Dublin Bus Network Review

SteM

KD345 wrote: »

Poles have been erected at Greenhills, Tallaght Village, The Square, Fettercairn and there is also one at Jobstown House inbound. I'd say they'll be live shortly along with the phone app.

I've seen them, my point is there should have been coordination between the data going live and the changes to the bus routes. DB don't seem bothered with that sort of coordination through.

KD345

SteM wrote: »

I've seen them, my point is there should have been coordination between the data going live and the changes to the bus routes. DB don't seem bothered with that sort of coordination through.

To be fair, that's not the fault of Dublin Bus. All buses have working GPS and are providing the correct data. The NTA are responsible for the locations and installation/service to passengers. The NTA also pass all these Dublin Bus network direct changes, so they are aware of what routes are changing in advance.

SteM

KD345 wrote: »

To be fair, that's not the fault of Dublin Bus. All buses have working GPS and are providing the correct data. The NTA are responsible for the locations and installation/service to passengers. The NTA also pass all these Dublin Bus network direct changes, so they are aware of what routes are changing in advance.

And equally DB are aware of the areas that the real time service is available to passangers. If they knew that the real time data was going to be available to passangers in this area in a few weeks put the changes off until the service is available to passangers. It's all well and good telling passangers to jump from bus to another, they have to be given the confidence to do that.

LXFlyer

SteM wrote: »

And equally DB are aware of the areas that the real time service is available to passangers. If they knew that the real time data was going to be available to passangers in this area in a few weeks put the changes off until the service is available to passangers. It's all well and good telling passangers to jump from bus to another, they have to be given the confidence to do that.

True but I think that there is a massive push from government to get whatever cost reductions can be achieved in place asap.

Conway635

Also worth remembering that DB, BE and all other bus operators have had to cope with a gigantic fuel-price rise a year or so ago when the Fuel Duty Rebate was withdrawn.

In the UK they introduced BSOG (Bus Service Operators Grant) when they withdrew the rebate, but we did not do this here, and in fact reduced the main subvention at the same time as imposing this fuel whammy.

A number of private operators who have cut back services may have been able to keep them had FDR been replaced by a BSOG scheme. (bear in mind this would have been revenue neutral, just moving the subsidy for public transport from one point to another.)

C635

RichieD

KD345 wrote: »

Possibly, but if that's the case then why keep a route where it's passengers are being mopped up by an existing high frequency service?

Since it covers probably 80% of the 77 Route(which could be reduced to match an increase of the 50), but then also provides slight variations for people that want to go to Belgard Road or to Citywest in the end. Therefore you are increasing the availability of CityWest without hindering the rest of the route, except for Tallaght Village/Jobstown.

Im guessing that 80% of the people on the 50/77 were going to & from mutually covered stops and would have gotten either bus if it came first, the 77 just always came first.

This is what I witnessed anyway from my time getting the 77, where myself and other 77 regulars would get on the 50 if it came along.

D14

Does anyone in tallaght have a bike? Luas + bike! You'll never have to wait for the bus anymore!

RichieD

KD345 wrote: »

SteM wrote: »

I've seen them, my point is there should have been coordination between the data going live and the changes to the bus routes. DB don't seem bothered with that sort of coordination through.

To be fair, that's not the fault of Dublin Bus. All buses have working GPS and are providing the correct data. The NTA are responsible for the locations and installation/service to passengers. The NTA also pass all these Dublin Bus network direct changes, so they are aware of what routes are changing in advance.

Since you have a good isnight into bus routing, can I ask you some questions into what research goes into route planning? Not having a go just genuinely interested in the process.

Like are ticket machines and reader data collated and analysed to see patterns on each route? Are there guys manually counting numbers on routes at different times?
Are customers or community groups consulted as to improvments or changes on each route? Are bus drivers consulted as to potential improvements on each route?
Are third party companies used or computer modelling or statistical simulations used? How often are routes re-reviewed?

If all or any of the above are used, how are they weighted against each other? Who then makes the decisions based on the research done and what are these peoples qualifications and experience? Are international colleageus like London bus services consulted for any advice or experience on such route decisions?

Any answers will be appreciated. Cheers

Just adding to this, Can I also ask all of the above about the placment of bus stops on each route?

KD345

RichieD wrote: »

Since you have a good isnight into bus routing, can I ask you some questions into what research goes into route planning? Not having a go just genuinely interested in the process.

I don't work for Dublin Bus or the NTA, I'm just a passenger with a keen interest in public transport, so unfortunately I don't have the answers, but will try help. I'm sure if you contact the NTA they could assist.

RichieD wrote: »

Like are ticket machines and reader data collated and analysed to see patterns on each route? Are there guys manually counting numbers on routes at different times?

Dublin Bus have the ability to monitor passenger loadings through their ticket machines, like how many passengers board in a certain area at different times of day etc. They have also carried out on board and on street passenger surveys in the past, as do/did the NTA/DOT.

RichieD wrote: »

Are customers or community groups consulted as to improvments or changes on each route? Are bus drivers consulted as to potential improvements on each route?

Dublin Bus have held "road shows" in each community affected by Network Direct. It would appear these have had some effect on the eventual outcome of certain routes. Examples include the 11, 47, 65B, 68, 220.

I'm not sure if drivers are asked for their input on new routes, perhaps some of the drivers posting here could help you, but they do vote to approve the new schedule and working times etc. for new routes starting.

RichieD wrote: »

Are third party companies used or computer modelling or statistical simulations used?

Deloitte were appointed in 2008 to carry out a cost and efficiency review of Dublin Bus. This included reviewing bus routes and how they are run. The report was published in 2009.

RichieD wrote: »

How often are routes re-reviewed?

I assume you mean re-reviewed under Network Direct. Already, since the first phase, a number of routes have been revised for different reasons. For example, Route 47 was initially removed from Mount Merrion but some daytime journeys were restored following requests by residents. The routing of Route 38A was revised into Blanchardstown to help with passenger loadings and a new peak time 38B was introduced to offer a direct route to Damastown on the N3. There have also been a number of timetable changes on routes which needed tweaking since the revisions.

RichieD wrote: »

Can I also ask all of the above about the placment of bus stops on each route?

There are a number of factors which decide where a bus stop goes involving Dublin Bus, the local council and the Garda Siochana. There can also be issues when bus stops are placed on private property, like shopping centres, retail parks and hospitals. For the installation of RTPI screens I believe the locations are decided by the councils and the NTA.

While this thread is quite large, you'll find it a good read of how and why some routes have changed. In my opinion, Dublin Bus don't always get it right, but they don't deserve a lot of the criticism thrown their way. This is the biggest ever reorganisation of bus routes in Dublin. As Conway635 correctly points out, between the removal of the fuel duty rebate and high fuel prices, it's become necessary to remove loss making routes while at the same time ensure no community is left without a service.

RichieD

KD345 wrote: »

I don't work for Dublin Bus or the NTA, I'm just a passenger with a keen interest in public transport, so unfortunately I don't have the answers, but will try help. I'm sure if you contact the NTA they could assist.



Dublin Bus have the ability to monitor passenger loadings through their ticket machines, like how many passengers board in a certain area at different times of day etc. They have also carried out on board and on street passenger surveys in the past, as do/did the NTA/DOT.



Dublin Bus have held "road shows" in each community affected by Network Direct. It would appear these have had some effect on the eventual outcome of certain routes. Examples include the 11, 47, 65B, 68, 220.

I'm not sure if drivers are asked for their input on new routes, perhaps some of the drivers posting here could help you, but they do vote to approve the new schedule and working times etc. for new routes starting.



Deloitte were appointed in 2008 to carry out a cost and efficiency review of Dublin Bus. This included reviewing bus routes and how they are run. The report was published in 2009.



I assume you mean re-reviewed under Network Direct. Already, since the first phase, a number of routes have been revised for different reasons. For example, Route 47 was initially removed from Mount Merrion but some daytime journeys were restored following requests by residents. The routing of Route 38A was revised into Blanchardstown to help with passenger loadings and a new peak time 38B was introduced to offer a direct route to Damastown on the N3. There have also been a number of timetable changes on routes which needed tweaking since the revisions.



There are a number of factors which decide where a bus stop goes involving Dublin Bus, the local council and the Garda Siochana. There can also be issues when bus stops are placed on private property, like shopping centres, retail parks and hospitals. For the installation of RTPI screens I believe the locations are decided by the councils and the NTA.

While this thread is quite large, you'll find it a good read of how and why some routes have changed. In my opinion, Dublin Bus don't always get it right, but they don't deserve a lot of the criticism thrown their way. This is the biggest ever reorganisation of bus routes in Dublin. As Conway635 correctly points out, between the removal of the fuel duty rebate and high fuel prices, it's become necessary to remove loss making routes while at the same time ensure no community is left without a service.

Thanks for the great info and the link to the report.

I suppose why im asking this is because since DB is a semi-state company providing a public service, im suprised there is not more transparency with all research and decisions that are made.

I would have thought this should all be published to the public domain with concrete justifications of route decisions.

EDIT: Im not particularly impressed with that Deloitte report, does anyone know how much Dublin Bus payed for that? Its very high level with only a few case studies of routes.

Also the recomendations are nothing DB didnt know already. For example,

- Redesign network based on most recent pattern of demand/demographics.
- Simplify the network and reduce the number of variations of bus routes.
- Eliminate unnecessary duplication of services, maximising the return from deployed services.

I would prefer to see them engage in some kind of modelling or simulation based on the data available, and then use that as a base to examine the effects of route changes.

jh385

D14 wrote: »

Does anyone in tallaght have a bike? Luas + bike! You'll never have to wait for the bus anymore!

That would be the perfect solution for me. But unfortunately they won't allow my road bike on the Luas. I've been searching around for a good fold-up bike, which I'll get once I have the money (they tend to be a bit more expensive)

What I'd love is for Dublin Bikes to extend their bike stops to the east of the city (Ringsend), then I could just grab a bike when I get off the Luas. But that's for another thread.

LXFlyer

RichieD wrote: »

Thanks for the great info and the link to the report.

I suppose why im asking this is because since DB is a semi-state company providing a public service, im suprised there is not more transparency with all research and decisions that are made.

I would have thought this should all be published to the public domain with concrete justifications of route decisions.

There would be commercial sensitivities about that - while DB is a semi-state company it does operate in a market and I'd doubt that they would want to disclose passenger numbers etc. to potential competitors.

KD345

RichieD wrote: »

Im not particularly impressed with that Deloitte report, does anyone know how much Dublin Bus payed for that? Its very high level with only a few case studies of routes.

I think the Department Of Transport commissioned the report, not Dublin Bus.

It's probably worth remembering how quickly Dublin boomed in the mid noughties. New housing estates were opening up on a weekly basis and there was a call by politicians/local groups to have bus routes serve these areas. Routes were stretched, new routes were introduced, and peak time routes were launched to try keep up with demand. Very often, Dublin Bus were altering services on a monthly basis to adapt. Places like Ongar, Adamstown, Belarmine, Ellensborough etc. It might be correct to say some routes were not designed properly, but part of that blame probably likes with the council who gave planning permission to these massive developments without any thought of bus routes. It did get better towards the end of the boom, with bus and rail being a part of any new development, but it's not just bus routes which were badly thought through, you only have to look at Kissogue station which is fully finished but lies unopened, or how there is no park & ride facility at Luas Cherrywood.

LXFlyer

RichieD wrote: »

Thanks for the great info and the link to the report.

I suppose why im asking this is because since DB is a semi-state company providing a public service, im suprised there is not more transparency with all research and decisions that are made.

I would have thought this should all be published to the public domain with concrete justifications of route decisions.

EDIT: Im not particularly impressed with that Deloitte report, does anyone know how much Dublin Bus payed for that? Its very high level with only a few case studies of routes.

Also the recomendations are nothing DB didnt know already. For example,

- Redesign network based on most recent pattern of demand/demographics.
- Simplify the network and reduce the number of variations of bus routes.
- Eliminate unnecessary duplication of services, maximising the return from deployed services.

I would prefer to see them engage in some kind of modelling or simulation based on the data available, and then use that as a base to examine the effects of route changes.

The Deloitte report was commissioned by the Minister for Transport (Noel Dempsey) to look at the effiency and cost effectiveness of both Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann.

They were not commissioned to do a detailed review of the entire network of both companies.

After the Minister accepted the report and its recommendations Dublin Bus committed to a comprehensive network review, which is currently ongoing.

You have to remember that prior to this report, there was no political will to support change. Whenever Dublin Bus attempted to cut routes there were howls of protest from local TDs (despite the routes carrying thin air) which then made its way to Ministerial level, and the plans were removed.

Examples include routes 51a and 172 (B Ahern) and the 48a (T Kitt) of Ministers shoving their weight around, and forcing Dublin Bus to not cancel routes when they should have been.

The political climate finally changed and DB are finally being allowed to make significant changes to the network that match in with demand and which allow them to cut out routes that are unnecessarily duplicating others and thereby achieve the necessary cuts in costs.

The Deloitte report did what it was supposed to do - provide the then Minister with the necessary amunition to drive through the changes.

The detailed work for the Network Review has been done by Dublin Bus staff with public consultation through meetings, press and the website. They would have studied the data from the ticket machines and surveys on-street/on-bus. This whole process started in 2010 when they would have done the research before coming up with proposals for public consultation. There has to a starting point to the process. They then reviewed the results of those consultations and made adjustments to the proposals following the consultation.

Post-implementation, timetables have been changed where there were running time issues (albeit took too long with the first phases), and indeed routes have been changed where they didn't work or where passenger feedback requested changes.

As I said above - commercial sensitivities will come into play when it comes to publishing passenger numbers etc. so it would be highly unlikely that they would be published.

AlekSmart

KD345 wrote: »

I think the Department Of Transport commissioned the report, not Dublin Bus.

It might be correct to say some routes were not designed properly, but part of that blame probably likes with the council who gave planning permission to these massive developments without any thought of bus routes. It did get better towards the end of the boom, with bus and rail being a part of any new development, but it's not just bus routes which were badly thought through, you only have to look at Kissogue station which is fully finished but lies unopened, or how there is no park & ride facility at Luas Cherrywood.

Very true and yet something which is rarely focused upon when discussion of Dublin Bus's multiple failings occurs.

Our National infatuation with Property development began and ended with how much PROFIT could everybody make out of it.

At no stage did any of the ponzi participants seek to delve further into what the eventual and final outcome was going to be.

This lack of interest/attention/concern is what sets us apart from the other EU countries,whose Public Transport systems we rave over after our holliers.

In the main the Europeans would have began their planning process with..."Now,where will the Bus/Tram/Train stop be ?"...then every other element followed on from that.

We left that aspect to the very last,if it surfaced at all,with the result that every one of our modern urban developments,whether resedential or commercial suffers from some form of Public Transport/Access difficulties,often extremely difficult to address in after the event.

Most if not all of our access planning concentrated on the Private Car and facilitating it's continued ownership and usership...if anybody wishes to see this principle in action then UCD's Belfield Campus will provide a readily viewable real-time movie.

Here we have a huge investment of public funds in expansion and improvement of the campus with the focus firmly on Car Parks and their expansion...each day of the new term sees the present Car Park capacity filling up earlier as the new Student/Staff body discover that securing that beloved "parking-space" means getting in an hour before lectures......the fall out is,of course,the parking of cars in quiet resedential streets nearby,with the attendant bad-blood over driveways being blocked etc....

Planning...?...perhaps Jim,but not as we know it !

LXFlyer

KD345 wrote: »

I think the Department Of Transport commissioned the report, not Dublin Bus.

It's probably worth remembering how quickly Dublin boomed in the mid noughties. New housing estates were opening up on a weekly basis and there was a call by politicians/local groups to have bus routes serve these areas. Routes were stretched, new routes were introduced, and peak time routes were launched to try keep up with demand. Very often, Dublin Bus were altering services on a monthly basis to adapt. Places like Ongar, Adamstown, Belarmine, Ellensborough etc. It might be correct to say some routes were not designed properly, but part of that blame probably likes with the council who gave planning permission to these massive developments without any thought of bus routes. It did get better towards the end of the boom, with bus and rail being a part of any new development, but it's not just bus routes which were badly thought through, you only have to look at Kissogue station which is fully finished but lies unopened, or how there is no park & ride facility at Luas Cherrywood.

Similarly there were certain areas of Dublin, such as the Lucan QBC, where due to a private operator serving certain areas of Lucan and also Celbridge, DB were effectively barred by the regulator, the Department of Transport, from making changes to any routes along that QBC even if they were to routes serving places (such as Adamstown, Leixlip and Maynooth) not served by the private operator!!

That is why Adamstown was initially served by the 151 - Dublin Bus were not allowed operate a service from there along the Lucan QBC (except for a very limited peak hour service).

Similarly for several years DB was not allowed extend the 37 from Carpenterstown to the Blanchardstown Shopping Centre because it shared about two miles of common route with UrBus between Ashtown and Castleknock - despite the 37 taking probably 20 minutes longer from Castleknock to the Blanchardstown SC than UrBus due to its elongated route around Carpenterstown.

The DoT basically sat on any route change applications (from both private and public operators) for years where there was any chance of them being accused of favouring state subsidised operators over private ones. The public interest of the passenger was ignored.

Thankfully since the regulation switched to the NTA some common sense is prevailing and network changes are now being implemented.

dynamick

RichieD wrote: »

EDIT: Im not particularly impressed with that Deloitte report, does anyone know how much Dublin Bus payed for that? Its very high level with only a few case studies of routes.

The report cost €306,959.19

Generally bus routes don't change for decades and even keep the same route numbers as the trams that preceded them. Same thing in London.

So doing an overhaul of the route network is a big deal and long overdue.

RichieD

lxflyer wrote: »

The Deloitte report was commissioned by the Minister for Transport (Noel Dempsey) to look at the effiency and cost effectiveness of both Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann.

They were not commissioned to do a detailed review of the entire network of both companies.

After the Minister accepted the report and its recommendations Dublin Bus committed to a comprehensive network review, which is currently ongoing.

You have to remember that prior to this report, there was no political will to support change. Whenever Dublin Bus attempted to cut routes there were howls of protest from local TDs (despite the routes carrying thin air) which then made its way to Ministerial level, and the plans were removed.

Examples include routes 51a and 172 (B Ahern) and the 48a (T Kitt) of Ministers shoving their weight around, and forcing Dublin Bus to not cancel routes when they should have been.

The political climate finally changed and DB are finally being allowed to make significant changes to the network that match in with demand and which allow them to cut out routes that are unnecessarily duplicating others and thereby achieve the necessary cuts in costs.

The Deloitte report did what it was supposed to do - provide the then Minister with the necessary amunition to drive through the changes.

The detailed work for the Network Review has been done by Dublin Bus staff with public consultation through meetings, press and the website. They would have studied the data from the ticket machines and surveys on-street/on-bus. This whole process started in 2010 when they would have done the research before coming up with proposals for public consultation. There has to a starting point to the process. They then reviewed the results of those consultations and made adjustments to the proposals following the consultation.

Post-implementation, timetables have been changed where there were running time issues (albeit took too long with the first phases), and indeed routes have been changed where they didn't work or where passenger feedback requested changes.

As I said above - commercial sensitivities will come into play when it comes to publishing passenger numbers etc. so it would be highly unlikely that they would be published.

You do make some good points.

I generally think that a lot of these activities are simply to placate politicians,executives,community groups or the public and I haven't seen much concrete facts or numbers to justify specific network changes.

Its mostly just buzz words like "improving efficiency" or "more direct service".

LXFlyer

RichieD wrote: »

You do make some good points.

I generally think that a lot of these activities are simply to placate politicians,executives,community groups or the public and I haven't seen much concrete facts or numbers to justify specific network changes.

Its mostly just buzz words like "improving efficiency" or "more direct service".

As I said they do have the numbers (from the ticket machines and surveys) and would have studied them in some detail, but for commercial reasons they would not be published.

To be fair it is about improving efficiency and offering more direct services. The key is that the core service along each QBC operates at high frequency and as directly as possible - that would be the 46a and 145 on the N11, the 25a/b on the N4, the 27 on the Tallaght QBC, the 39a on the N3 for example. For example in the first phase the 46a was removed from Stillorgan Village and Monkstown Farm making it more direct, and the 25a/b now operate directly along the Chapelizod by-pass.

Other routes are being merged to cut costs where there is over-capacity in certain areas. An example would be the 83 and 19 in Glasnevin, where there was over-capacity and the revised 83 routing covers virtually all of the areas previously served by both routes. Another example would be the merger of the 121 and 150 on the southside, and the latest is the 50 and 77a in Citywest.

Tied with that are cross-city route mergers between routes of similar frequency (so far we've had the 27/77, 14/20b, 10/39a/46a. Still to come are the 13/51b/51c, 40/78a, 27b/79/79a, and 15/128.

Finally there is also implementation of revised timetables, which are either clockface or regular interval departures with integrated timetables on certain corridors where possible. This is something DB have historically been atrocious at but some effort has been made - look at the 25a/25b, and then at the 66/66a/66b and 26 and 67 from Merrion Square.

To be fair an awful lot of work has gone into this behind the scenes - remember that after the public consultation has been concluded (a long enough process in itself), new schedules and rosters need to be prepared (a tricky enough task), then agreement on rosters has to be achieved with drivers, and finally approval given by the NTA for any changes.

The fact is that there are quite a few cases where the proposed changes were altered following the public consultations - viz. the 68 and 69 which still operate to/from the city (the original proposal was to cut them to Red Cow), the retention of the 11 on the northside, and others as alluded to already by KD345.

the groutch

noticed recently that the 7 to Loughlinstown is on the real-time timetables, but the 7 to Cherrywood isnt

CIE

Why isn't the Cherrywood branch of the 7 not designated 7A? The 7A to Mackintosh Park has been gone for long enough, yes?

I remember when the 7A was the primary route to/from Pearse Villas and there was no route 7, too.

(Would it be a bad idea to extend the 4 to Mackintosh Park, via Abbey Road and Pottery Road, slightly echoing the old route 58? or maybe via Oliver Plunkett Road and Kill Lane?)

Cookie_Monster

CIE wrote: »

Would it be a bad idea to extend the 4 to Mackintosh Park,

I'd say so, the 7A was removed due to lack of usage in that section, the 59 at that end is also very quiet. No demand and the estate is 10 mins walk from the 46a anyway

patrickbrophy18

CIE wrote: »

Would it be a bad idea to extend the 4 to Mackintosh Park, via Abbey Road and Pottery Road, slightly echoing the old route 58?

Maybe re-instate the 7A to Mackintosh Park and extend it to Cherrywood and turn it in to an all day service. The following map should illustrate how this could be achieved:

7A

It would also take in Stradbrook en route adding another option into town for those complaining about the cutbacks to the 4. Also, a 7C service via Rochestown Road and Johnstown Road could be introduced as a variation to said 7A. The map below shows the slight variation:

7C

A clockface could be applied as follows (although, incredibly optimistic):

• H:20 A

• H:40 A

• H:00 C

H: denotes the hour of the day.
A: denotes the 7A.
C: denotes the 7C.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I'd say so, the 7A was removed due to lack of usage in that section, the 59 at that end is also very quiet. No demand and the estate is 10 mins walk from the 46a anyway

As Cookie_Monster points out, the Mackintosh Park area is a dead end for any bus route terminating there. Hence, my suggestion to extend it beyond Mackintosh Park so that the route has a meaningful end while keeping Mackintosh Park in the scope of a decent public transport service.

It could also relieve the 59 of it's duty to Mackintosh Park allowing it to be turned into a feeder bus to the Green Line Luas via Sandycove and Dalkey by diverting it to Cherrywood after The Graduate and Killiney Shopping Center. This won't make it anymore direct from it's starting point in Dun Laoghaire as it still has a huge amount of needless meandering in the middle (WHERE EXACTLY IS THE MIDDLE?:D:confused::D).

Anyway, as I have said before, the 59 is an absolute mess. While the network direct project seeks to reduce the number of buses and consolidate routes with more efficient use of resources, it is taking a step too far when a bus route ends up resembling a spider-web. Alternatively, the 59 should be split into two routes as follows:

Route 1 (59):

• Variation 1
• Variation 2

Route 2 (59A):

• Variation 1
• Variation 2

Route 1 (59) Variation 1 goes the same route from Dun Laoghaire to Dalkey Roundabout. It then takes in Hyde Road, Castlepark Road, Saint Catherines Road, Avondale Road, Rochestown Avenue and Johnstown Road. It bypasses Mackintosh Park. This makes sure that most of the areas currently served by the 59 are still served. It is then extended to Cabinteely, Cornelscourt, Carrickmines and terminates in Ballyogan Green Line Luas Stop.

Route 1 (59) Variation 2 goes the same route from Dun Laoghaire to Dalkey Roundabout. It then takes in Hyde Road, Castlepark Road, Saint Catherines Road, Avondale Road, Rochestown Avenue, Johnstown Road and Mackintosh Park. This makes sure that most of the areas currently served by the 59 are still served. It is then extended to Bakers Corner, Deansgrange, Clonkeen Road, Cornelscourt, Carrickmines and terminates in Ballyogan Green Line Luas Stop.

Route 2 (59A) Variation 1 goes the same route from Dun Laoghaire to Dalkey Roundabout. It then takes in Barnhill Road, Barnhill Avenue, Saval Park Road, Killiney Hill Road, Killiney Road, Ballinclea Road, entire length of Rochestown Avenue, Kill Avenue Stillorgan Road, Leopardstown Road and finally terminating in Sandyford Green Line Luas Stop. It doesn't serve Mackintosh Park.

Route 2 (59A) Variation 2 goes the same route from Dun Laoghaire to Dalkey Roundabout. It then takes in Barnhill Road, Barnhill Avenue, Saval Park Road, Killiney Hill Road, Killiney Road, Ballinclea Road, Rochestown Avenue, Johnstown Road, Mackintosh Park, Kill Avenue Stillorgan Road, Leopardstown Road and finally terminating in Sandyford Green Line Luas Stop.

A2000

Dont understand the changes to 26 routing at all. Why take it away from the stop at Palmerstown Manor? At least 30 would board 26 at 8am at this stop. They are now forced onto the already overworked 78a.

I also dont know why it needs to serve Chapelizod at all. Between 25 26 66/ab and 67 the small village of chalepizod is served by aprox 150 inbound buses mon-fri which is more than some major suburbs. I Think its a waste of diesel sending the 26 into merrion square as it now only serves 2 stops before it joins the N4 corridor.

I would suggest it be run as a shuttle from cherry orchard hospital to the 18 terminus on old lucan road linking theses areas to the n4 and the 10 or so routes serving this corridor. I would imagine in its current format the 26 will be axed in the near future as it will be carrying fresh air. It also would have acted as a safety net when the Ballyfermot changes take place as if there are teething problems with the cross city routes then there would at least have been a 26 every 30 mins.

They say that it was withdrawn from Ballyfermot as the 76 will go to Chapelizod. 76 only goes to chapelizod as there is no place in Ballyfermot for it to turn and lay over safely. It serves the very outskirts at the west county hotel and nowhere near the village of chapelizod depriving the very people it was put in place for of a service to the shops in Ballyfermot.

It was also patronized very well in Ballyfermot in the mornings as it was the one route that seemed to be run well and on time. I also observed up to 25 people boarding at the Islandbridge stop at 8.20am each morning and the bus was full on reaching the city, this will no longer be the case.

I think if 26 is to serve yhe city it should run from its current terminus through ballyfermot and current route 78 to merrion square providing Palmerstown upper and Ballyfermot with at least one straight and fast service to the city.

schemingbohemia

A2000 wrote: »

Dont understand the changes to 26 routing at all. Why take it away from the stop at Palmerstown Manor? At least 30 would board 26 at 8am at this stop. They are now forced onto the already overworked 78A. I also dont know why it needs to serve Chapelizod at all. Between 25 26 66/ab and 67 the small village of chalepizod is served by aprox 150 inbound buses mon-fri which is more than some major suburbs. I Think its a waste of diesel sending the 26 into merrion square as it now only serves 2 stops before it joins the N4 corridor. I would suggest it be run as a shuttle from cherry orchard hospital to the 18 terminus on old lucan road linking theses areas to the n4 and the 10 or so routes serving this corridor. I would imagine in its current format the 26 will be axed in the near future as it will be carrying fresh air. It also would have acted as a safety net when the Ballyfermot changes take place as if there are teething problems with the cross city routes then there would at least have been a 26 every 30 mins. They say that it was withdrawn from Ballyfermot as the 76 will go to Chapelizod. 76 only goes to chapelizod as there is no place in Ballyfermot for it to turn and lay over safely. It serves the very outskirts at the west county hotel and nowhere near the village of chapelizod depriving the very people it was put in place for of a service to the shops in Ballyfermot. It was also patronized very well in Ballyfermot in the mornings as it was the one route that seemed to be run well and on time. I also observed up to 25 people boarding at the Islandbridge stop at 8.20am each morning and the bus was full on reaching the city, this will no longer be the case. I think 26 should run from its current terminus through ballyfermot and current route 78 to merrion square providing Palmerstown and Ballyfermot with at least one straight and fast service to the city.

Any chance you could edit this so it's readable? Maybe a paragraph or 4?

Victor

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Any chance you could edit this so it's readable? Maybe a paragraph or 4?

If there is a problem with a post, it is probably best to either report the post to a moderator or send a private message to the poster.

D14

Why did the council put in wheelchair accessible bus stops the week before the 14a was cancelled?

LXFlyer

Ineptitude and total lack of communication between various parties involved.

dfx-

lxflyer wrote: »

Ineptitude and total lack of communication between various parties involved.

Why were there new shiny ads put on the back of RVs days before they were withdrawn? RV471 last week had a rear advertisement for over three years, was changed last week, had its scrolls removed last Wednesday. Same happened to RV473, both DB 'don't litter' ads

Do DB get paid per ad or something?

CIE

A2000 wrote: »

I think if 26 is to serve the city, it should run from its current terminus through Ballyfermot and current route 78 to Merrion Square, providing Palmerstown upper and Ballyfermot with at least one straight and fast service to the city.

Interesting idea, but I'd go one further and extend it all the way to Dodsborough via Lucan Village; after that, the 25B can become the 25.

Not to mention, I've always wondered why a majority of the buses between Ballyfermot and the city centre never ran via the painfully-obvious route (meaning the one that you'd drive in a car), i.e. via Con Colbert Road in both directions to St. John's Road West and onto the quays. (I used to think that it should have been obvious to extend the 78A to the bus loop by the cemetery, i.e. before Rowlagh and Balgaddy required a service.)