine the Tallaght routes will be axes fairly sharpish .
The 50 amd 65b are really quiet now with the luas starting in Citywest.

Interesting - and people said here they wouldn't use the LUAS as it would be too slow!

The_Wrecker

Rte 7 suffering at the moment with lack of running time ~ another 145 in the making come September...............

KD345

Rabbitt wrote: »

I'd imagine the Tallaght routes will be axes fairly sharpish .
The 50 amd 65b are really quiet now with the luas starting in Citywest.

That kinda goes against the belief here that the 65b routing is needed to link Citywest.

Rabbitt

I personally want the 65b to stay but I think Dublin Bus will say there is a massive drop in passengers and pull it straight away.

As for people saying the luas would t be a success in Citywest were wrong.

qerty

Quite a cut to the 120 service. The 122 remains more or less the same.

stop

KD345 wrote: »

Route 120 and 122 change from next weekend.

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/News-Centre/Travel-News/Routes-120-and-122-Timetable-Changes/

Selected trips on Route 120 now serve Ballsbridge at peak times.

Route 122 now operates through Rialto.

3 trips each way a day? Not much to sing about.

DB once again showing their lack of ability to proof read - 122 stages 29-33 are out of order, and not consistent with the Keeper Rd, Herberton Rd, SCR routing.

Also, as always the map showing where the bus stops is not working, which is a bit ridiculous. If you're changing the route, it's probably a good idea to let the passengers know where the new route will be stopping.